Tales of Heroes: The Origins of the Homeric Texts 9780892415373, 0892415371

Citation preview

TALES OF HEROES The Ongins of the Homeric Texts

TALES

OF HEROES

The Ongins of the Homeric Texts Ione Mylonas Shear

Aristide D. Caratzas, Publisher NEW YORK & ATHENS

Tales

of Heroes:

The Origins of the Homeric Texts Copyright © 2000 by Ione Mylonas Shear All rights reserved. Except for use in reviews, no part of this book may be copied or otherwise reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form without the permission, in writing, of the publisher. Published by Aristide D. Caratzas, Publisher Melissa International Publications, Ltd.

Distributed by Caratzas/SVS Book Service 575 Scarsdale Road Crestwood, NY 10707-1677 USA

E-mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.caratzas.com ISBN 0-89241-537-1

To T. Leslie Shear, Jr. mentor, critic, husband, lover and friend “What’s the evidence?”

CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

xl

CHAPTER I

The Architecture of the Nliad and the Odyssey CHAPTER Il The Weapons of the Homeric Heroes

29

CHAPTER III

61

The Clothing in the Epics CHAPTER IV

73

The Land of the Phaeacians and the Sea CHAPTER V The Men Who Fought on the Plains of Troy

83

CHAPTER VI

97

The Ongins of the Wnitten Text of the Iliad and the Odyssey CHAPTER VII

113

Discontinuity and Dislocations in the Text CHAPTER VIII

119

The Repeated Lines and the Personal Epithets CHAPTER IX

Conclusions

129

eee

TALES OF HEROES

133

ENDNOTES

. The Trojan Cycle The Date of Pram’s Troy and the Historicity of the Epics Bronze and Wealth in Mycenaean Greece The Number of Chanot-Horses Penelope and Polttical Power through Marnage

Atlantis and the Land of the Phaeacians Crete The Eating of Fish in the Homeric Period Homer, the Alphabet, and Literacy in Ancient Greece

The Homendae . Lycurgos . Pindar

133 134 136 138 139 141 142 143 144 147 149 150

ABRREVIATIONS

NOTES

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS WITH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX OF

ANCIENT AUTHORS

INDEX OF REFERENCES TO THE ILIAD AND ‘THE ODYSSEY

GENERAL INDEX

291

PREFACE

Te IMPETUS FOR THIS BOOK came from a ladies’ luncheon, just over a decade ago, when the author responded to a

casual question: “But of course, I haven’t compared the Mycenaean houses to Homer's descriptions. He’s eighth century.” I continued with the statement, made so often by other prehistorians, that “Homer reflected the Dark Age and he had nothing to

tell us about the prehistoric period.” Now, many years later, I know how uninformed I had been on the subject of Homer, his date, and his tradition. When with some reluctance I finally did consult the Homeric texts, I was astonished to discover almost immediately that contrary to my earlier statements there were indeed many correlations between Homer's descriptions of

domestic architecture and the architecture of the Panagia Houses at Mycenae I had been studying for final publication. Many were the questions that resulted from this discovery, and their

answers form the basis of this publication. In the course of this work I received help and encouragement from many a kind friend and colleague. First I must thank Wanda Gunning, who asked the question that began the long

research into this topic. After that original luncheon which initiated this project there were many more occasions when addi-

A word of thanks must also be given to John J. Keaney of Princeton University. As in the case of many other prehistonans of my generation, many years had passed between the onset of this work and the Homeric courses I took in college. The expert

advice of a scholar whose major concern had remained the study of ancient Greek literature was truly useful. His thoughtful reading of an early copy of my manuscript helped to clarify problems and aided my efforts to appreciate the epics from the

philological perspective. To the many scholars, even individual members of my own family, publishers, and museums who allowed me to use their pho-

tographs, I wish to express my appreciation. These are individually acknowledged at the end of the book under the list of illustrations. I am especially grateful to Mrs.

E. Morate

of the

National Archaeological Museum in Athens and Mrs. A. Chrysochoidou of the Greek Archaeological Receipts Fund who provided me with photographs from their files and made many useful suggestions for other sources for additional photographs. Christos Doumas should also be personally mentioned; he provided numerous photographs and very kindly waived the fees which so often accompany the use of such illustrations. With his

tional questions were asked and a wide variety of topics discussed. Wanda Gunning served as a knowledgeable friend

permission a restored drawing of one of the beds from Thera

whose lively interest helped bolster my courage to explore new

held with Mr. Iliakis when we discussed the various drawings he was to make for my book as well as problems concerning the

avenues and possible approaches, and to her I extend my warmest thanks for her constant support. Along with other scholars studying the ancient tradition, I owe a great debt to David Packard for his development of the Ibycus

computer. During the course of my work, as I compared the usages rooms many always

of different kinds within the houses, other questions that proceeded with the

of weapons, the names of different the occurrence of special words, and arose as | studied the ancient texts, I full confidence that I did have every

was made

by Kostis Iliakis. Many

a pleasant conference was

restoration of the Thera wall paintings and many other aspects

of Greek archaeology. Nicholos Yalouris and the Ephoria of Antiquities in Patras were most helpful in my search for photographs and they kindly allowed me to have photographs made of greaves and swords from Kallithea. Many of these illustrations were obtained through the kind auspices of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens.

I wish to thank all who

helped in this difficult but rewarding labor.

reference to the word being studied. I could procced knowing

It was

with certainty that a passage that might contradict the conclusions drawn had not been missed. The value of this kind of comparison and the debt I owe to David Packard is made clear throughout the book.

Caratzas, his press, and his congenial helpful editors who were

my

great good

fortune

to have

found

Aristide

D.

willing to devote the ume and effort to produce a beauufully illustrated scholarly book. The Caratzas Press has captured the fascination and exuberance of the ancient objects which reflect

x

TALES OF HEROES

the same magnetism and vitality pervading the /lad and Odyssey. His editors kindly allowed me to add references long after the manuscript had been submitted. I have tried to keep these to a minimum even though that meant the omission of recent interesting articles and books. I wish to thank Aristide Caratzas and his editors whose lively enthusiasm and caring attention made it

a pleasure to work with the press. But most of all I must thank my husband, ‘I’. Leslie Shear, Jr., mentor, critic, husband, lover, and friend. To him J dedicate this book in memory of the many protracted breakfasts, cocktail

hours, and late evenings when the constant refrain of “but what is the evidence” led to prolonged discussions. To those of us who have been privileged to work and study with Leslie, his constant encouragement and quiet guidance have been a source of inspiration rarely matched by his more hurried colleagues. His great

breath and depth of knowledge often lead him to ask a simple question that opens new horizons. When the subject becomes complex or a puzzling development occurs from the questions he asks, he always seems to know which book to consult or

which matter to pursue. His constant insistence on accuracy inspires a level of scholarship that has become the hallmark of those closely associated with him and his work. Our discussions,

which ranged over a wide area of intellectual research spanning the prehistoric period to the Alexandrian Librarians, also spanned the gamut of geographical locations and times of day, but always the emphasis returned to simple common sense and the proper use of evidence, both modern and ancient, as a basis for new theories and for the testing of old ones. Many a frustrating afternoon | spent trying to find the evidence for some point I wanted to prove to him over cocktails or dinner when he seemed to know the answer already, even though it was my research. Although we did not always agree, each discussion left me better prepared to follow a new lead or a new path of inquiry. To quote one of his students: “my achievements result largely from the expert instruction and patient guidance I have received from your hands.” To my friend, lover, husband, mentor, and most severe of critics | owe whatever modest success this book may bring.

INTRODUCTION

TUDENTS APPROACHING GREEK LITERATURE for the first time are told that the /liad and Odyssey were composed in the eighth century B.C. by an Ionian bard called Homer who reflected many of the social mores and institutions of his own

ume.! These statements are frequently supplemented with the added information that the poet was blind and that he came from either Chios or Smyrna.? The concept is often expressed that: “Greek literature for us begins with ... the /liad and Odyssey,” which “we may with fair confidence place ... in the eighth century.”? This date is reaffirmed by assertions such as: “The Iliad, composed probably about 750 B.C.,”* was “well known ... by 650 B.C.”5 “The Homeric epic developed in its monumental form by 700 B.C.”6 “It is not possible to put Homer much later than the eighth century.”’ “Contemporary

date for writing in the historical period of Greece.!? Attempts to substantiate an eighth-century date used representations in vase painting as an indication that the stories of the Trojan Cycle were known as early as the first quarter of the seventh century B.C. Any elements in the written text that appeared to indicate a later date were assumed to be “Athenian interpolations,” but the question has never been seriously considered how Athens was able to accomplish such an extraordinary violation of a text presumably known for more than a century throughout the Greek world. Once it is recognized that the Jad and Odyssey form only one segment of a very large oral tradition and that the writing down of one segment was independent of the writing down of any other segment, then the justification for placing the Ikad and Odyssey in the eighth century collapses. The vase paint-

scholars generally agree that the Homeric poems as we have

ings, reliefs, and other artistic representations show only that the

them are the product of the eighth century B.C.”® These state-

stories were widely known, but they do not indicate the date when a specific segment of the Cycle was written down.

ments continue to be made

even though “absolutely datable

phenomena in the /lad and Odyssey turn out to be surprisingly few.”? Nevertheless there still remains a general consensus among both philologists and archaeologists that: “The Homeric world was altogether post-Mycenaean, and that the so-called Mycenaean reminiscences and survivals are rare, isolated and

garbled.”!0

In view of this overwhelming consensus it was entirely unexpected that a close examination of Mycenaean domestic architecture should reveal a striking similarity between the actual remains of the houses themselves and the descriptions in the /lad and especially the Odyssey. The sleeping arrangements and storage areas in the excavated houses, which can be identified solely on the

archaeological evidence, are described with surpnsing accuracy in the verses of the epics.!! The similarities between the excavated houses and the epic descriptions clearly indicate a need to question the roots of the epics and the reasons for the generally accepted eighth-century date. When it was assumed that the /liad and Odyssey preceded the composition of the rest of the Trojan Cycle,'? it was the natural inclination to date the /liad and Odyssey as early as possible, hence the concept of an cighth-century date, the earliest possible

Herodotus’ statement that Homer lived not more than four hundred years before his time'* is often quoted as further evidence for an eighth-century date. Other ancient sources that give alternate dates have been ignored. Since Herodotus wrote in the mid-fifth century B.C., four hundred years before his time is actually in the middle of the ninth century,!5 whereas Philostratus dated Homer to the twelfth century, Erastosthenes, Aristotle, and Aristarchus dated him to the eleventh century,

Theopompus to the seventh,!6 and Diogenes Laertius, ing Aristotle and later quoting Timon, seems to place sixth.!? Such a span of six hundred years for the date author is quite phenomenal, as well as unparalleled in

first quothim in the of a single the rest of

Greek literature.

The “Herodotean eighth-century” date has been bolstered by citing Arktinos, who is said to have been born ca. 744 B.C., to have studied with Homer,!® and to have been the author of the

epic Atthiopis. The composition of the Aithiopis, the argument continues, must follow that of the /dad,'9 but this chronology has

been questioned.2° Nothing of substance remains to corroborate the eighth-century date?! except preconceived notions about the social mores of that period that are said to be reflected in the

xi

TALES OF HEROES

Iliad and Odyssey, even though these mores were initially identified and dated to the eighth century because they were observed

in the epics themselves. The latest elements observable in the written text are the so-called Athenian interpolations and these suggest a sixth-century date, but a date as late as the sixth century for the written texts has thus far not been seriously considered by Homeric philologists. The absolute determination of scholars to date Homer

to the

eighth century B.C. appears to have originated in the concept that great literature must be written literature,?? and since the

alphabet was not introduced into Greece before the eighth century, Homer could not be earlier than this date. That he might

be later has rarely been seriously considered,2? since written Greek literature is thought to have started with Homer, who was then followed by a seventh-century Hesiod?* and afterwards by

the lyric and elegiac poets.2° The claim is sometimes made that the language of the epics proves an eighth-century date,?® but a recent evaluation of the linguistic evidence states that: “The arti-

ficial diction of the Homeric poems is in essence identical to that of the other poems in the same tradition ..., i.e. the remnants of the Epic Cycle, the Hesiodic poems and the ‘Homeric’ Hymns, which extend well into the sixth century. Linguistic differences between these poems are barely discernible.”?’ Language alone obviously cannot be used to date the two great epics.

because of an outside agent. The legends preserved in this way

during the Dark Age of Greece must have included the entire Trojan Cycle as well as the Theban Cycle, the Argonautica, the stories of Heracles, and the many other tales that formed such

a rich source of material for later artists and writers in the Greek world. The early representations of mythological subjects on vases, bronzes, and other cycles and they document the Greek world. Scenes cally the Jitad or Odyssey

artifacts indicate knowledge of many the spread of the tradition throughout which can be shown to reflect specifiare few compared to the number of

other subjects portrayed, and some of the earliest identifiable scenes show the capture of Troy and the Wooden Horse, which are not included in the /liad and only briefly mentioned in the

Odyssey. The artistic depictions, in fact, clearly indicate that earlier tales were preserved orally, and they represent one more con-

firmation of the theories proposed by Parry and Lord,3! but they do not necessarily indicate a written text for any one part of the Epic Cycle as opposed to the other parts. At some point the epics we have today were written down, since

they existed in that form in later antiquity and a written text of them exists today. Obviously this must have happened after the introduction of the Greek alphabet in the eighth century, but how soon afterwards has never been firmly established. Any

Before the decipherment of Linear B as an carly form of the Greck language and the work of M. Ventris and J. Chadwick, it is understandable that scholars tended to think of the Homeric

attempt to date the transcription of the texts we have today must differentiate between the written text of the Jad and Odyssey and the oral tradition of the Mycenaean tales that were passed down through the Dark Age. Once these tales became widely known, which happened at the latest in the seventh century as indicated

epics as being mostly fictitious and as having little or no associa-

by the artistic representations, the writing down of any one seg-

tion with the Bronze Age. After the decipherment, however, it became clear that some of the Greeks who preserved the legends

of the earlier period must have been descended from the Mycenaeans and that they thought of them as their ancestors. Many

have been the subsequent debates concerning the extent of the Mycenaean reflections in the Homeric poems.”* As knowledge of the prehistoric period has expanded in recent years, the number of specific and demonstrable Mycenaean parallels has grown and the number

of necessarily post-Mycenaean

elements has

correspondingly shrunk almost to the point of extinction, but no general study of the Mycenaean remembrances has been undertaken for more than a quarter of a century,” and in recent years the Mycenaean elements have been frequently ignored.

Once it was established that the epics did indeed preserve some Mycenaean reminiscences, no matter whether they are few or many, the question immediately arose as to how this came about. After the fall of the Mycenaean civilization and before

the introduction of the alphabet in the eighth century B.C., knowledge of Mycenaean events must have been passed down orally. There simply is no other way that any Mycenaean rellec-

tions could have been preserved. M. Parry and afterwards his associate A.B. Lord revealed the process by which an oral tradi-

tion of this kind could be preserved and transmitted. They made it clear that literature is not dependent on the knowledge ing and that information about earlier periods can be bered in the oral tradition for generations before it is down. When the tradition is transcribed. it is almost

of writrememwritten always

ment of the tradition could be independent of the writing down of the other parts. Knowledge of the tradition as a whole, however, does not necessarily indicate knowledge of a specific writ-

ten text, nor does it prove the existence of a written version of the /liad and Odyssey. This distinction is usually overlooked. It was the oral tradition that preserved for many generations the

language and the formulae as well as the reflections of Mycenaean culture. When an author is said by later commentators to

imitate the words of Homer, he may well be drawing upon the same tradition that was used by Homer and the Homeridae. He need not necessarily have been

depending on the written words

of the [had and Odyssey that we have today. The writing down of the /ltad and Odyssey was an isolated event in the centuries of the tradition, which could have occurred any time after the intro-

duction of the Greek alphabet and before the first mention of the epics by name by Herodotus.*? It was the creative genius of the man who composed them in their final form that caused

these epics in later times to overshadow the rest of the Trojan Cycle. The scattered written portions of the other parts of the Cycle, which are preserved today, indicate that the reputation of the /had and Odyssey was well deserved." This study started with the somewhat starding discovery that there existed a close correlation between the excavated Myce-

nacan houses and the epic descriptions of Homenc architecture. It was then expanded

to include the fortifications, weapons,

clothing, and other aspects of Mycenaean civilization to be found

in the epics: these aspects are discussed in the first five

Introduction

chapters. The descriptions and various epithets in the epics are compared to known Mycenaean remains. Questions that have long puzzled Homeric scholars can be answered by citing Mycenaean artifacts or architecture. New definitions for certain Homeric words that have evaded explanation become obvious when they are set within the context of the Mycenaean world. The Mycenaean reflections in the epics are shown to be far more extensive and pervasive than has been generally recog-

nized. These similarities are so numerous that it becomes obvious that the roots of the epics must go back to the Mycenaean Period and that the beginnings of the epic tradition preserved in the Jhad and Odyssey must have originated at this time. The writing down of the epics, however, must have occurred long after the Mycenaean Period. This question is discussed in Chapter VI. Ancient references to Homer are re-examined, F.A. Wolf's concept of the “Peisistratean Recension”! is once again considered and an attempt is made to isolate and explain the latest elements existing within the text. Evidence for a sixthcentury dictated text written down in Peisistratid Athens is abundant and compelling once the concept of an eighth-century

xu

ined in Chapter VII. Chapter VIII tries to explore some of the implications arising from the concept of the great genius composing orally. It argues that the great variation of repeated verses and different epithets were a conscious decision of the bard,

who great tated notes

introduced them into his epics to create variety within the length and multiplicity of scenes made possible by the dicmethod. Added to the end of the book are a series of enddiscussing various questions raised in some of the earlier

discussion. These started as footnotes dealing with very specific problems that were not central to the text. They became so

lengthy and cumbersome that they were placed at the end of the book for those readers who are interested in their limited though sometimes important implications. In order to reduce the length

of the footnotes still further, archaeological references to specific Mycenaean

artefacts or groups of objects were placed in the

back of the book under List of Illustrations with Accompanying Bibliography. Any attempt to date the transcription of the text we have today must explain the questions left unanswered by the hypothesis of the unproven though generally accepted eighth-century date. It

Homer is no longer acceptable. Many of the peculiarities in the

must explain, for example, what happened to the missing

text can be explained as the result of the method used to tran-

digamma. Why does our current text reflect the Attic dialect when Athens in the eighth century was not an important cultur-

scribe the text, but an illiterate Homer has become gradually unacceptable to certain scholars. It is still occasionally claimed that the /liad and Odyssey are works of such great achievement that they could only have been produced as part of a literate process. A. Lesky?3 stated: “The notions of an illiterate Homer and a Peisistratean recension have long been given up. ... One has ... to assume that the author of the /liad was literate.” Why? Great genius is obviously not tied to any specific form of creativity. D. Shive% claimed at the end of his book: “I have tried to

help cure Homer of his blindness and put a pen in his hand.” Why is it so important that Homer could write? It may be true as C.R. Beye claimed?’ that no oral poem approaches the quality of Homer, but it is also true that much of written literature

also fails in this respect, and even in antiquity it was recognized that Homer’s achievement was unusual. These statements are

opinions based on modern concepts of the importance of literacy.38 Whether the /had and Odyssey were the work of a literate bard or whether they were orally dictated compositions must be based on the evidence of the epics themselves and not on our preconceived notions of the importance of literacy as part of the creative genius that produces literature, music, or any other form of great artistic achievement. Some of the discontinuities,

al or political center? How did Athens manage to insert into the written text the additions mentioned by the scholiasts? Once they were added, why did the rest of the Greek world accept them? What was the “Peisistratean Recension,” which is so fre-

quently mentioned but just as frequently dismissed? Why are the epics so long? What

audience would

have had the time and

would have been willing to listen for the three to four days required for their complete recitation? If such an audience did not exist, why were epics of such great length composed? What are the “corrected texts” current in the fifth and fourth centuries? Why was there such a variation in the Egyptian papyri of the third century, which suddenly evolved into a single text? How did this text become so authoritative that alter Aristarchus a single text became standard throughout the Greck and Roman world? Why did the editor of this standard text reject lines added by other citics but at the same time retain the socalled Athenian interpolations, even though these were recognized in antiquity as additions? And finally, why was Homer dated to the twelfth, cleventh, ninth, eighth, seventh, and sixth

centuries, all of which should be mutually exclusive? Who was the Homer

who seems to have been known

in sixth-century

dislocations, and discrepancies found within the texts, which

Athens and why was he so quickly forgotten? These are ambi-

seem to prove that both the /liad and Odyssey must be oral dictat-

tous questions, but once the correct hypothesis is established, they answer themselves.

ed texts and not the written work of a literate bard, are cxam-

TALES

OF HEROES

The Ongins of the Homenc Texts

Drawing of the Lion Gate at Mycenae, by Dodwell. A vie of Mycenae which greeted early travelers to Greece. Edward Dodiell, A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece (London, 1819). Courtesy of David Jordan, former Director of the Gennadius Library. Photograph by T. I.. Shear, Jr. from the collection of the Gennadius Library, American School of Classical Studies, Athens.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE ILIAD AND THE ODYSSEY

Sree:

HIGH-ROOFED BUILDINGS of many rooms with

courtyards, echoing colonnades, and polished stone masonry

Mycenaean Period, however, bronze decoration did occur on some of the walls,!5 although this type of decoration seems to

were the homes of the Homeric heroes. The principal feature of these houses appears to have been the megaron with its central

have stopped in the period immediately afterwards. According to the tradition, the houses described in the epics were supposed

hearth, frequently surrounded by columns supporting a high

to be Mycenaean, and a search for the prototypes of the archi-

ceiling.! Here important people of the community met,? feasts were held,? and bards entertained with lyre and songs of epic deeds.*

In quieter moments

family and friends gathered

together in the megaron and the ladies of the household would spin by the fire.> A vestibule, columned portico, and courtyard lay in front of the megaron. Stairways led up to rooms on an

upper floor, where sleeping chambers and storerooms of precious, personal items were to be found. Other stairs led down to the basement, where there were additional storage areas. In the grander houses these elements seem to have been

multiplied many times over.® It was to such a house that Eumaeus led the disguised Odysseus, who commented:

tecture most logically starts with the remains of that period. A

careful analysis of the descriptions in the Odyssey and the Ilad, combined with an increasing knowledge of Mycenaean domestic architecture, produces some surprising results and suggests that the traditional Mycenaean

date for Homeric

architecture is correct. On the basis of archaeological remains, new definitions of some of the poetic terms can be suggested. Peculiarities such as the use of the same term for both a bedroom and a storage area can be explained. An architectural plan can be reconstructed that makes it possible to understand where the various people stood during the slaughter of the suitors towards the end of the Odyssey. Finally the centuries-old debate concerning the number of gates at Troy can be solved.

Eumaeus, surely this is the beautiful house of Odysseus. Easily might it be known, though seen among many. There is building upon building, and the court is built with wall and coping, and the double gates are well-fenced; no man may scorn it. And I mark that in the house itself many men are feasting: for the savour of meat arises from it, and therewith resounds the voice of the lyre, which the gods have made the companion of the feast.”

Architectural remains from the Mycenaean Period reveal that

The general outlines of these habitations are made clear by the

palaces and houses alike had a large dominating room with a

frequent references to them in the epics, yet the architectural terms used to describe them, the function and location of some

of the rooms, and the date of the prototype on which they were modeled are still debated. The original bard who sang about these buildings at the beginning of the epic tradition assumed that the audience was familiar with the various components of the houses, and he did not feel the need to define the architectural terms such as p&yeg or neoöönaı.? When words such as OpooGvpn were specifically defined, we might suspect that they

represent elements that were unusual even in the original prototype.!° Some of the words, such as the ai®ovoa, appear to have been crystallized in formulae,!! which suggests that the original prototype had become rare or more possibly had ceased to exist as an architectural form during the later part of the oral tradition. References to bronze thresholds and walls, bronze floors, silver doorposts and lintels, and golden doors in

the palace of Alcinous!? and elsewhere! may have been partially influenced by the process of epic glorification.'* In the

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL THE HOMERIC

PARALLELS TO HOUSE

central hearth, which was sometimes but not always flanked by columns, figs. 1-2, 11.16 In front of the main room there was a vestibule and sometimes a porch. Behind the main room another large room

was frequently added.

Normally these

elements lie on a single axis aligned with a courtyard or open space in front, as in Panagia House

I, figs. 3-4.17 Corridors,

usually single ones in the houses, figs. 5-6, but sometimes double in the palaces, fig. 9, led to additional rooms. If space was available, the corridors lay parallel to the axis of the central

unit. The existence of staircases!® indicates that parts of the buildings had upper floors,!9 although the area of the main room and presumably the vestibule in front, must have been a single story because of the central hearth and chimney pot.20 Basement storage rooms have long been recognized as an important part of the architecture. The handling of the

courtyard varied, but an open space of some sort always existed in front of the central unit of the building.?! It was sometimes simply an open paved area, only partially enclosed, with little or

2

TALES OF HEROES Fig.I. Restored drawing

We

o,

palace of Pylos, by Piet de hee

innaan

no architectural form, as in Panagia House

BF

I, figs. 3-4. In the

Tsountas House it became an enclosed space flanked by walls, some belonging to the house itself and others belonging to adjacent structures, fig. 5. In the more elaborate structures, such as the West House at Mycenae, the courtyard became more formal with stone pavement and colonnaded sides, fig. 6. The

equally elaborate courtyard in the House of Columns has similar features, slightly rearranged because of the terrain on which the building was constructed, fig. 7. In the palace at Tiryns the main courtyard was lined with columns, whereas the

courtyard of the main megaron in the palace at Pylos was only partially surrounded by columns, no. 13 in fg. 8 and no. 3 in fig. 9. In the private houses there seems to have been only one central room with hearth, whereas in the palaces, with their more complex function as centers of palace bureaucracy, there were additional structures including a second room with central

hearth, usually preceded by a vestibule and second courtyard, nos. 16-17 in fig. 8, nos. 46-47 in fig. 9 and no. 15 in fig. 10.22 In the smaller houses the main room with a hearth was used for cooking,23 eating, household chores of various kinds, and

sleeping accommodations for some of the family. In warmer weather some of these activities may have taken place in the vestibule and when

Brightly colored plastered walls, figs. 1, 19, 33,25

and floors, fig. 32, enriched the rooms, and doorways of great width?6 between the major rooms and the courtyards provided light and air. Windows were not an important element in the smaller houses, although we know they existed in some of the houses, since they appear in wall paintings of Mycenaean

date.27 Any attempt to compare the actual remains of Mycenaean domestic architecture with references in the /liad and Odyssey immediately

Nausicaa gave house,28 she courtyard and would find her

instructions to Odysseus concerning her father’s told him to enter the house, go through the pass quickly into the large megaron, where he mother seated by the fire, spinning as she leaned

against a pillar. Opposite her would be her father drinking wine, seated on his throne. Here the enclosed courtyard giving access to a major room with central hearth flanked by columns is immediately recognizable. This passage also calls to mind the

throne at Pylos, fixed in its stationary position opposite the hearth, on the nght hand of a person entering the megaron.29 A

throne in this same position in the palace at Tiryns is indicated by the decoration of its painted floor, fig. 32. In another megaron, in the palace at Ithaca where the suitors sat, listening

to the bard Phemius,?° Athena arrived disguised as Mentes. Having spoken to Telemachus, Athena departed, flying like a bird @¢ avoraia.3! The unknown word avörara, which occurs only once in the epics, has been much debated.*? If onaia is interpreted as an opening of some sort, avonata can be understood to mean “by way of an opening.” Once it is recognized that Mycenaean megara had chimney pots, the definition of avonata as “by way of the chimney pot” becomes obvious.?3

it was sunny, in the courtyard. Chimney

pots over the hearths allowed the smoke to escape from the megaron.?*

ron in the

reveals numerous

points of similarity. When

THE MEGARON The large central room

with the hearth, the megaron, which

formed the central core of the Mycenaean house, was frequently mentioned in the epics. This word was used 57 times in the Ittad3* and 245 times in the Odyssey.?5 In the /liad the only adjective associated with the megaron, apart from a name identifying it as belonging to a certain individual, was well-built, Eüotaßes and eünnktov.?6 In the Odyssey, the references to the megaron as belonging to Odysseus or as mine, 01,2’ and the adjective well-built, eüotaßeg,?# found in the /liad, were used. The megaron in the Odyssey was also described as shadowy,

The Architecture of the \liad and the Odyssey

3

oxıdevrov,3° smoky, aidaAdev,# and ed vatetdovtov,*! a word that has been variously translated. When eüotadeg was used in the Odyssey, the reference was usually to the threshold or doorway of the Eüotadeog peyapov.!? Since the reference is to an architectural feature of the room, the use of an adjective referring to the structure of the room may be seen as an obvious association of ideas. UKidevtov was used on two occasions in association with sleeping in the shadowy halls,?? and on two other occasions, in a repeated line, the halls were shadowy because it was late at night as Odysseus related his travels to the spell-bound Phaeacians.** The remaining use of this adjective represents a single

line, repeated three times.*> The reference is to the suitors making an uproar in the shadowy halls. Since the other usages of the word seem to reflect the time of day rather than a characteristic of the megaron itself, it may well be that here too it was meant to reflect a late hour.* The use of the adjective shadowy can be understood to imply that the suitors, behaving badly once again, were making a commotion late at night when all worthy members of society had long been asleep.*’ The single passage using the adjective smoky* referred to the beams of the smoky megaron on which Athena in the guise of a swallow perched during the slaughter of the suitors. Since the room had in it an open hearth and the ceiling was mentioned, it is not surprising that the beams might have been smoky, especially if the fires had been carelessly lit and the room had been cleaned without care while the master was away. Here the adjective may well have been used to indicate that this particular megaron had been ill-used, rather than as an indication that megara in general were smoky.?? The choice of smoky, shadowy, and well-built as adjectives for megaron appears to be appropriate to the passages where they were used, though it must be admitted that these adjectives could be used for houses of many different periods. When the description ed vatetaovtov was used for megaron, the question arises whether it too had

some special significance not immediately apparent. In the Odyssey eb varetaovtov was first used to describe the megaron, in the plural form, out of which Athena summoned Telemachus.’® Since the suitors had already departed,?! it is not clear exactly where in the house Telemachus had been, but most probably he was no longer in the megaron used by the suitors. All the other usages of this adjective with the word megaron refer to the locking or unlocking of the doors of the megaron, in which the women had been segregated during the

slaughter of the suitors.’? The derivation of the phrase from the

Fig. 2. The Panagia Houses at Mycenae during the course of excavations with citadel of Mycenae in the background.

Grand Staircase, no. 6 in fig. 10. The more private area where Penelope secluded herself and her loyal maidservants finds its archacological counterpart in the upper megaron at Mycenae, no. 15 in fig. 1/0, and the surrounding rooms, which were

reached by a more circuitous approach, nos. 11, 14 in fg. 10. The upper megaron was by its very location more isolated and private.°® A similar division between the more accessible, formal megaron and the less accessible private megaron occurs in the palaces at Tiryns and Pylos, nos. 14, 16 in fig. 8 and nos.

6, 46 in fig. 9.56 If the palace of Odysseus is understood to have had two separate megara, each with its own associated rooms,

with the adverb ev, suggests that it

then later when Eurycleia was locking and unlocking the doors

could mean to dwell well or comfortably.>3 Its association here

of the megaron to keep the women servants safe during the slaughter of the suitors,?? her actions can be understood as locking and unlocking the entranceway to the second, more private megaron and the rooms surrounding it.

verb, vaietaw, combined with one megaron the more adjective

specific part of the palace, which does not include the used by the suitors, that is to say the public, and hence formal megaron, may lead us to question whether this is not meant to suggest the more private areas of the

palace. In the more private areas the inhabitants would have been more informal, living well and comfortably, whereas in the more public areas life was naturally more formal and hence less relaxed.’! Such a definition implies a division between the public and private parts of the palace. The more public part was obviously the megaron and courtyard used by the suitors. In archaeological terms, it can be associated with the lower megaron at Mycenae, no.10 in fig. /0 and fig. //, with its more formal courtyard and more accessible approach by way of the

Megara are frequently mentioned in the plural form, and in the architectural remains a building with more than one megaron is

usually identified as a palace. It may be that it was the Mycenaean palaces with their double megara®® that caused the

plural form of this word in the oral tradition to be used to connote

the palaces

as

a whole.59

When

Eurycleia

told

Odysseus that there were fifty female servants in the megara, in the plural form, she seems to have been referring to the palace as a whole, not to a specific room in the palace. Similarly, when Penelope told the disguised Odysseus her dream of geese

4

TALES OF HEROES

Pt a —

Bs PipitesSeeSe ia).i

©

7 \ T5 ieTa hes =u. 6saray EY

i=

>>

é We

7 fr

a

Fig. 3. Plan of Panagia House I. (1: courtyard; 3: vestibule; 5: megaron with central hearth; 7: room behind megaron; 6: comdor; 2 and 4: additional rooms along side the main unit of the house).

fig. 4. Restored plan of Panagia

Fig. 5. Plan of ‘Tsountas House at Mycenae (A: courtyard; B: vestibule; ( megaron with central hearth; D: side rooms; E: basement corndor entered by way of statrs from north-west; F: basement storerooms).

Fig. 6. Restored plan of West House at Mycenae (A: courtyard: B: vestibule; ( megaron; D: side rooms: E: camdor).

—--

House I.

5

z|a

IT Milka,

I

The Architecture of the Nliad and the Odyssey Fig. 7. Restored plan of House of Columns with Palace Workshop to the west at Mycenae (A: entrance; F: porch facing courtyard; G: vestibule; H: megaron; J: side entrance to megaron; K: corridor; L: statrcase to upper floor; WI-2: basement rooms of palace workshop; W3-4: basement rooms of house; % corridor from courtyardto basement rooms; X andY: additional corridors surrounded by basement rooms).

iil

PFTHOI TIRRUP ARS

feeding on wheat in the megara, in the plural,! the geese were surely meant to be somewhere within the palace and not specifically in the megaron

itself. References made to women, wife,

parents, children, son or daughter being left in the megara always use the plural form, indicating the palace as a whole, not just a specific room.®? Persons were said to reach old age in the megara, again in the plural.63 When people lived,6* died,55 wept, were honored or dishonored,®’ cared for,6® remained steadfast,6? endured,’° or were tested’! in the megara, the plural

form of megaron occurred. Feasting, sacrificing, and entertaining were undertaken in the megara, again in the plural form.?? Such references appear to mean the palace as a whole. When the contest of the bow was first mentioned, the contest was said

to take place in the megara, in the plural.’? This can be understood to mean that the contest took place somewhere within the palace but not necessarily in any specific area.’* The singular form of the word megaron, in contrast to the plural form, seems to refer to the specific room.’5 Penelope gave instructions that the newly arrived beggar, the disguised Odysseus, was to sit with Telemachus in the megaron, singular form.’6 Here the megaron was used to mean a specific room in which the beggar was to be seated. After spending the night in the palace, Odysseus, upon awakening, picked up his bedding and put it on a chair in the megaron, singular form, that is to

say he put the bedding on a specific chair in a specific room.’?? Sacrifices were said to take place in the megara, plural,78 meaning within the palace, but libations, when occurring indoors, always took place in the megaron, singular.’9 A reflection of this practice can be seen at Pylos, where an installation set into the clay floor, apparently constructed especially to receive libations, was found next to the throne in the main

megaron.®9 When the slaughter of the suitors occurred, the suitors were confined within a single room, and during the

description of these events, megaron appeared in the singular.®! Such an interpretation of the difference between the singular

and plural forms of the word megaron implies that the bard who first told this tale had a clear visual picture of the architecture and that he deliberately distinguished between the different meaning of the two forms.82 OTHER

ARCHITECTURAL TERMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEGARON

In the epics the words 86105 or Sapa were also used.83 Similar to the megaron, these two words sometimes seem to refer to the

entire house or oixog,® but on other occasions they appear to refer to a specific room. This is made clear in the references to

the palace of Alcinous.®5 Odysseus, having entered the palace, which Nausicaa had described as being both a 56p0¢ and a Sapa, cast himself before Arete, who was seated in the main

room with the hearth,®’ the room already identified above as the megaron. Upon his appearance a hush was said to fall upon all who were ö6uov xata,® that is to say upon those who were in the room, not upon all throughout the whole palace.®9 The Sapa as a megaron also seems to be indicated in the description of Paris’ house at Troy, which was said to consist of a @dAanov cai dopa Kai avaAnv.” In the Odyssey, after the slaughter of the suitors, Odysseus was said to purify the péyapov xai Sapa Kai avAnv,?! and here the Sapa and the megaron were clearly meant to be different parts of the same house. In the last two passages the description of the houses consisted of three units

with the emphasis on the 8aAayog of Paris’ house and the emphasis on the megaron in Odysseus’ palace. These two examples suggest that the S6p0¢ and the 5@pa were sometimes used to mean “the other rooms”?? and it may be that in the later stages of the epic tradition these words came to mean the house as a whole, a specific room in the house or just simply rooms of any sort, depending on the context. In the description of Paris’ house the emphasis was on the court, the 6@Aapoc, and the associated rooms. Odysseus, on the other hand, was

purifying his palace after the slaughter of the suitors, and since the slaughter had taken place in the megaron, that room was

6

TALES OF HEROES with the doorways into the megaron, along the two side walls of the megaron to the rear wall of the room.’ This definition also fits the phrase puxy@ "Apyeog innoßoro1o,!W where Aegisthus beguiled Clytemnestra when Agamemnon was away at ‘Troy. They were simply within the area of horse-pasturing Argos, not hiding away in the innermost recesses of the land.!0! THE

PRODOMOS

OR VESTIBULE

The xpodopog as part of the houses was mentioned several times in both the Zliad and the Odyssey.!92 If the 80p0¢ is correctly understood to mean the structure as a whole, a room within the structure or the megaron, then mpodopog presumably means the front part of the building, or the part in front. A visitor sometimes slept in the mpdSopog when he spent the night in a palace or in a smaller, less elegant establishment, such as the temporary lodgings of Achilles on the field at Troy.!"!An area used for sleeping was presumably covered and at least partially enclosed. The swineherd Eumaeus also had a prodomos in his more humble lodgings where he was seated making himself a pair of shoes when Odysseus first saw him upon his return.!®* Thus the prodomos was also an area used for household activities, at least in the simpler houses, and it stood in such a position that someone approaching the house immediately saw it. As an arca for houschold tasks it served its purpose best if it were enclosed or sheltered in some way. The prodomos appears to have been closely associated with the megaron, since Odysseus, having slept in the prodomos, gathered his bedding together the next morning and put it on a chair in the megaron.!"

Fig. 8. Plan of palace at ‘Tiryns (1: outer propylon leading into palace: 2: entrance to courtyard; 3: courtyard; 4: porch and vestibule leading to main megaron of the palace; 5: second courtyard; 6: vestibule to second megaron). emphasized. This may at first seem to be somewhat vague, but casual references to domestic architecture are sometimes ambiguous. This can be seen in usage of the term puyoc, which is most easily defined as meaning “within” rather than having a more precise definition as often suggested. Nestor was said to sleep pux@ Sdpov vynAoto,? which most simply means that he was sleeping within the palace, in contrast to Telemachus and Peisistratos, who were sleeping in the at@ovea™ in the area of the courtyard. Menelaus and Alcinous also slept puyo 8önov vynaoio.”? When Melanthius was searching for weapons BaAdnuoto uvxov."" he was merely searching throughout the entire room, since i was ES HUYOV VYNAOD BaAdpov where Odysseus had bade Telemachus to lay the weapons.” The phrase €g uuxöv €& ovdov or eg puxov E& 008010. used in the description of Aleinous palace.’ is somewhat less clear, but it can be understood to mean vaguely from the threshold, inwards. That is to sav, the bronze walls. which were inentioned the first ume the phrase was used. formed the lateral walls of the courtward extending inward from the threshold. to the next cross wall. and the fixed seats. which were referred to the

second

time

the

phrase

occurred,

extended

trom

the

wall

In the excavated Mycenaean palaces, a long narrow room Is found immediately in front of the megaron and it is with this vestibule that the prodomos is usually associated, no. 14 in fig. 8 no. 5 in fig. 9. and no. 9 in fig. 10.'% ‘The narrow proportions of this room in the palaces suggests that it was not often used. In private houses such as Panagia Houses I and Il the room in this position is proportionately much larger, so large in fact that it must have had some useful purpose to the inhabitants of the house, no. 3 in fig. 3 and no. 8 in fig. 24. It has been suggested that here, in warmer weather, household tasks were performed.” ‘The wide doorway leading into this room from the courtyard provided better light and more air compared to the more enclosed room with the hearth.!08 This may be only chance, but it would be a curious coincidence that the room in front of the megara of the palaces fit the description of the prodomos of the palaces, whereas rooms in this position in the smaller private houses fit the description of Eumaeus’ hut. THE

PROTHYRON

OR

ENTRANCEWAY

A second type of vestibule or porch, called the mpo8upov is to be found in both the /lad and Odyssey. If the architecture in the epics reflects the architecture of the Mycenaean Period, a parallel for the mpo@vupov as a separate architectural form different from the rpddoposg should be found in the archaeological remains. In the epics the exact relationship between the rpodopos and the mpo8upov is not immediately evident. 19% When the word first appeared in the Odrwer, Athena, having descended from Olympus, stood in the mpo8vpots of Odysseus‘ house. Telemachus saw Athena and unmechatelv approached the mpoOvpoto.!'" In these two passages the prothyron appears to have been the exterior entrance porch into an enclosed

The Architecture of the Iliad and the Odyssey Fig. 9. Plan of palace at Pylos (1-2: entrance to palace: 3: courtyard; 4-5: porch and vestibule leading to megaron;

6: main megaron with central hearth; 7: colonnade in courtyard: 8: second megaron: 9: second courtyard).

mn a

4

en

PN Fig. 10. Restored plan of palace at Mycenae (1: ramp leading to palace; 2: Guard Room, below level of upper megaron: 3: storeroom, on lower level where ivory group, Sig. 88. was found: 4: Northwest Propylon of palace; 5: West Passage leading to lower megaron; 6: Grand Staircase, later addition to palace providing a second entrance: 7: courtyard of lower megaron: 8: porch of lower megaron: 9: vestibule of lower megaron: 10: lower megaron; 11: Gallery of the Curtams, which lead to upper megaron and more private areas of palace: 12: South Gorndor. ramp onginally leading to upper megaron which was later curtailed on its south and east sides when lower megaron was constructed: 13: upper terrace, which was probably served as a courtyard in the earler period when it extended further to the east: 14: North Corridor, area

o. —

set

1 Set op

12

probably served as anternoms to the carter palace and was

later turned into a corndor to provide access ta the upper level from the lower level of the Northicest Propylon: 15: upper megaron with eo roomy ta the west, which retained

thar onginal form from the carlıer phase of the palaces.

0 A

10

1) N

*l

i, ‘

23 rete Ny oon st rs

8

TALES OF HEROES

Fig. 11. Palace at Mycenae as seen from the southeast, lower megaron with hearth in center: courtyard to left; remains of Grand Staircase in lower left; area of upper palace in

upper center. (Nos. 10, 7, 6, and 15 in fig. 10).

courtyard.!!! People leaving the palaces in chariots drove away from the npößupov and the echoing colonnade, Ex 8 ... npoBvporo Kai aiBovons Epıdoüunov, and here again the np6ßupov

seems to be on the exterior.'!? In Book 18 of the Odyssey, however, a mpO@vpov was mentioned that appears to have stood between the megaron and the courtyard. The public beggar Irus, on arriving at the palace, found the disguised Odysseus mingling with the suitors. Irus ordered Odvsseus to leave the npoßupov,!!? and they argued on the polished threshold of the lofty doors,'!4 causing much merriment among the suitors. The argument turned into a fight. Odysseus defeated Irus. Then, seizing Irus’ foot, Odysseus dragged him 81€x mpoOvporo, through the courtyard, the avAryv, and the doors of the aithousa, the ai€ovong te Büpac. Finally he put Irus down against the wall of the court, giving him a staff to beat off the dogs.''> At the end of the episode Irus was apparently outside the palace where stray dogs could find him, hence the need of the staff. The argument and the fight, however, took place

within the palace, presumably somewhere in the vicinity of the suitors who had congregated in the megaron and had watched the two beggars with glee. Since Odysseus dragged Irus through the courtyard after the fight, they must have quarreled in the area between the courtyard and the megaron, on the threshold of the lofty doors. This sequence places the mpo6upov where the fight first started at the entranceway of the megaron. The use of the word rp6®upov to describe both the exterior entrance into the palace and the entrance into the specific area

of the palace containing the megaron might at first appear to be contradictory. An investigation of palace architecture of the Mycenaean Period, however, reveals that the entrance into the courtyard is very similar in form to the entrance into the suite of the megaron. This is most clearly seen in the palace at Tiryns, where both the courtyard and megaron had porches containing two columns in front of the doorways, no. 12 and room in front of no. 14 in fig. 8. An entrance with a single column on each facade, no. 4 in fig. /0, led into the palace at Mycenae, fig. 12,116 similar to the entrance into the palace at Pylos where a single column was also used, nos. I-2 in fig. 9. The existence of columnar facades for both the entrances into the palaces as well

as those into the megara explains the use of the same word to describe both of the entrances. It also strengthens the identifica-

tion of the npödonog as the vestibule between the porch and the megaron.!!? A npö8upov was also mentioned in the various scenes around the house of Eumaeus.!!8 Whether it led into the courtyard or whether it stood before the main room of the house itself is uncertain,!!® but once again smaller houses of the Mycenaean Period sometimes, but not always, had a porch in front of the megaron, contrast fig. 22 to figs. 3-4 and 24-25.':0 The larger houses of the period also varied and some of the houses, even

one as grand as the House of Columns at Mycenae, were constructed without columnar entrances, figs. 7 and 28. The written text gives no clear indication why the word was used sometimes in the plural and sometimes in the singular.

ro

©

at

Fig. 13. Restored drawing of west front of propylon at Tiryns, by H. Sulze. (No. IT in fie. 8). crlonnade,!2# sometimes as the columned fagade of the megaron.!?? The repeated line €x 8 €Aacav npoßüpoıo Kai

aidovaong Epıdounouv!30 suggests that the ai@ovoa and the

Fig. 12. Restored plan and cross section of Northwest Propylon of the palace at Mycenae (No. 4 in fig. 10).

Both forms appear to have been used for the exterior doorway into the courtyard,'?! whereas only the singular form was used

in the passages, where the rp68upov was clearly part of the interior megaron suite.!22 Entranceways into the courtyards of Mycenaean palaces had two facades, both columnar, one facing toward the exterior and the other facing inward onto the courtyard, fig. /3, whereas the fagade of the megaron had only onc set of columns, those facing the courtyard, fig. /4. Possibly in the Mycenaean Period the plural form was used for entrances with columns in both facades, such as those leading into the courtyards of the palaces, and the singular form for entrances with only one set of columns, such as those found in front of the megara.!?3 After the destruction of the Mycenaean buildings, the original distinction between the singular and plural may not have been clearly understood, hence giving rise

to the imprecise usage in the written texts. !24

mpoOvpov were originally two separate units and that both were located along the exterior facade of the palace. References to a man standing vr aiBovon evepKéos avAng,!?! however, suggests that the ai®ovea could also be part of the enclosed courtyard. Beds for distinguished visitors were set UX

ai8ovon,'3? another indication of a position for the aißouca somewhere within the palace.!?3 The beds, however, create a problem. Although they had been set up in the ai®ovoa of the

palace at Sparta, later when Telemachus and Peisistratos went to sleep they were said to sleep Ev xpoddpo dönouv.!?* Once again it appears that the bard was referring to an architectural

form whose nature was not quite clear to him. If the Mycenaean palaces are examined for an architectural form that occurred on the exterior of the palace as well as in their courtyards, a form closely associated with the megara, which was appropriate as a place for sleeping but one which might be confused with the entranceway into the palace, then the identification of the at@ovoa as colonnades becomes the most likely choice. Colonnades in the Mycenaean Period were built in courtyards, fig. /5, where they were near the megara, but they were also built outside the palaces, and they were

similar in form to the columned porches leading into the THE AITHOUSA

OR COLONNADE

Another architectural term whose meaning is not clear is the aiBovoa.!2> In the Odyssey the adjective Epidounog was used seven times to descnbe the at@ovoa, always in lines which were repeated.!26 In the /liad the aidovca was also called Epiöounog in the line repeated in the Odyssey, and on two other occasions it was called &eom.!?2” On two different occasions, once in the

Thad and once in the Odyssey, discussed below, the ai®ovea and the npo8upov were confused. The high rate of repetitions occurring in the lines containing the word al®ovea and the few adjectives used to describe it suggest that the word became part of a formula and as part of the formula it continued to be used. Possibly the ai@ovea was an architectural form which ceased to exist in domestic architecture and in a later period it was not always clearly understood by the bards. The ai@ovea has been translated in different ways. sometimes as a portico or covered

megara. Once again this is most clearly illustrated at Tiryns, where colonnades were used in the courtyards in front of both the large and the small megara and along the side of the enclosed area outside the palace east of the main courtyard near the storage facilities constructed in the fortification walls, fig. 8. These colonnades have the added attraction that they ceased to be built in the period immediately following the

collapse of the palaces.!3> The bards in the later periods, while retaining the word in formulaic lines, might not have been entirely certain of its meaning and hence they mixed two different sequences. This resulted in beds being originally set up in the aidovoa, but later when they were occupied, they were said to be in the npodopoc. | 36 If this reconstruction is correct, then on some occasions visitors slept in the xpddopog rather than the at@ovea, and in the oral tradition of the earlier periods two different sets of formulae for

10

TALES OF HEROES

Fig. 15. Restored drawing of courtyard of palace at Tiryns, by H. Sulze. (N0.13

in fig. 8).

>

ES

ry

Les aad

Ae

lea ETF e

Fig. 14. Palace at Mycenae, entrance to the megaron. (No. 8 in fig. 10). housing visitors at night evolved. Odysseus, who had slept in a variety of places.’ upon returning to his palace at Ithaca disguised as a beggar, slept in the rpodopog, not on a corded bed he had been offered but on an ox hide,! 4 and it was in the rpodopos that the man watching Phoenix spent the night.!® Since the bedding was especially prepared for the visitor, on different occasions different areas of the palace could have been used, depending on the weather and possibly on the stature of the visitor. In warmer weather the more open colonnade was preferable. 140 whereas in colder months the more enclosed vestibule might have seemed more desirable.

THE

COURTYARDS

These various architectural elements. the mpddopos, the rpo8Vpov, and the ai®ovoa, seem to be intimately associated with the courtyards, figs. /5 17. Telemachus’ reaction to the courtyard of Menelaus’ palace makes it clear that courtyards vaned in their elegance and appointments.!" and this is also true in the archacological record of Mycenaean remains.!!* The description of Priam’s palace with its thalamoı of polished stone set within a courtvard!+!) seems to reflect one of the grander courtyards of its (me. although the number fifty ty an obvious epic exaggeration. It should serve to remind us. however, that in the epic tradition there is a variety of dillerent

types of courtyards used for different purposes.!44 The more formal courtyards appear to have been without trees or shrubs, similar to the courtyards found in the Mycenaean palaces. In the description of Alcinous’ palace in the Land of the Phacaclans, it was specifically stated that the orchard lay outside the court.!"° This same courtyard was said to have water running under its threshold towards the house, a desirable feature no doubt, but one without Mycenaean parallels.'** Parallels, however, can be found on Crete,!* and it may be that the palace of Alcinous had some characteristics in common with the Minoan palaces that were not to be found in the mainland.!48 The features most commonly mentioned concerning courtyards of all types were the walls and doors that kept them secure. In Phoenix's tale, the courtward was portraved as an area that could be secured, keeping Phoenix within and presumably unwanted people without.!4" Odysseus, when he first returned to his palace with Eumaeus. specifically commented: exjoxntar S€ of avAN | toixw Kai Opıykoicı, Büpaı & EVEPKEES Eici | öiKAideg.!’ This statement makes clear the importance placed on the security of the courtyard. The Homenc word for coping, the Opryxds, is sometimes defined as a “frieze running along the upper part of the inner walls of the house”!>! but such a definition does not fit the description of Odysseus’ courtyard. This definition appears to be based on the use of the word in the description of the palace of Alcinous in the Land of the Phaeacians.!>? It was described as having bronze walls, stretching this way and that, from the threshold to the innermost part, €¢ puxov €& ovdov., and all around ran a @ptyKog of kyanos. This palace was no doubt glorified in good epic siyle,!°° but the Bpıykös of kyanos, as has often been noted, does appear to have some element of historicity. Fragments of blue glass paste, apparently forming part of the decoration of the walls, were found at Tirvns, and the reference here seems to reflect a similar type of decoration.!*! Although this description is usually assumed to describe an interior room, a close look at the passage suggests that it was actually the courtyard that was being described.’ If the @ptyKog Kvavoro was in the courtyard, then it can be understood to be the coping on the courtyard wall that was made or decorated with blue glass paste, thus

The Architecture of the Iliad and the Odyssey

11

Lt

Fig. 16. Restored drawing of courtyard of palace at Pylos, by Piet de Jong. (No. 3 ın fig. 9). making the ®piyKog Kvavoio of Alcinous’ palace equivalent to the OptyKoc of Odysseus’ courtyard. Such a definition places

dations, i.e. the stones of Eumaeus’ description, and the firmness of the wooden frame, i.e. the oak beams. Both features

importance on the coping, and indeed the description of the

were specifically mentioned by the bard. The third important

courtyard wall built by Eumacus

element was a coping of some sort to protect the mud

around

his establishment

brick

seems to indicate that such copings were considered important.

from rain, which is the third element of the description, i.e. the

Eumaeus’ courtyard was described as a good one, one with a wide view,!** and with much space in it, large enough to house twelve sties, each sty containing fifty swine. It also included an outcropping of rock beneath which Eumaeus sometimes

thorn since used, such

slept.!*? The walls of the courtyard had a foundation made of large stones. Its sides were reinforced with oak beams and its top was protected by thorny brush.! Although attempts have

been made to explain the construction of this wall by saying there were two different walls, one made of wood and the other of brush,'*" nowhere else is there even a hint of a double wall, nor does such an explanation come readily to mind to anyone familiar with the construction of Mycenaean walls. Walls in Mycenaean domestic architecture consisted of a stone socle, a mud brick superstructure reinforced with wooden tie-beams, and a roof or coping of some sort, fig. 18. These are the same elements used to describe the walls constructed by Eumacus, with the exception of the mud bricks. Even the palaces of the Mycenaean Period had mad brick superstructures, and the original bard who sang of this construction appears to have assumed the presence of mud brick.! In the construction of such walls the important features were the quality of the foun-

bush. Such a coping was necessary for all courtyard walls, they were made of mud brick no matter where they were be it in the palaces, the smaller houses, or in the country, as those around Eumaeus’ hut.!6!

Eumaeus’ courtyard, which housed the swine, may at first seem to be quite a different type of architectural element than the grand courtyards of the Mycenaean palaces.!#? The palaces in the epics, however, in addition to the formal courtyards associated with the megara, appear to have had a second type of courtyard, one in which animals were kept and where the ordinary household tasks could be undertaken.!®%% This type of courtyard is implied in the descripuon of Telemachus’ arrival at

Sparta. Having arrived with Peisistratos, Telemachus halted the chariot;!"! the horses were then loosened from the chariot, stabled, and fed.' The horses were presumably led away to an enclosed area somewhere within the area of the palace, to an informal courtyard of some sort containing stables for the king's horses.!"® After the horses had been led away, the chariot was tilted up against the wall,!®” and Telemachus accompanied by Peisistratos entered the palace. !+!

12

TALES OF HEROES Fig. 17. Courtyard of palace at Mycenae with porch, vestibule, and

megaron tn background. (Nos. 7 10 fe. 10).

THE THALAMOI AND THE UPPER CHAMBER

In the /had the word thalamos was used twenty-six times. Priam

than the physical act of love-making, which was the dominant theme of Demodocus’ song about Ares and Aphrodite sung in the Land of the Phaeacians.'74 The association of family stability through marriage with the more physical aspects of marriage is portrayed at the end of the Odyssey when Odysscus and Penelope were once more united in their thalamos.!7? The thalamos was also used simply as a sleeping chamber without any connotations of marriage.'?7® Both Penclope and Telemachus, in the palace at Ithaca, had their own separate thalamoi, where they slept. These thalamoi appear to have been on an upper level of the house, since Penelope was said to go up a tall staircase to reach her thalamos.'’? These diverse references to thalamoi suggest that the larger establishments had numerous thalamoi and a variety of different types of sleeping arcas.'!78 The existence of multiple thalamoi is also indicated by Odysseus’ construction of a new thalamos, pre-

was said to have built fifty thalamoi of polished stone for his

sumably at the time of his marriage to Penelope.!’? This

sons and their wives and twelve thalamoi for his daughters and their husbands.'79 This statement clearly associates the thalamos with marriage, family unity, and continuity. Those were the aspects of the thalamos that had been disregarded by Helen and Paris, and their neglect had resulted in the current state of war.!?! The more physical aspects of marriage associated with the thalamos, as well as its function as a place for dressing, were the implications emphasized in the Seduction Scene of Zeus and in the references to Helen's thalamos at Troy.!72

thalamos was said to have been built around an olive tree.!# The olive tree had been trimmed and fashioned into a bedpost. The bed itself was very elaborate and decorated with inlays of gold, silver, and ivory.!*! An ox-hide thong was stretched, presumably from side to side of the bed frame, forming a surface on which the bedding was laid, fig. 20.1#? If thalamoi belonged on an upper level, above the level of the megaron, then the location of a thalamos built around an olive tree might at first seem problematical. Mycenacan houses, as well as the palace at Mycenae, however, were sometimes built on terraced hill slopes, with the result that rooms that appear to be on an upper level from the interior, were actually constructed on the ground level as seen from the exterior, figs. 24 26, with no. 9, the main room with central hearth, lying at a lower level than no. 10, the room identified as the thalamos.!84 Odysseus said that the olive tree used for the bed had been lying within an enclosure.!# This enclosure should be visualized as part of that area enclosed by the wall surrounding the entire palace area,!®* including the

Elaborate entranceways

into columned

courtyards, megara

with central hearths preceded by vestibules and porches, and the palaces with many different buildings yards reflect the grandeur of Mycenacan which ceased to be found in the houses centuries after the fall of the Mycenaean

and a variety of courtdomestic architecture, of the Greek world for civilization. It has been

argued that the reflections seen in the epics were not the result of a remembered past, but a reconstruction in later times based on the visible remains of the palaces. This could possibly be true for the general

outlines of the buildings.

It cannot,

however, be the explanation for the thalamoi, which have a very peculiar double function in the epics. Sometimes they were used as sleeping chambers,ig. 19, yet at other times they were clearly storage areas, a very unusual combination. !69

In the Odyssey the word thalamos occurred forty-five times. Helen, being once more re-united with Menelaus in Sparta, lamented the blindness put upon her by Aphrodite, which made her forsake her child, her husband, and her thalamos. The juxtaposition of thalamos with husband and child in this statement make it clear that in the Odyssey, similar to the Iliad, the thalamos was sometimes used as a symbol of family unity and harmony.!?? [ts connotations represented something more

The Architecture of the Iliad and the Odyssey

13

formal courtyard in front of the main megaron, the odd spaces between the structures, and the open service areas where the horses were stabled, the geese raised, and assorted household tasks undertaken.

Penelope was also said to have an upper chamber, her ürepwiov, and this upper chamber has sometimes been identi-

fied as being the same as her thalamos.!® Penelope occasionally used the megaron for spinning while keeping Telemachus company, but as soon as the suitors returned to the palace she

left for her upper chamber where she remained weaving.!® Neither Helen nor Arete were said to have an ünepwiov. Helen,

who had no reason to avoid any specific part ofthe palace, was said to weave in the megaron at Troy!®® and later, at Sparta, she appeared in the megaron with her golden distaff and elaborate sewing box.!®9 Only Penelope was said to be using this room, which suggests that she was working in the Unepdiov,

not because it was the place where the mistress of the palace normally spun or wove, but because it was one of the areas of the palace that had not been overrun by the suitors and that was somewhat isolated from some of the more mundane jobs undertaken by the fifty female servants said to be part of Odysseus’ household.!% The thalamos as a separate room from the Unepwiov is implied in the conversation that took place between Odysseus and Penelope just before Odysseus left the palace at the end of the Odyssey. Having spent the night in the thalamos he had built for Penelope, the next morning Odysseus instructed her to seek her bvrepwiov so that she could avoid the

relatives of the suitors.'9! He did not tell her to stay where she was but told her to go somewhere else in the palace, her brepdiov, thus indicating that the Unepdiov and the 6aAapoc were two different rooms. The thalamos, here, appears to be the more specialized chamber with connotations of marriage, a room of privacy which could be locked, whereas the ünepwiov was just another room on the upper level with no special con-

Fig. 19. Lilies Fresco from Thera, decorating walls of room in which remains of bed were Sound.

Fig. 18. Drawing of Mycenaean wall construction showing use of ambers, by H. Sulze.

notations of marriage

and none

of privacy nor of locked

doors.!92 The adjective ovyaAcetc, bright, shining, glittering, was used four times to describe Penelope’s ürepwiov.!93 The adjective could have been used to indicate the rich effect of the furnishings,!% but in view of the isolated nature of the room this seems unlikely. More plausibly, the room had the appearance of being bright or shining because it had windows, which differentiated it from the other rooms in the palace. Although known in Mycenaean architecture, windows were not common and they do not occur in the megara, the vestibules, the rear chambers, or many of the storerooms.!'95 Many of the references to the

upper chamber refer to its use during the day,'% and it may be that Penelope was using the room at that time in order to take advantage of the daylight provided by the windows for such tasks normally undertaken in the central courtyard, from which she had been excluded by the presence of the suitors.

14

TALES OF HEROES

A second type of thalamos, one that served as a storage area rather than as a sleeping chamber, is also clearly indicated in the epics. When Telemachus was gathering together provisions for his trip to Pylos, he xateByoeto to a thalamos. He appears to have gone down into the basement to a special chamber, guarded by the faithful nurse Eurycleia, where clothing,

perfumed oil, and special wine had been stored awaiting the return of the master of the house.!"” In the Odyssey when the suitors were first introduced, !"* it was made clear that they were making free with the provisions of the household, and there are frequent references to the fact that they were devouring Odysseus’ wealth,!™ laying waste the heritage that should have gone to Telemachus. The implication of these statements is that there existed in the palace of Odysseus other storerooms containing wine and various provisions that were available to the suitors, storerooms that were not locked and guarded by Eurycleia. Two different types of storage areas are indicated, one that contained ordinary household goods and another that

contained more personal or precious possessions. Whenever the thalamos was mentioned as a storage area, it always contained the latter type of goods. In the /liad, Hecuba went to the thalamos to obtain a robe, the finest in her collection, to

dedicate to Athena.” Priam collected the precious ransom for

objects might seem to be a strange combination. The association of the two, however, was made clear by Penelope when she went to get the bow. First she went upstairs, that is to say to a floor level above the level of the megaron, one that was remote from the suitors.?2% When she reached the thalamos,?0? she crossed the threshold made of oak, thus entering the room, and with her key she opened the room containing the bow, in other words a sccond room of some sort.?0® Having opened the second door she stepped €¢ üymAng cavidoc,2" onto the lofty

boards or planks, that is to say she entered a room that had a wooden floor and lay above ground level.2!0 The epithets used to describe the 8aAanog?!!

in both the /had

and the Odyssey are concerned with its construction,?!? its smell,?!3 and its location.2"4 A surprising number of these reflect height of some sort, referring to the ceiling or roof or to the actual location of the room itself, probably meaning to convey

the idea that they were high up in the house. Otherwise the epithets do not appear to be very informative. Those referring to the construction as well or solidly made add little information concerning the character of the room itself. Thalamoi of polished stone merely indicate the lavishness of Priam’s palace.

Fragrant might reflect the use of herbs and spices, which existed

thalamos.? And finally, when Penelope went to get the famous bow of Odysseus, she went to a thalamos where treasures of bronze, gold, and iron lay.2°5 One thalamos used as a sleeping

in plentiful supply in Mycenaean times as indicated in the Linear B tablets, but it is an obvious adjective either for storage or sleeping chambers in any period. In addition to the epithets various descriptions of thalamoi, usually those associated with sleeping, indicate that they could be locked.?!> These indicate that privacy was considered an important part of the thalamos used for sleeping,?'® whereas thalamoi specifically for storage, not surprisingly, were locked for security.2!? Another characteristic of the thalamoi, as indicated by the Odyssey, is their location somewhere within the palace that enables people sitting in them to hear conversations taking place within the megaron.?!8

chamber and another used as a storage arca for precious

A rather curious use of the thalamos occurred in the /had?!

the body of Hector from a thalamos.?°! Menelaus, together with Helen and his son Megapenthes, went to the thalamos, whence they took a two-handled cup, a silver mixing bowl, and the fairest of the garments to be used in the future by Telemachus’ bride.2°2 In the Land of the Phaeacians, Arete took a chest, the best she had, out of the thalamos,2" which she was to fill with gifts for Odysseus. The special cloak and brooch

worn by Odysseus when he left for Troy came from a

SE

Le

& war. Wirren a ntne a ae

ne

hig. 20. Restored drawing bed, by Ay Ihakıs,

of prehistoric

The Architecture of the Iliad and the Odyssey

15

when Zeus sent as an omen a very large eagle. This eagle was said to be as wide as the doorway of the high-roofed thalamos, a doorway that could be securely locked. This same doorway was so wide that the eagle with its wings outspread could still fly through it. Eagles, living in the mountains of Parnassus, above Delphi, have a wingspan of 2.50 m., according to the modern villagers of Arachova.?2 Since the eagle sent by Zeus was said to be unusually large, we should possibly think of a doorway in terms of 2.75 m. to 3.00 m. in width. Nowhere in the Panagia Houses were such wide doorways found,??! and even the doorways leading into the megara of the Mycenaean palaces were less than 2.00 m. in width.222 The doorway of the simile

was clearly much wider and the implication is that there was some obvious peculiarity about this doorway leading into the thalamos that differentiated it from the other doorways in the houses. THE THALAMOI AND UPPER CHAMBER ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS

Fig. 21. Plan of MH House F at Korakou.

IN THE

If the epics did retain some remembrance of Mycenaean domestic architecture, then the thalamoi with their varied and somewhat unusual characteristics should be recognizable among the excavated remains of Mycenacan houses. The unusual association of sleeping chamber and storage area, which occurs in the epics, appears to have its origins in the simple apsidal houses of the Middle Helladic Period. This type of house had an open area or court in front, a porch, a rectangular main room, and a rear apsidal chamber aligned along a

single axis, fig. 2/.223 The apsidal chamber appears to have been used as a raised sleeping platform with the area below the

ol

u

Fig. 22. Plan of LH House L at Korakou.

Fig. 23. Isometne reconstruction of LH II house ın the Menelaton near Sparta, drawn by David Smyth.

—_

m

16

TALES OF HEROES

platform used for storage.??* Additional storage areas were added by the construction of small rectangular rooms in the areas adjacent to the house.225 In the more developed form of this house, the apse at the rear of the house became rectangular, fig. 22,226 and the supplementary storage areas were multiplied, fg. 23. The open area between the house and the independent storage units was turned into an intenor corridor and the whole structure was covered by a single roof. When space

was available, these additions were arranged along an axis parallel to the axis of the central unit, as in Panagia House

I,

Sigs. 3-4. When space was not available these same elements were

included in whatever way

the terrain allowed,

as in

Panagia House II, figs. 24-25.227 As more space was needed, the supplementary rooms were increased in number until they lined one side of the open space in front of the house, eventually enclosing

the entire area in front to create

basement

storerooms entered by way of a trap door from a

room above. If Room 7 of Panagia House | is interpreted in this way, the result is the existence of two superimposed levels, the lower one being a basement storeroom entered by way of the upper room. To reach the upper level of this room, a staircase

was necessary; this staircase can be restored on the basis of a row of stones lying at the north end of the corridor east of the main unit, no. 6 in fg. 3.230 This same staircase may have led to additional rooms on the upper level along the east side of the house.

The

megaron

or main

room

and

presumably

the

vestibule in front, however, did not have an upper level. This is precluded by the chimney pot, which had been installed above the hearth of the main room and which fell directly onto the hearth at the time of the destruction. In Panagia House II, figs.

24-26, the terrain forced the builders to rearrange the plan

an enclosed

used in Panagia House I. The rising bedrock beneath Panagia

courtyard, as in the West House, fg. 6.228 In the most elaborate

House II made two levels at the rear of the house difficult. In

structures, such as the palaces, figs. 8-10, the various units were

place of the single room found in Panagia House I, two rooms were constructed, side by side, lying above the level of the main room, nos. 10-11 in fg. 24. The addition of these rooms in Panagia House II was obviously considered of great impor-

multiplied creating complex structures, but the core always remained the megaron with porch or vestibule in front, fre-

quently a rear room behind, and a courtyard arranged whenever possible along a single axis.229 The apsidal chamber, which contained the sleeping platform with storage area below

in the MH houses, in the later periods became rectangular and consisted of two separate rooms, one above the other. The evidence for this reconstruction is very clear in Panagia House I, figs. 3-4. The size of the rear room, no. 7, indicates its impor-

tance, yet in Panagia House I, no entrance into the groundfloor room was found and the floor was lower than the floor of the megaron. Rooms with no apparent means of access in Mycenaean

architecture have generally been interpreted as

the west of the house also indicates that the two rear rooms did

not have exterior windows.23! In order to allow some light and air into these rooms there must have been an opening of some sort between the rear room and the main room with the hearth.

An opening in this position, which allowed the occupants of the room to receive a modicum of heat from the fire on the hearth, also gave them a view into the main room and allowed them to

ee wD

> %

ROOM 8

I»

> 28a

a

&27

“yi

.

ER

tance. In order to make them as large as possible within the restricted space, the normal axial alignment of the central core was not maintained. The presence of pre-existing buildings to

ROOM

ld em,

9

ROOM

10

Fig. 24. building thalamot; Fig. 25.

(above left) Plan of Panagia House II (8: vestibule, with walls of earlter preserved below floor level; 9: megaron with central hearth; 10-11: 1 4: corndor; 15-20: storerooms). (above night) Restored plan of Panagia House II.

a Fig. 26. (left) Cross sechon DD of Panagia House II (8: vestibule; 9: megaron unth central hearth; 10: thalamos). Diagonal lines represent surface fill; dotted area represents Mycenaean fill; dark section represents burnt destruction fill in Room 9; cross hatching marks bedrock.

The Architecture of the liad and the Odyssey Fig. 27. Plans of main megara at Mycenae, Pylos, and Tiryns showing vanation ın the arrangement of doorways.

tif bl! th

17

fo

be aware of what was going on in the room below. Because the rear room lay at a higher level, it retained some degree of

THE THRESHOLDS AND THE ORSOTHYRE IN ODYSSEUS’ PALACE

privacy and people in the main room below were not always

The extraordinary correlation found between the thalamoi and

conscious of the activity in the rooms above.

the Unepdiov of the epics and the excavated remains of actual

Any attempt to identify the rear rooms in Mycenaean houses in terms of the poetic descriptions immediately suggests that they served as the thalamoi, the sleeping chambers of the house. In Panagia House I, the upper level of Room 7 can have served as the thalamos for sleeping while the lower level can have been the thalamos for storage of the personal, more valuable posses-

houses seems to justify the suggestion made above that the epics did recall Mycenaean domestic architecture. If these similarities

sions of the master of the house.232 In Panagia House II, the rear room, no. adjacent room, houses illustrate can be found on location of the

10, served as the sleeping chamber while the no. I 1, served as its storeroom. These two how the storeroom attached to the thalamos an upper level as well as in the basement. The thalamos in Panagia House II, furthermore,

indicates how an olive tree was incorporated into an upperlevel thalamos by Odysseus.233 The wide door of the thalamos mentioned in the simile of the eagle in /lad 24.316-20 becomes

the wide opening or window between upper thalamos and megaron.24

Because the ceiling of this room

must have been

quite low,?3> wide windows in this location probably had a width greater than their height, giving them an unusual appearance.236 The simile in the /liad further informs us that the window between thalamos and megaron could be fastened or locked, presumably to insure greater privacy for the occupants of the room. In addition to the thalamos, Room 7 of Panagia House I, rooms were restored on the upper level in the area along the east side

of the house.237 These rooms must been named in some way

are to be seen as significant, however, then it should be possible to reconstruct the movements of the various people within the palace during the final confrontation between Odysseus and the

suitors. One of the problems such an attempt involves is the question of the thresholds and the position of the various doorways. Although the Mycenaean palaces had only a single door into the main megaron, the position and number of secondary doorways into their porches and vestibules varied, fig. 27. The differences among these doorways should serve as a warning that the palace architecture was adjusted to the indi-

vidual needs of the site and that it was not as rigid in its plan as is sometimes perceived. In the private houses, similar to the palaces, the main rooms usually had a single doorway, as in Panagia House I, figs. 3-4, but occasionally a secondary doorway is to be found, as in the House of Columns and Panagia House II, figs. 7, 24-25. In the Mycenaean Period the thresholds in the doorways varied in construction. The most impressive were the large single conglomerate slabs that spanned the entire width of the entranceway, fig. 28. In the epics the thresholds, the ov8dc, were said to have been made of wood, stone, and twice of bronze.238 The use of different types of thresholds has parallels in the Mycenaean Period,239 but also in other periods, as well as our own, so the thresholds by themselves are not of any particular significance.

Only in one section of the Odyssey does there appear to be some

and the term vrepwiov used in the epics is appropriate. They fit the requirements of the Odyssey, which referred to such rooms as

confusion. This is the scene where Odysseus, disguised as a

being on the upper level, somewhat removed from the central megaron of the house. They presumably had windows of some

different times on a stone threshold, a wooden one, and a polished one.2# Since the adjective polished can be used to describe either wood or stone, the logical deduction is that there were two different thresholds, one made of stone and the other made of wood, in two different doorways leading into the same megaron.?*! A second doorway into the megaron or main room has been found in some of the excavated houses,2*? and in the

sort in order to make them functional, since they were too isolated from the vestibule and megaron to receive light from that source. The restoration of windows in these rooms is reflected in the epics by the use of the epithet ovyaddetc, which is the only adjective used to describe them.

beggar, was mingling with the suitors in the megaron. He sat at

18

TALES OF HEROES Fig. 28. Conglomerate threshold at entrance to House of Columns at Mycenae. (Nos. A-B in fig. 7, wall in center of entrance corndor ts later).

Odyssey its presence is made clear. It was called an opoo@vpn and was described as follows: "Opoodüpn dE 1g Eoxev Eüöunto Evi toizw, | axpotatov SE nap ovdov Eüotaßeos neyapoıo | Tv

apprehend Melanthius,25> Odysseus and Telemachus were still near enough to the doorway to prevent the suitors from using it even though the doorway had been left unguarded.

6805 Es Aavpny, cavidec & Exov ev apapviar.243 After the description of this doorway, we are told that Odysseus ordered Eumaeus to guard this entrance and Eumaeus took his stand beside it.244 When the suitors were unable to leave the megaron

by its main entrance because of Odysseus’ position there, Angelaus suggested that someone might avaßain the Opoobvpn.24> The use of the verb avaßain suggests that the threshold was raised, a well-known feature of doorways in Mycenaean domestic architecture.2# Melanthius answered that this could not be done, since the way to the corridor, the Aavpn,247 was difficult and one man alone could guard it.248 In other words, the dpoo@vpn in the palace of Odysseus was a narrow doorway, with a raised threshold, which lead to a corridor. The location of this door was said to be axpotatov 5€ nap’ ovd0ov Eüctaßeog neyapoıo. This places the opoo8vpn by the side or near the axpotatov ovdov of the well-built megaron and not in the rear of the megaron as has often been suggested.249 The axpotatov ovddov is usually translated as the “topmost level of the threshold”250 or the edge of the threshold,?5! but axpog in addition to meaning topmost can

also mean outermost.*5? The outermost threshold can be understood to be in the doorway that lay furthest away, or the

doorway that led from the outside into the megaron, as opposed to inner doorways that led from one interior space to another.253 Such an interpretation places the axpotatov ovd0v in the main doorway into the megaron where Odysseus had taken his stance. This locates the opoo@Upn near the main entrance of the megaron, in a position where a second doorway into the main room was actually found in the House of Columns and in Panagia House II. A doorway in this position allows Eumaeus to take his stand there in order to keep the suitors from escaping by way of that exit. At the same ume it places him close enough to Odysseus and Telemachus so that he can talk to them and later help them in the actual fighting.?>* When Eumaeus departed with Philoetius to >

THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN AND THE SUITORS

ODYSSEUS

Once the location of the various entrances into Odysseus’ megaron and the position of the thalamos behind it are established, it becomes possible to reconstruct the events at the end of the Odyssey within an architectural frame. After Odysseus and Telemachus had met and made their plans in the hut of Eumaeus, Telemachus returned to the palace, crossing the stone threshold.256 This stone threshold appears to have been the threshold of the main doorway leading into the megaron. Later Eumaeus entered the same megaron, where he found Telemachus and the suitors eating. Odysseus disguised as a beggar entered soon afterwards.2°’ Pretending a meekness that befitted his role as a beggar, he sat on a threshold made of ash,258 the raised threshold of the opao@vpn, or side door of the megaron, from where he could observe all within the hall. Encouraged by Telemachus, Odysseus begged food from the suitors, only to be reviled and insulted. Odysseus then returned to the threshold,?59 presumably the same one made of ash in the opaoBvpn. After Eumaeus departed,” the book ends with the megaron filled with the suitors making merry with song and dance.26! The merry-making of the suitors was interrupted by the arrival of the public beggar Irus.*°? He argued with Odysseus on the polished threshold of the lofty door, presumably the main door of the megaron.?®? Earlier Odysseus had been sitting on the nearby threshold of the opoo@vpn. It must be assumed that Odysseus left his earher position and moved to the main entrance when he started talking to Irus.?®' After the suitors left, Telemachus and his father took down the weapons decorating the walls of the megaron. Wall paintings of the Mycenaean Period portray rows of figure-of-eight shields, sometimes shown with the decorative hook by which the shields were hung. fig. 29. These probably reflect in painting real weapons used as decoration.) No one at Ithaca seems to have

The Architecture of the Iliad and the Odyssey

19

noticed that the weapons were missing from the walls of the megaron, which suggests Odysseus’ palace had a similar type of

decoration with real shields superimposed on painted ones, thus masking the absence of the real shields and maintaining the decorative effect even when the weapons were needed elsewhere. The weapons removed from the megaron

at the beginning of

Odyssey Book 19 were said to have been stored in a @aAapoc.7% Earlier Telemachus

had instructed Eurycleia to close off that

portion of the palace where the women were housed,?% so it can be assumed that the hiding place of the weapons was somewhere near the main megaron and separated from the area being used by the women. After the weapons had been hidden, Telemachus retired for the night,?" the first meeting

between Penelope and Odysseus took place,?°’ Odysseus was recognized by Eurycleia,?”" and after further conversation the book ended with everyone sleeping. The next day when the suitors gathered once more, Telemachus arranged for Odysseus to sit on a stool within the megaron next to the stone threshold.??! The scene was set for

the trial of the bow.?72 Penelope brought the bow to the suitors and agreed to marry whoever could string the bow and shoot an arrow

through

the twelve axes.’’3 In an earlier passage

Penelope had stated that this contest had formerly been set up by Odysseus in the megaron,?’?

with megaron

Megaron in the plural should somewhere within the palace and room as some commentators Telemachus, the son of Odysseus

be understood to mean not specifically in the main have frequently argued. and thus presumably careful

in the plural.

of any possible damage that could have been caused, dug the trench in which the axes were set. He then returned to the threshold,?’3 where he tried to string the bow. Afterwards,

Fig. 29. Wall painting of figure-of-cight shield, from Cult Center at Mycenae. Nowhere

in this sequence did the bard say that the axes were

set up in the megaron itself and all attempts to string the bow took place on the threshold. Had anyone been able to string the

standing on the threshold, Leiodes tried to string the bow,*”" and when he failed he placed the bow against the polished door.??? At this point, the fire, presumably on the great hearth

bow, from the threshold he could have faced inward towards

of the megaron, was rekindled and wax was brought to try to soften the bow. The suitors were occupied within the megaron;

suitors, within the megaron, did not seize the axes and use them as weapons. This suggests that the axes had not been set up within the megaron itself.287 A trench had been dug to receive the axes, which would have damaged the floor of the megaron had the axes been set up in that position.28® Up to this point, the bard had informed us of the location of all the major action.

they had left the courtyard where the axes had been set up and the threshold where the attempts to string the bow had taken

place. Unnoticed by the suitors, Odysseus left his position by the main threshold of the megaron. He went outside the gateway and the court?’® and revealed his identity to his two faithful servants, Eumaeus and Philoetius. He then asked Philoetius to bar the gates of the courtyard and asked Eumaeus to bid the women lock themselves within the second megaron to ensure their safety.?’? These instructions were carried out.2# After Odysseus had revealed his identity to Eumaeus and Philoetius, he returned to the palace and sat down on the chair from which he had risen, the chair by the stone threshold.28! It was from this position that Odysseus eventually strung the bow

the megaron or outward, through the vestibule and porch, into the court.286 Later, when the slaughter began, the unarmed

He did not, however, mention the location of the trench, most

probably because he assumed that it took placed in the obvious position, that is to say in the courtyard. The suitors may not have cared whether they damaged the floor of the megaron, but this competition had been originally organized many years earlier by Odysseus himself, who would have been more responsible than to dig up the floor of his megaron, whether it was of clay or of stamped earth.

A hard earth floor, I have been informed by the villagers of

and shot the arrow through the ax heads.*8? Immediately thereafter Odysseus sprang upon the great threshold by which he

modern Mycenae, must be treated with great care if it is to remain serviceable. Such floors are not easily laid down and it

had been sitting.?#? This action places Odysseus on the

often takes years for an acceptable surface to be created. The

threshold of the main entrance into the megaron. While Odysseus attacked the suitors with the bow and arrows, Telemachus went to get weapons for himself, his father, Eumaeus, and Philoetius,”#? presumably from a nearby place. At the same time Eumaeus mounted guard at the other entranceway into the megaron, the opoo@vpn, or side

floors in the courtyards, moreover, were usually similar to those found inside the houses, and both should have been treated with equal care. The possibility that such a floor was wantonly dug up, whether it was in the courtyard or in the megaron, is very difficult to accept regardless of the period. The axes them-

selves present another problem. Although a possible arrange-

entrance.245

ment of Mycenaean axes set in a trench has been suggested,"*"

20

TALES OF HEROES

might have hidden the weapons and then to find a way to them.’ The suitors’ need for a person such as Melanthius who knew the plan of the palace accounts for their acceptance of him in the earlier scenes. The bard who first included Melan-

thius in the epic must have known that palace architecture varied and that the palaces originally consisted of many rooms that were not always arranged in the same way. This awareness

implies that the bard was familiar with the types of buildings constructed in the Mycenaean Period, since houses with many rooms and complicated plans were not built in the following

periods until much later in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. It also implies that Melanthius was part of the epic at an early Fig. 30. Mycenaean bronze ax head from bronze hoard found in citadel of AMLycenae. the low position of the axes makes it difficult for anyone seated on a stool to shoot an arrow through their openings. Normally axes of the Mycenaean Period were made of bronze, fig. 30. The ones that were to be used for the contest were said to have been made of iron. The use of iron to fashion a valuable object is appropriate for the Mycenaean Period but it also suggests

that the axes themselves had been specially designed for this particular sport. Specially designed axes for a specific, non-utilitarian purpose need not have been fashioned into the usual shape of a Mycenaean bronze ax used for everyday chores. Possibly they had a specialized form that differed slighuy from that of a true ax, just as the playing pieces in the game of chess called knight, king, or castle have abstract shapes that occur in a variety of forms, frequently only vaguely resembling their names. If the axes for the contest were different from the normal axes of the period, then possibly the tagpog also originally had a special meaning when it was used as part of a game. It might have been a stand of some sort especially designed to hold the playing pieces rigid within a groove or trough at the bottom of the stand. ‘The setting up of the axes under these circumstances would have been far easier and their position higher. It also avoids the problem of digging up the floor, whether it be in the megaron or in the courtyard, and possibly for this reason the location of the contest was not clearly defined in the original tale. Later bards, misunderstanding the particular connotations of the word tagpog in this sport, can be understood to have misrepresented the sequence, thereby misleading their audience and ultimately creating confusion in the modern interpretation. MELANTHIUS' AID TO THE SUITORS AND THE RHOGES In contrast to the two faithful servants, Eumaeus and Philoetius, there was the goatherd, Melanthius, who joined the suitors in taunting Odysseus, helping them in their efforts to string the bow, and siding with them in their fight against Odysseus." Melanthius, a mere goatherd, might seem to be a strange companion for the proud and haughty suitors, but the desirability of his support becomes clear as the action unfolds. Melanthius, the servant, was more familiar with the architecture of the palace than the suitors, who had been confined to the public rooms. It was Melanthius who explained to the suitors the difh- culty of trving to force a way through the opoo®upy and he had the knowledge to surmise where Telemachus and his father

date when his unique knowledge and its usefulness were recognized by the early bards. Melanthius, having surmised where the weapons had been hidden and being barred from both the front and side entrances into the megaron, went by way of the rhoges to the thalamos of Odysseus. €¢ dalanoug Odvonog ava pwyas neyapoıo.”": There he retrieved some of the weapons, which he passed down to the suitors. Odysseus and Telemachus, seeing the suitors with armor, realized that someone had entered the thalamos, ‘They expressed no doubts concerning the location of the retrieved

weapons, which indicates that there was only one set of weapons available in the palace and these were the weapons that they themselves had hidden. They also recognized that only Melanthius or one of the women servants was knowledgeable enough to know where the armor could have been hidden.

They then sent Eumacus and Philoetius to apprehend this person." The opoo8vpn, which Eumacus had been guarding. was at this point left unguarded. Had it been in the rear of the megaron as has sometimes been suggested, there was nothing to stop the suitors from escaping by way of that doorway. If this doorway were situated near the main entrance, as argued above, then Odysseus and his son were still close enough to it to prevent their escape. When Eumaeus and Philoetius went to the thalamos, they must have gone by some way other than the rhoges, around which the suitors were now clustered. It becomes apparent that there must have been more than one way to reach the thalamos. When it became evident that the

suitors had found the weapons, Telemachus accepted the blame, saying he must have left the door opened and that their watcher was better than he was.2?' This mention of a watcher suggests that a doorway or entrance of some sort to the thalamos was visible from the megaron. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL PARALLEL TO ODYSSEUS’ PALACE The architectural requirements of this scene are made clear by

the actions of the various parties in the epic. The slaughter took place in the megaron, the main room of the palace. This room had two entrances, the main doorway where ‘Telemachus and his father stood, and the opoo8vpn, which lay near the main entrance. Nearby there was a thalamos, where the weapons had been stored. This thalamos could be reached from the megaron by way of the poyes., which was the method used by Melanthius. or by way of a second entrance, which was used by Eumacus and Philoetius. A search for an archacological parallel that fulfills the requirements of this scene immediately reveals that Panagia House I, with one minor change, fulfills the necessary architectural demands, Panagia House I. fig. 3/. on purely archaeological

The Architecture of the Iliad and the Odyssey grounds, was restored as having two levels in the area of the rear room, no. 7 in fig. 3.295 The upper level of this room was

approached by a stairway restored at the north end of the corridor that lay parallel to the main room of the house. It shared a party wall with the megaron in which there was restored a large opening or window that allowed some sort of communication between the two rooms. The main room of Panagia House I had only one entrance. If we restore a second entrance between this room and the corridor, then all the archi-

tectural requirements of the scene in the Odyssey are met. The weapons could have been stored in the thalamos at the rear of the megaron, the upper level of our Room 7 of Panagia House I. Melanthius approached this room by way of the opening between the thalamos and the megaron, the payec of the epic, the restored window between Room 5 and the upper level of

Room 7. Penelope, after Odysseus’ departure for Troy, had not

21

the night.296 Melanthius, looking down into the megaron through the rhoges, was able to follow the ensuing action. Eumaeus and Philoetius, having apprehended Melanthius, returned to the megaron, using the same stair and corndor they had previously used. Proceeding down the corridor, they entered the megaron by way of the side door or opoo@vpn. Earlier Telemachus had used this same route to the thalamos when he retrieved weapons for himself, his father, Eumaeus,

and Philoetius.29? The two who escaped, Phemius the minstrel and Medon the herald,?%8 also used the side door and entering the corridor, they made their way into the courtyard. This side

entrance does not occur in Panagia House I, where it needs to be restored, if the requirements of the epic are to be meet. Although rare among the archaeological remains of the Mycenaean Period, secondary entrances into the megara are documented. They vary in their location and it was probably

used the thalamos built for her by Odysseus, but had occupied some other room on the upper level. The servants of the palace, including Melanthius, must have known that Penelope was not using the bridal thalamos during Odysseus’ absence. Since the thalamos was not in daily use it was available for the storage of

for this reason that the bard was so specific in his description of

the weapons,

Telemachus, overlooking the possibility that someone might conceive of entering the thalamos by way of the rhoges, had

In this reconstruction the interpretation of the p@yeg is crucial. The meaning of this word was not known at the time the first commentaries were being written and no satisfactory modern

forgotten to secure the doors or shutters covering them. Someone amid the suitors, presumably Melanthius, observed

sort was restored between the thalamos on the upper level and

a fact that was

known

to Melanthius.

its location. THE DEFINITION

OF THE

RHOGES

definition has been suggested.299 A window or opening of some

that the shutters were not tightly closed and realized that the rhoges could be used as a means of entrance into the thalamos. When Eumaeus and Philoetius left to apprehend Melanthius, they left by way of the orsothyre, the doorway restored in the east wall of Room 5. Since the doorway was next to the main

the megaron below in both Panagia House I and Panagia House II. This restoration is based on the preserved archaeological remains of Panagia House II, which necessitate a window in this position because of the existence of a terrace wall to the west of the house. A window of this type can be

entrance, Odysseus and his son were able to keep the suitors from using it as a means of escape. After Eumaeus and

thalamos, they tied him up and suspended him from the roof

identified as the rhoges of Odysseus’ palace. Such a window allows direct communication between the thalamos and the megaron.2 Because of its position high in the wall separating the two rooms, it was not used in normal circumstances as an entrance, hence explaining Telemachus’ oversight in fastening the shutters. The origin of the window in the Middle Helladic

beams, from where they bade him to keep watch throughout

Period explains its unusual width, which was so great that a

Philoetius left the megaron, they approached the thalamos, the upper level of Room 7, by way of the corndor and stair, no. 6, which lay parallel to the main room. Finding Melanthius in the

Fig. 31. Panagia House I with courtyard tn foreground, vestibule and megaron with central hearth behind. (Nos. 1, 3, 5 in fig. 3).

22

TALES OF HEROES

rin nen ad dere

dead it

Fig. 32. Painted floor of main megaron in palace at Tiryns. Restored drawing by G. Rodenwaldt.

large eagle could fly through it. The great width necessitated the use of double shutters, hence the use of the plural form.*0! Although only one sleeping chamber of this type existed in Panagia House I, it should be assumed that the palaces, which multiplied many of the features of the houses, had a variety of such chambers overlooking the megaron. In later periods when thalamoi with their double level behind the main room were no longer built, the existence of the window was forgotten and the meaning of the term p@yeg was no longer understood. The word is preserved today in the epic because it was used by Melanthius as a means of entering the thalamos. The phrase €¢ Baldyovs Odvoros ava pwyas neyapoıo was apparently retained by generations of bards in order to explain Melanthius' actions even though the bards at the end of the oral tradition did not understand the meaning of the word. After Melanthius had given some of the armor from the thalamos to the

suitors,2 he returned to the thalamos to get more weapons and when he was about to pass over the threshold he was apprehended by the two loyal herdsmen. Once Melanthius had entered the thalamos by way of the rhoges, he appears to have been entering and leaving the thalamos in a normal way,’ which does not fit the reconstruction suggested here. We need to assume that later bards of the oral tradition misrepresented Melanthius’ actions because they no longer had a clear understanding of position of the rhoges and its relationship to the thalamos and the megaron. THE

FLOORS

OF

THE

PALACE

After the slaughter of the suitors, the process of cleaning the megaron was described. Vhe female servants washed the furniture with water. Telemachus. Eumaeus, and Philoetius scraped the floor, removing the upper levels along with the

blood stains.*°# Iı has been said that a clay floor with painted decoration, such as was found in the palace at Tiryns, fig. 32, would not have been treated in such a cavalier manner,?"5 but the preceding events were not ordinary. During the description of the slaughter repeated references were made to wine and food scattered on the floor and to blood awash upon its surface.* Scraping off the top surfaces might have seemed the most expedient method at hand since the spilled liquids had already been partially absorbed by the clay floor. Washing a clay floor with water alone is simply not very effective. The floor, even if it had had painted decoration, must have been in sorry condition already before the slaughter. Amid the havoc wrought by the suitors in the palace, the floor would not have been spared. Wine and food must often have been spilled on

the floor during the banqueting and we can assume that after the many years of Odysseus’ absence, the floor already needed refurbishing even before his return. Painted clay floors in the

Mycenaean Period were frequently renewed.?”’ A bard aware of this practice need not have been concerned with the preservation of one simple floor when there existed so many other more important problems resulting from the slaughter. THE STUCCOED

WALLS

OF THE

PALACE

The absence of any mention of wall paintings in the narrative has sometimes been cited as evidence that the habitations in the Ihad and Odyssey were not Mycenacan. Fragments of wall paintings have been found in the palaces. figs. 81 82, 89-91, 93 94, 102 3 and the private houses alike, figs. 33. 52, 110-12, Hf 173° Their existence may not have seemed particularly noteworthy to the people of that age, since they were used in the habitations of the very important, as well as in the houses of

The Architecture of the Iliad and the Odyssey

23

the more humble. It was suggested above that mud brick, although not specifically mentioned, can be inferred from statements made about construction. In a similar manner, wall paintings can also be inferred from the actions of the heroes, although no specific mention of them was made. In the scene where the great bow of Odysseus was being handled by various

different people, it was always noted, when the bow was put down,

where

it was placed, whether

it was put against the

polished door or the polished door post.?09 When people were said to lean against the architecture, the wooden

doorpost or

column was always identified.3!° Telemachus, carrying a spear as he entered the palace, was said to place the spear npög xiova naxpniv | Soupoööoxng Evroodev EvEGov, against the tall pillar of

the polished spear-rack,?!! where were the many spears of Odysseus.3!2 Nowhere is it ever said that a person or an object leaned against a wall, unless the wall was specifically identified as npög Evora napgdavowvta.3!3 This absolute insistence that objects or people leaned against a wooden surface or a surface that was specifically identified as being Evonıa napgavowvta reads almost like a childhood prohibition about placing objects

against walls. Walls were not to be touched or marred, in order to avoid damaging their surfaces. Walls treated with such care must have been special in some way. In the Mycenaean Period

special walls of this sort are most easily identified as walls that had been decorated with painted plaster. If this interpretation is correct, then the Evonıa napoavowvta, the surface against which things were placed, should represent a second type of

wall, a wall that had no painted decoration.3!4 The evanıa raudavöwvta are’ commonly defined as an inner wall of some sort, usually the side wall of an entranceway, but this definition is not appropriate when it is applied to the hut of

Idomeneus at Troy,3!5 nor does it explain why it was permissible to place objects against it. Perhaps the evanıa should be redefined as the surface of the wall rather than the wall itself. If

it meant the surface, it could apply equally to a wall in a courtyard (/l. 8.435; Od. 4.42), a wall in the hut of Idomeneus at Troy (dl. 13.261) and a wall in a palace (Od. 22.121), the four occurrences of the word. The adjective ransavöwvta, defined

as all gleaming or all shining,?!6 when used to describe the Evonıa, most aptly described a surface that had been painted

white and hence all gleaming, a wall which had been whitewashed. The evonıa naygavowvta become the whitewashed surface of the wall against which objects could be placed in contrast to those walls whose surfaces had painted decoration

and which were not to be touched.3!7 THE MESODMAI

IN THE WALLS

In the description of the walls of the palace of Odysseus, there also occurs another term, the peodSya1.3!8 This same term, in the singular, was used for ships, where the context indicates that

it served as a socket, base, or support for the mast of the ship.3!9

Fig. 33. Wall painting from Panagia House II (top). Restored drawing by P. Saraphianos (bottom).

The agaquwrs

weapons from the megaron by the light of the golden lamp held by Athena.322 Telemachus remarked to his father that the light was so bright that even the toixoı neyapwv Kadai te peodduat,223 the walls and the fair neoödnar of the megaron,

along with the ceiling beams and the tall columns, were visible. The second time the word was used as a part of the architecture, Theoclymenus, foreseeing the slaughter of the suitors, warned that the walls and the xaAai te neoödnar would be bathed in blood. If the neoöönaı are interpreted as the wooden framework of the walls, they were normally covered with

painted plaster, and hence not visible in ordinary circumstances. But even a plastered wall, which consists of Mycenaean timbered construction, has a slightly uneven surface unless covered by a plaster of much greater thickness and of better quality than that used in the Mycenaean Period. When Telemachus first referred to the neoööhar, he seemed to be

saying that the light (provided by Athena and hence of special quality) was so very bright that the uneven surface of the walls

Since it formed part of a ship, it can be assumed to have been

and hence even the peoddyat beneath the plaster were visible,

made of wood. Wooden elements in the plural forming some

just as the tops of the columns

sort of socket, base, or support in a wall immediately bring to

mind the wooden framework used specifically in the Bronze Age to support the stone and mud brick walls of that period, fig. 34.320 Similar to the neoödnaı are the oak beams used by Eumaeus in the construction of his courtyard wall and the thick stakes used for the courtyard wall of Achilles’ establishment at Troy.32! When the neoödnaı were first mentioned in association with the walls, Odysseus and his son were removing the

and the ceiling beams

high

overhead could also be seen in this light. When Theoclymenus was foretelling that the walls would be spattered with blood, he was saying that so much blood would be spilled that its dampness on the walls would reveal the structure beneath the plaster, that is to say that the firm wooden neoöönaı, as opposed to the hard stone socle and the softer mud brick forming the fabric of the wall, would become visible beneath the dampened plaster. This interpretation of the peoddpat

24

TALES OF HEROES Fig. 34. Basement corndor of House of Columns with horizontal and vertical slots in wall where wooden beams orginally stood. (No. Y in fig. 7; cf. fig. 18 for restored drawing of this kind of constructon).

satisfies the philological roots of the word, explains with an

THE ROOFS OF THE HOUSES

archaeological parallel an obscure architectural term, and

Whether Mycenaean houses had flat roofs or pitched roofs has been hotly debated for decades.326 The archaeological evidence

serves to enhance the meaning of the passages where they were mentioned by emphasizing the quality of the light in the first passage and the quantity of blood in the second. THE THOLOS A 86A0g in the courtyard of Odysseus’ palace was mentioned three times.*24 Since the tholos stood in the courtyard, it was presumably not very large, but at the same time it must have been taller than the women who were hanged from the rope anchored to one end of it. The word itself, as used in later periods, suggests that it was round. No other information is known about the @6A0¢ in the Odyssey and its meaning as it was

is contradictory. Certain sites, such as Gla and Berbati, seem to indicate that Mycenaean buildings had pitched roofs, whereas others, such as the Panagia Houses, almost certainly had flat roofs. Faced with this conflicting evidence, I suggested that both types of roofs were used in the Mycenaean Period, depending on the location, the architectural needs of the building, and the degree of Minoan influence.32? The evidence from the /lad and Odyssey is also conflicting. The hut built by the Myrmidons for Achilles at Troy had a pitched roof,328 whereas the roof of Circe’s house must have been flat because it was on this roof

that Elpenor slept before falling to his death.329 Since both

uscd in the epic remains obscure.*25 It is therefore impossible to

types of roofs appear to have been used in the Mycenaean

determine whether the 80%0g belongs with the Mycenaean survivals or whether it should be dated to a later period.

Period, references to the two types in the epics can be understood as a reflection of the early architecture.330

Fig. 35. Gold nng from LH Chamber Tomb 91 at Mycenae tllustrating hypaethral altar (enlarged).

THE ALTAR

OF ZEUS

HERKEIOS

During the slaughter of the suitors, Phemius and Medon escaped from the megaron, and going into the courtyard they

sat at the altar of Zeus Herkeios.33! In the Jlad burnt sacrifices were described as taking place in the courtyard of the palace of Peleus.332 Presumably this sacrifice, as well as many of the

others mentioned,?33 took place on an altar of some sort located in the courtyards. Although altars have been uncovered in courtyards of religious centers,**4 and they were illustrated in Mycenaean art, fig. 35, they do not normally occur in the courtyards of private houses of Mycenaean date. At Pylos, in a building associated with the palace, a shrine facing an outdoor altar was identified, no. 93 in fig. 9,335 and another altar was found in the courtyard of the latest phase of the potter’s estab-

lishment at Berbati.336 Shrines incorporated into the Minoan palaces and altars placed in their courtyards are well-known.33? These scattered examples, however, are few and they make the

interpretation of the altars located in the courtyards of the

26

TALES OF HEROES

Fig. 38. East end of fortification wall at Mycenae with sally port leading from citadel to area immediately outside the fortifications. palaces of Odysseus and Peleus problematical. These altars could be considered Mycenaean and to have been derived from the altars at Pylos, Berbati, and the Minoan palaces. or they could represent altars from the religious area being transferred into the palaces. '38 Equally they could be a later accretion from post-Mycenaean umes.*" It is known from the Linear B tablets that the Olympian gods were already being worshipped in the Mycenaean Period and that these gods had buildings, temene, slaves, and valuable possessions. 4° At Mycenae a cult center has been identified that had buildings, enclosed courtyards containing altars, processional ramps, large terracotta idols, and other accoutrements.4! Outdoor sanctuaries and shrines of Mycenaean date have long been known.?!? Religious installations within private houses have also been uncovered.+!) Such archaeological remains accord well with references in the epics to temples,*44 altars in sacred enclosures, "> and outdoor shrines and sanctuaries.4 In one of Odysseus’ false tales he mentioned the oracle at Dodona.44’ The archaeological remains from Dodona indicate that this sanctuary started in the third millennium and was used throughout the Bronze Age." Herodotus identified it as the oldest oracle in Greece and he said that at one time it was the only oracle}! When Delphi was mentioned, the older name Pytho was used and not the later name of Delphi." The sanctuary of Delos was described as a palm tree next to an altar, again hinting at an early stage of the cult.) All these shrines named in the epics have Mycenaean remains in their lowest levels. This is in contrast to the great lonian sanctuaries at Samos. Sardis, Ephesos, and Didyma. which were founded atter the lonian migration and which were

not mentioned in the epics. It is only the altar of Zeus Herkeios in the courtyard of the palace of Odysseus and the altar in the

palace of Peleus that may be out of place. This altar, the unknown tholos, the single reference to a spear-rack,°2 and the temple of Athena at Troy'*’ are in fact the only elements among the many references to architecture in the epics that do not have a clear Mycenaean parallel. THE GATES

AT TROY

Even the fortifications can be seen to reflect the architectural practices of the Mycenaean Period. Throughout the /ltad individual warriors as well as groups of armed men entered or left the fortified citadel of Troy. Two gates were mentioned by name, the Scaean Gate? and the Dardanian Gate.> Aristarchus suggested that Homeric ‘Troy had only one gate and that both names were used for a single gate. °° Commentators even to this dav have debated whether there were one or two gates.” but no general consensus has been reached. 14 The first two references to the Scaean Gate occurred when the elders of Troy, no longer able to fight because of age. gathered together on top of the gate to watch the fighting.**' This scene can be visualized as taking place at the main city gate constructed ın Mycenaean fashion with two strongly built bastions on either side of the entrance, similar to the Lion Gate at Mycenae. fig. 36. or the somewhat simpler Postern Gate, fig. 37. The elders sat on top of the bastions and from there they had a clear view of the bauleheld. "The third mention of the Scaean

The Architecture of the Iliad and the Odyssey Gate identified it as the gate used by Priam when he left the city

to make sacrifice prior to the duel between

Paris and

Menelaus.?6! Any of the gates could have been opened since a truce had been called, but the formality of the occasion suggests that Priam used the main gate of the city. Hector also used this gate as he entered or left the city and in one of these episodes an oak tree was said to be near the gate.46? When the fighting neared the city, it was around this gate that much of the action

took place.363 Elsewhere Achilles stated that as long as he himself was fighting, Hector was careful not to go far from the gate and the oak tree, again reflecting the strategic importance of the gate.56+ When the Trojans finally retreated into the city, they presumably used this same gate. After the retreat of the Trojans, Hector was said to have remained alone outside the fortifications, in front of Troy and the Scaean Gate.6° Once

the retreat had taken place, the gate needed to be closed and barred in order to prevent the Achaeans from following the retreating Trojans into the city. Hector's subsequent actions clearly imply that the Scaean Gate had been closed. Hector, becoming aware of Achilles, no longer dared to stay where he was but left the gate behind him and fled in fear.*** Had the Scaean Gate remained opened, when Hector first realized his danger, he would simply have entered it instead of fleeing. After Hector left the gate, he was chased by Achilles and the two ran round the city wall.3#’ Realizing his danger Hector tried to reach the Dardanian Gate, only to be cut off by Achilles. %68 Hector’s attempt to reach a gate, identified in the epic as the Dardanian Gate, assumes the existence of a second gate, one that had not been closed but still offered a means of escape into the city. The central section of the city of Troy, as uncovered by archaeologists, had at least three other gates in addition to the main city gate, and Mycenaean fortifications were regularly built with one or two very small exits, such as the opening in the eastern wall of the fortifications at Mycenae, figs. 38-39. Such openings appear not to have been barred in any way but they are so small that have could be defended by a few warriors. These served as a way of departure for scouts and messengers. They

also served as an exit for small forays of warriors, enabling them to attack the unsuspecting rear of the invading army. They were generally constructed in those parts of the fortification that were difficult of access in order to make attack by the enemy more perilous, and they lay at some distance from the main entrance so that warriors fighting around the main gate could not immediately see any action initiated at the smaller exits. Once the main gate had been closed, any attempt to enter the city had to use one of these minor doorways. Because this type of entrance was difficult to approach, it was possible for even a single warnor to block such action. Once the Scaean the beginning of with the typical have sought one

Gate was closed at the end of Book 21 and Book 22 of the /liad, had Hector been faced Mycenaean fortifications, he would naturally of these minor gates, here identified as the

Dardanian Gate. Achilles, relying on his superior speed in running, could easily have blocked a single warrior from reaching such a gate. Later Priam, seeing the body of his beloved son being dragged through the dust, in a frenzy of anguish tried to leave the city. His intention was to leave by way of the Dardanian Gate." With the enemy still fighting at

the base of the fortifications, there was no possibility of opening the main gate for his departure. A smaller, minor doorway,

27

located some distance from the main gate and hence the scene of fighting, seems to be indicated. The one remaining reference to the Dardanian

Gate can be

used to strengthen its identification as a small postern gate.3/0 In {had Book 5, Hera disguised as Stentor scolded the Argives. She reminded them that, as long as Achilles fought, the Trojans did not dare to come forth from the fortifications, even by the Dardanian Gate, but now that Achilles was no longer fighting Hector had led his troops far from the city walls to fight by the

ships. Later in /liad Book 9, the statement was made by Achilles that Hector had fought previously only close to the walls, no further than the oak tree and the Scaean Gate.?’! Achilles seems to be saying that Hector, having led his forces outside the fortification, fought only in front of the Scaean Gate, in the open area immediately in front of the gate where the oak tree stood, flanked by bastions. These two statements appear to contradict each other unless we assume that two different gates were intended and two different types of forays were being discussed. The two statements become compatible if we interpret the one statement to mean that from the Scaean Gate, the main gate, Hector led his troops only as far as the oak tree, thereby remaining near the fortification walls and the added

protection of supplementary forces standing on the bastions above. The other statement referred to a completely different type of fighting and it informs us that from the Dardanian Gate,

or the small postern gate, Hector did not exit at all, not even to lead small, nightly forays or surprise attacks. Fig. 39. Detail of sally port at Mycenae.

28

TALES OF HEROES

Fig. 40. The Northwest Bastion of the citadel at Mycenae. THE MYCENAEAN ORIGIN OF HOMERIC ARCHITECTURE

The Mycenacan parallels to the architectural references in the epics solve many of the problems that have faced scholars for centuries and make it clear that the architecture of the epics must have been based on Late Helladic prototypes. The division of the palaces into the megara, porches, courtyards, and colonnades portrayed in the Homeric world of epic has its

counterpart in the archacological record. The two distinct types of thalamoi, the one used as a bedchamber and the other as a storage area for valuable personal articles, related in the poetic world, can be explained by the development of the Mycenaean house. The thalamos used for sleeping as opposed to the vnepw@iov used by Penelope can be identified with specific rooms within the houses, and the characteristics of the two different types of rooms can be seen to be reflected by the adjectives used to describe them. ‘Terms such as avonata, opooBvpn, Payes, and peoddua, which have long frustrated both ancient commentators and modern philologists, can be defined

on the basis of actual Mycenacan remains. These represent elements unique to the Bronze Age houses, and they ceased to exist as part of domestic architecture after the fall of the Mycenaean civilization. The events that form the climax of the Odyssey can be seen to fit within the architectural frame of a Mycenaean house as known from the preserved remains. Even the negative imprint of wall paintings can be seen to be reflected in the evanıa raudavowvta, which itself as an architectural description receives a new definition. Temples, shrines, and fortifications each reflect actual remains, and the centuriesold debate over the number of gates used at Troy can be solved on the basis of the archaeological evidence. ‘The parallels are with the Mycenaean world, not with the Dark Age or the Geometric Period when large, complex houses with many rooms were no longer being built and heroic batdes over formidable, forufied cities were no longer being fought. They clearly indicate that the descriptions of the architecture were based on the buildings of the prehistoric period and they immediately

question the derivation of the other parts of the epics.

I THE WEAPONS USED BY THE HOMERIC HEROES

HE CLASH OF WEAPONS, the gleam of shields, and the flash-

ing of bronze make a vivid impression of sound and sight on the battlefield of Troy, remembered by all who have heard or read the /liad. The era reflected by the weapons has been long debated. In view of the close similarity between the epic description of the architecture, fig. 40, and the actual remains from the Mycenaean Period, the question naturally arises whether the armor also reflects the Mycenaean era. A wide variety of words was used to describe the weapons. Frequently the words come in pairs, such as oaxog or donic for shield and

d6pv or Eyxos for spear, with one of the pair being pre-Greek in origin and the other Indo-European.! The occurrence of such pairs might suggest a pre-Greek origin for segments of the epic tradition,? but they also imply that some of the weapons were pre-Greek, whereas others were brought in or developed by the Indo-European people themselves. An examination of the way these double terms were used in the /had and less frequently in the Odyssey makes it possible to establish that the two terms originally represented two different pieces of equipment and that they were not simply two different words for the same weapon. A comparison of the epic references with the archacological remains, furthermore, indicates that they reflect the Mycenaean world, as believed by the ancient Greeks, and not the armor of

the eighth century or the Dark Age, as claimed in modern scholarship. THE SHIELDS

One pair of weapons often mentioned in the /liad was the shields, but for the most part modern scholars view the oaKxog and the aorig as being two different words for the same type of shield. This type is usually identified as the small round shield, which was said to be the dominant form at the end of the Mycenaean Period and during the Dark Age. This view places heavy emphasis on the Warrior Vase found at Mycenae, fg. 125, which depicts small rounded shields on one side.? When the weapons of the /lad are compared with those used by the Mycenaeans, constant reference is made to representations of armor from the Shaft Graves at Mycenae, usually with the implication that these weapons were no longer in use towards the end of the Mycenaean Age.‘ The glorious armor of the earlier period, it is often implied, was only a memory by the end of that era.> The proponents of this view ignore the fact that the

Shaft Graves alone of the rich graves of the Mycenaean Period remained intact and it is for this reason that their contents appear so splendiferous when compared to the artefacts remaining in the other tombs.6 Mycenae itself boasts of nine tholos tombs, but these were found virtually empty. The comparatively large scale and magnificent workmanship of the socalled Treasury of Atreus, fig. #1,’ do not suggest that the tholos was constructed for the burial of an individual accompanied by a few weapons, a small round shield, and miscellaneous terracotta pots. If the architecture and scattered finds from the tholoi are any indication, these late burials must have included gold, ivory, and magnificent armor, which originally rivaled the weapons and other grave goods of the Shaft Graves.® Large body shields, both figure-of-eight and tower in shape, can now be shown to have existed and to have been used in battle by the discovery of a small sherd in the citadel at Tiryns, fig. 42. This fragment from a Late Helladic III A krater portrays two warTiors; one wears a boar’s tusk helmet and is holding a spear and a tower shield; the second, less well preserved, is a bearded

figure holding a figure-of-eight shield. These two figures were clearly warriors prepared to fight, and their use of body shields indicates that this type continued to be used long after the Shaft Grave Period.? The undeniable evidence for the use of tower and figure-ofeight shields for warfare in the Late Helladic III period provided by the sherd from Tiryns helps to identify these same types of shields amid the fragmentary remains of the wall paintings from Pylos. One small fragment was identified as part of an oxhide shield of uncertain shape and was associated with a partially preserved armed warrior wearing greaves, fig. 43. The circular outline of the shield with its covering of bull’s hide is clear on the preserved fragment. The curved outer edge suggests that its original shape was either round or figure-of-eight. If the shield were round it would have had a diameter equal to approximately half the height of the warrior.!0 A shield of this size is unlike any preserved representation of the Mycenaean Period and for this reason its restoration as a round shield is almost certainly incorrect. If the shield were restored as being figure-of-eight in shape, the same curved edge indicates a restored shield with a height roughly two-thirds the height of the warrior.!! Although this is somewhat smaller than the great shields of the earlier Mycenaean Period, the height compares

30

TALES OF HEROES Fig. 41. The so-called Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae, the burial place butlt for a late Mycenaean ruler.

favorably with the size of the shield Tiryns, fig. 42, and the shields carried the Miniature Fresco from Thera, fg. ment from Pylos, again preserving appears to come from the bottom of a

found on the sherd from by the armed warriors on 52. A second stucco fragonly part of the shield, tower shield.!2

Once representations of tower shields and the figure-of-eight shields are identified in scenes of battle painted in Late Helladic III A-B, then it becomes apparent that the great body shields were known and were probably still used at the end of the Mycenaean Period. The small round shields, which appear late

bronze and seven bull’s hides, xaAxeov ertaßoeıov. The shield had been made for him by Tychius, identified as “by far the best worker of hide.” It was flashing, aidAov, and consisted of seven hides, with an eighth layer of bronze.!” The phrase of Ajax approaching like a tower reoccurred in two other passages.!8 This shield was also called broad, evpv, and large, peyadov.'9 So heavy was the shield that Ajax grew weary holding it and on occasion his comrades held it for him.?0 So wide was its surface, that Ajax used it to protect both himself and a comrade.?! Achilles considered this shield alone of those used at

in the artistic tradition, pale into insignificance when viewed

Troy by the Achaeans to be an appropriate substitute for his

next to the large body shields. If the epic tradition did reflect the Mycenaean Age, then this tradition, which glorified the great warriors of that period, naturally attributed to the warriors the more impressive types of shields. The two sides of the Warrior Vase with the two different kinds of shields and the sherd from Tiryns showing both tower and figure-of-cight shields suggest, furthermore, that different groups of warriors in the Mycenaean Period carried different types of weapons, similar to the different groups of warriors portrayed on the earlier Lion-Hunt Dagger, fg. 44, the Silver Krater,fig. 55, and the Silver Siege Rhyton, fig. 62, from Grave Circle A at Mycenae.!3

own shield, which had been captured.?? The statement made by Achilles clearly implies that the Achaean shields varied in size and that the shield used by Ajax was unusually large. Not surprisingly, this same shield was called terrible, and on two occasions it was said to shine.?3 In one episode the boss or onoaAösg on the shield was struck by a weapon.?* From this description the tower shield portrayed in Mycenaean art can be easily recognized, figs. 42, 44-45, 52.25

In the /liad the two important shields are the odxoc, a word of Indo-European origin, and the aonic, a pre-Greek word. In one passage describing the melee of heated battle both oaxog and aonic were mentioned,'! suggesting that the two words referred to two different types of equipment. The oaxog was cited eighty-six times in the /liad, whereas the aonig was mentioned 110 times.'> This discrepancy in the usage may indicate that the odKos was the lesser of the two shields. This same conclusion is suggested by the action of Nestor’s son Thrasymedes, who was said to have taken his father’s aonic, leaving behind his own oaxoc. !" The oaxog was described in the /liad on various occasions. The first elaborate descripuon occurred during the duel between Ajax and Hector. Ajax, approaching Hector, held before him a shield said to be like a tower, saxos note mvpyov. made of

The oaxog made by Hephaestus for Achilles was also described at some length.?6 Since it was made by a god, a certain element of epic exaggeration might be expected. In preparation for making the armor, Hephaestus melted bronze, tin, gold, and silver,2? the symbols of wealth and elegance during the Mycenaean Period. The use of tin in the construction of the shield seems to hark back to the Mycenaean Period when tin was considered a decorative metal, unlike its later connotations.?® The shield itself was made of five layers, névte ... nrüxec, and it had a strap made of silver, 0 teAaua@v apyvpeos.*” It was described as being péya te otıßapov te, large and sturdy.” These same words described the shields used in the arming scenes of Paris, Patroclus, and later Achilles.?! Since the shield was made by a god, it was said. not surprisingly, to have been cunningly made on all sides. navtoce dSardaAAwv, and it was later described as well-made, mvKa mointoto, as well as fair and cunningly made, xadov datdad£éov.** Around the edges of the shield, Hephaestus put a bright rim, avruya ... oaeıvnv, which consisted of three

The Weapons Used by the Homenc Heroes Er SE a

meer

oe

a

31

oe

Fig. 43. Fragments of wall painting from the palace at Pylos portraying warnor wearing greaves and part of ox-hide shield. less practical, method of layering metal.3 The shield was also said to shine like the moon, giving off a gleam that went to heaven.3’ Immediately after this description, which occurred in

the arming scene, Achilles was said to have put on a helmet that Fig. 42. LH III A sherd from Tiryns showing warnors with body shields and boar's tusk helmet.

shone like a star, having been fashioned out of gold by Hep-

layers, tpitAaxa, and was glittering, nappapenv.3? The three layers of the rim, as opposed to the five layers of the shield, sug-

suggests poetic imagery, corresponding to the artistic representations of the sun and the moon on two Mycenaean gold rings, one from Mycenae and a second from Tiryns, figs. 46-47.39

gest that the prototype had a rim that differed from the fabric of the rest of the shield. A rim as a distinct element of the shield is

reflected on the representations of both the tower and figure-ofeight shields of the Mycenaean Period, figs. 42-43, 52-53, 61. In a later passage the five layers of the shield were identified as two of bronze, two of tin, and one of gold; the layer of gold, the gift of the god, was the layer that stopped the spear thrown by

Aeneas. Although this description of the shield probably owes a great deal to poetic imagination, the layering of different metals has a parallel in three signet rings of Late Helladic III A date found in a tholos tomb at Dendra. Those rings consist of four different metals, one on top of the other, with silver on the

inside, covered by lead, then copper, and finally on the outside with iron. A shield made of a combination of gold, bronze, and tin does not seem very practical, and certainly gold, which is softer than bronze, should not have stopped a spear under normal conditions. The shield, however, was not normal. It was made by a god and a god in the epic tradition can easily have been perceived as using the more elaborate and elegant, even if Fig. 44. The Lion-Hunt Dagger from Grave Circle A at Mycenae.

haestus.3® The juxtaposition of star and moon in this passage

There is nothing in this description to contradict the identification of the odxoc as a tower shield. On the contrary, a shield made by a god for one of the greatest warriors on the battlefield would quite naturally have been visualized by the bard as being one of the largest and grandest of the shields in use at the time.

Certainly the shield of Achilles cannot have been perceived as being smaller than the shield of Ajax, and if Ajax’s shield is identified as a large body shield, then Achilles’ shield should be of equal size.

The decoration on the shield made by Hephaestus for Achilles was described in some detail. The motifs used in the decoration have many parallels in Minoan-Mycenaean art. First the god made the earth, the sky, and the sea, and in the heavens he placed the sun and moon and the many constellations, comparable in motif to the sun and moon on the gold rings illustrated in figs. 46-47. Two cities of men were portrayed, one at peace and the other at war; the contrast between the activities of cities

at war and at peace is well illustrated in the Thera Miniature Fresco, figs. 52, 110, 112.41 On the shield in the city at peace

32

TALES OF HEROES there were bridal processions, with young men dancing and singing while the women standing in front of their houses watched, similar to the many spectators appearing in the Thera

Miniature Fresco.# People were gathered in the place of assem-

Wo

ve

aie

On ($

ke

[EZ

bly where the elders sat in a circle of polished stone seats, recalling the stepped areas adjacent to the palaces at Knossos and Phaestos?? and the assembly of men in the countryside of the Thera Miniature Fresco, fig. 711. In the city at war portrayed on the shield the women and children stood on the ramparts, equivalent to the women watching the battle scenes in the Silver Siege Rhyton, fig. 62, and the wall painting from the palace at Mycenac."* In the war-torn city of the shield the men prepared an ambush, described in such a way that it becomes almost identical to the ambush portrayed in the Thera Miniature Fresco, fig. 52. Then Hephaestus added a field being plowed by men who alternately worked and refreshed themselves with wine. In the king’s temenos!® men were reaping, reflecting a motif illustrated by the men in the Harvester Vase, fie. 105, and a feast was being prepared." In the vineyard grapes were gathered amid song and dance, recalling the many scenes of singing and dancing from Crete and scenes of dancing on Mycenaean seals, fig. 101.8 There were men herding cattle, paralleled by the men and cattle shown in the Vaphcio Cups,

figs. #8 49. a meadow with flocks of sheep? and two lions attacking a bull, similar to the attacking lions represented on

seals from Midea and Mycenae, figs. 95 96,°' and the lion portrayed in the landscape of the Thera Miniature Fresco, fig. 50. Then the god added a dancing floor like the one made by Daedalus for Ariadne at Knossos,’? where young men, wearing golden knives at their waist,’? wooed young maidens with garlands in their hair?! and around them a multitude of people was portrayed, once again recalling the many scenes from Crete that portray singing and dancing watched by spectators.» The entire composition was enclosed by Oceanus, which Hephaestus placed along the outermost rim of the shield.”

Fig. 45. (top) Gold ring portraying warnor holding tower shield from Grave Circle A at Mycenae (enlarged). Fig. 46. (middle) Gold ring from Mycenae (enlarged). Fig. 47. (above) Gold ring from Tiryns (enlarged).

These scenes were fashioned out of gold, tin, silver, and blue glass paste. This type of decoration reflects the inlaid techniques of Mycenaean metalwork, thus associating the decoration with the Mycenaean world, as has long been recognized. The subject of this decoration is clearly the “kosmos,” the world as viewed by man, but it is a curiously limited world. Agriculture was described extensively, whereas crafts and industry were comFigs. 48-49. (below) Gold cups from Tholos Tomb at Vapheio.

The Weapons Used by the Homenc Herves

33

Fig. 50. (above) Landscape in Miniature Fresco from Thera. Fig. 31. (night) Wall painting portraying dogs from palace at Pylos. Restored drawing by Piet de Jong. pletely ignored, just as they are ignored, for the most part, in the /had and Odyssey.*’ It is exclusively the world of man and of

his activities, both in umes of peace and in umes of war;?# the gods and their shrines were not included. Singing, dancing, and eating were heavily emphasized, and the only wild animal men-

tioned was the lion.” The labors of man portrayed in the agricultural scenes were accompanied by rich harvests, fat cattle, and rewards of food and drink. This is the world of MinoanMycenaean wall painting, where song, dance, and the activities of man were set within an organized landscape of buildings and towns, with flowers, birds, and sea animals enriching the scenes. After the Mycenaean Period, Greek artists almost never portrayed landscapes, and the crafts of men were often illustrated.

Only briefly, during the Orientalizing Period, were animals extensively drawn; not infrequently these animals were mythical beasts or hybrids set against a plain background.®! When architecture was illustrated briefly during the Archaic Period, it was in abbreviated form, showing merely the outdines of the buildings around the human forms.*? The world of man with its city at peace and its city at war, its surrounding countryside, and the river Oceanus described on the shield are portrayed visually in the Miniature Fresco from Thera. ‘This fresco, only 0.43 m. in height, decorated the top of the walls, in an insignificant location within the room.®3 However the individual scenes of the fresco may be interpreted, and there have been many suggestions made, it is clear that the overall composition reflects the representation of man’s various activities within a world centered on himself. Here we see cities portrayed in times of both

war and peace. Agriculture is shown and wild animals in the countryside are portrayed. Even the great river finds its place, ‚fie. 50, and many of the individual scenes and details find their parallel in epic tradition.’ It is a very selective world similar to the world portrayed on the shield. Industry and crafts are not

shown. Sanctuaries are few, and the presence of divinities is minimal. The landscape is shown as countryside, almost as if it were a park, and the cultivation of many of those foodstuffs that were mentioned in the Linear B tablets is not portrayed.® The Fresco from Thera finds many parallels in the Town Mosaic from Knossos and the miniature wall painting from Ayia Irini on Keos."? The parallels with Crete suggest that the idea of showing man’s world as a whole may have had its origins in that society, like many of the other subjects portrayed in prehistoric Aegean wall paintings. This association also suggests that some of the ideas in the epic tradition originated in Crete in a period earlier than the full flowering of the Mycenaean civilization. When Hephaestus finished the decoration of the shield, he enclosed the entire composition with the river Oceanus, placing it along the rim of the shield: "Ev de 1181 notapotio peya oBevoc’ Oxeavoto Avtvya Nap RUUATNV GAKEOG NUKA NOLNTOLO.N® The composition on the shield is usually considered to have been circular,® but the only possible circular element in the description is the location of the river Oceanus along the outer edge of the shield and this was circular only if the shield itself were circular. The use of Oceanus to enclose the various scenes might be a reflection of the traditional idea of the actual location of Oceanus”? and need not reflect a circular arrangement. In Minoan-Mycenaean art, when multiple subjects were portrayed on the same surface, the composition was usually arranged in horizontal bands. ‘This is the kind of composition used on the Stuccoed Stele from Mycenae, fig. 126, and on the Boxer Rhyton from Aghia Triada, fg. /04. If the subject matter of the shield were arranged in bands, it would fall into a neat pattern of sky above in the first band, the two cities below in the

34

TALES OF HEROES

second band, planting and herding in the third band, and finally dancing in the bottom band, creating an alternating pattern of nature in the first and third bands with man in the second and fourth bands. This arrangement provides an easy explanation for the position of the dancing scene at the very end of the description, isolated from the other activities of man and the cities. This type of composition is appropriate to the elongated shape of the tower shield but it is not suitable for a shield in the shape of a figure-of-eight. Possibly it was for this reason that Hephaestus made a tower shield or oaxog when he fashioned the armor for Achilles rather than an aonig, which Thetis had

requested.’! The actual shield described was probably a result of poetic imagination. Although no such shield was probably ever made, a believable, visual image of it must have been con-

ceivable if it were to be acceptable to the original audience. The portrayal of so many different subjects on a small round shield with central boss is very difficult to visualize, but on a large

can appropriately be called no.xidoc.’> The only other time Odysseus carried a specific type of shield in the /liad was in Book 11 when he fought with Socus. In that scene, which used lines from an earlier sequence, Odysseus carried an conic. It may be that Odysseus’ use of the aonig in Book

I1 was the

result of a misplaced formula.’ It is also possible that Odysseus had two different shields. He might have chosen the lesser shield, the oaxog noıkidov, for the night scene and used his larger, more important shield, the aonic, during the day when

the actual fighting was to be expected.’’ The definition of Odysseus’ oaxog noixidov as a leather shield differentiates it from the oaxog used by both Ajax and Achilles, which were said to have been covered with bronze. Some of the early depictions of tower shields have a distinctly metallic appearance. This is most clearly seen in the plain, undecorated surface of the tower shield on the Lion-Hunt Dagger, fig. 44, which is in sharp

contrast to the hide-covered, variegated surface of the figure-of-

tower shield the subjects can easily be accommodated and they

eight shield portrayed on the same dagger. The tower shield

fall naturally into a composition that has parallels with the Mycenaean world. Apart from Ajax and Achilles, very few important warriors carried the oaxocg. Teucer, when he was persuaded by Ajax to put

with bosses on the signet ring from Shaft Grave IV of Mycenae, fig. 45, also looks metallic. These are to be differenuated from

aside his bow and arrow, took up a odKog tetpaGeAupvov, a

four-fold shield, presumably one with four layers of hide.’? Teucer was associated with Ajax, who also carried a odxog, and he had been persuaded by Ajax to take up the shield. Therefore it is not surprising that Teucer also used a oGxKoc, possibly one provided for him by Ajax. Odysseus took up a odxog notxidov before attending a night conference of Achaean leaders.’3 The word roıxikog has been

variously translated. Here it might be interpreted to mean multicolored or variegated and to be a specific reference to a leather shield. In Mycenaean art, shields made of leather were portrayed with a distinctive colored pattern, Sigs. 42-43, 53,

which was also used for bulls and dogs in vase painting, wall paintings, figs. 5/, 82, and terracotta figurines.’* This pattern Fig. 52. Warriors carrying tower shields in battle scene from Miniature Fresco from Thera.

the tower shields on the Thera Fresco, fig. 52, and on the sherd

from Tiryns, fig. #2, which are clearly meant to represent shields made of hide. A distinction between shields made of animal skin and those of bronze gives new meaning to the oaKoc no.xidov carried by Odysseus, and suggests that the bronze shields carried by Ajax and Achilles were not a result of epic exaggeration but a reflection of Mycenaean, bronze-covered tower shields.78 Menelaus also used two different types of shields. In Book 13 he carried a oaxog that was described as evpv, wide or broad.’9

The use of this adjective for a large Mycenaean body shield is appropriate, but it hardly seems fitting for a small, round shield. In the duel with Paris, which contained verses repeated later in the fight over the body of Patroclus, Menelaus used the aonig.®

Once again it is not clear whether Menelaus had two different types of shields or whether the apparent discrepancy was due to misplaced formulae with the more important aonic used for the duel and the related scene over the body of Patroclus and the

less impressive odxoc used elsewhere for minor events. Finally Nestor’s sons, Antilochus and Thrasymedes, each had a oaxos. Antilochus’ was described as evpt and navaiodov, broad

and gleaming all over, whereas Thrasymedes’ was called tetvywévov, well-made, and yaAx@ rausaivov,

all gleaming with

bronze.8! The adjectives broad and well-made are appropriate for the odxog identified as a tower shield. A gleaming shield is usually interpreted to mean that the shield gleamed because it was made of bronze, but well-oiled leather also gleams. Gleam-

ing as an adjective for a leather shield has the added implication that the well-oiled gleaming shield is a shield that had been

properly maintained. This type of shield is in contrast to the aged shield no longer being used by Laertes, which was described as gaxog evpd ... nenaAaypevov an, his broad shield

that was stained with dust;#2 this was clearly a shield that had suffered from a lack of care. A shield all gleaming with bronze, becomes a shield with a broad nm of bronze surrounding the leather interior, giving the shield an appearance of gleaming all

over or all around. Bronze was mentioned in the description of the shield belonging to Thrasymedes but not in association with the shield of his younger brother. The differences in the description of the two shields suggest that the amount of bronze used for the shields varied greatly and that only some of the

The Weapons Used by the Homeric Heroes

35

and his comrade Teucer; Achilles, whose father was still alive

and who also came from an unimportant area; Meges,®* a valiant fighter but not one of the more important figures of the Iliad; and the sons of Nestor, who came

from an important

country but whose father was still alive and fighting. Certain groups were identified as carrying oaxoc, such as the Trojans standing near Pandarus who watched the duel between Menelaus and Paris from afar.85 The fact that these men were standing far from the duel suggests that they were among the less important warriors on the field. The young warriors who rallied around Idomeneus carried the oaxog.® Characterized as younger men, they were clearly viewed as having a less important status. Possibly these were the same warriors who had earlier carried the oaxog daeivov.8? The oaxog was also used by

the troops led by the two Ajaxes and the men who went to the aid of Ajax, son of Oileus, when he was surrounded by Trojans.8® This is in contrast to the duel fought between Menelaus and Paris,®9 where the aonig alone was used. Later in the duel between Hector and Ajax, Hector once again had an aonic while Ajax carried his traditional odxoc. In the /kad the aonig was carried by twenty-seven warriors during the

fighting,?° whereas only ten warriors were specifically men-

Fig. 53. Wall painting of figure-of-aight shield from Cult Center at Mycenae. shields were considered to gleam with bronze, whereas others without the extensive bronze trim only gleamed because they were well-oiled. These shields belonging to Nestor’s sons can be understood to have been different from the shields used by Achilles and Ajax, which were said to have been covered with bronze. Thrasymedes’ oaxog is also interesting for another reason. This

oaxog was specifically identified as belonging to him but he was not using it. He had taken his father’s aonig, leaving behind his

oaxog. Later Nestor picked up Thrasymedes’ oaxoc, because his own donic was not available. Thrasymedes’ action can be

seen as an indication that the aonig was considered a finer piece of equipment than the odxoc. This same conclusion can be drawn

from the scene where

Poseidon helped the Achaeans

while Zeus slept after having been beguiled by Hera. Poseidon urged the Achaean warriors, those who were most staunch in fight, to leave off the öAiyov oaxog and to take up the aomic

peiCov.83 The use of the adjective dAiyov need not necessarily mean that the oaxog was small, which puts it in direct contra-

diction to Ajax’s oaxoc. It can be understood to mean that the caxog was considered inferior, the lesser of the shields, as compared to the mightier or grander aonig. A Mycenaean figure-ofeight shield, fig. 53, with its more complex outline and bulging center, fig. 57, must have been more difficult to construct than the tower shield with its flatter surfaces and simpler outline. At the same time the more strongly curved surfaces of the figureof-eight shield made it more difficult for a spear to pierce and

its more curvilinear form made it a more interesting and hence a more often depicted artistic form. Quite naturally it came to be viewed as a more elegant piece of equipment and hence

indicative of greater rank as compared to the tower shield. Warriors who were identified as using the oaxoc. as opposed to the aonic, were Ajax, who came from an unimportant country,

tioned as carrying the oaxog.?! If the oaxog is identified as the lesser of the two shields to be carried by the younger warriors and second sons,9? such as those men who rallied around Idomeneus, and the sons of those who were still alive,93 then it may be possible to understand why Menelaus was said to have both a gaxog and an aonic. Fig. 54. Wall painting of hunter with double spears from Tiryns. Composite drawing by G. Rodenwaldt.

36

TALES OF HEROES

Fig. 35. Silver Battle hrater from Grave Circle A from Mycenae. Restored drawing by K. Ihakis. Menelaus was an awkward figure. The war was being fought, according to the tradition, on behalf of his wife and the goods stolen from his palace. At the same time he was the younger son and he ruled a country considered inferior to the country ruled by his elder brother. In the duel with Paris he was portrayed as one of the great warriors, a man of stature whom the Achacans

First he placed along his legs the fair greaves linked with silver fastenings to hold the greaves at the ankles. Afterwards he girt about his chest the corselet of Lykaon his brother since this fitted him also. Across his shoulders he slung the sword with nails of silver,

were able to support with pride, yet when the Achaean leaders

with the horsehair crest, and the plumes nodded terribly above it.

a bronze sword, and above it the great shield, huge and heavy.

Over his powerful head he set the well-fashioned helmet

met at night after a day of fighting Nestor, for no apparent rea-

He took up a strong-shafted spear that fitted his hand's grip.!92

son, spoke disparagingly of Menelaus. Referring to Menelaus,

Patroclus’ arming scene followed a similar pattern with only a few changes. Line 16.134, which described his corselet as “star-

Nestor talked about him just as one might of a younger and less

worthy son of a noble family.”'! Nestor’s complaint was not warranted, as so frequently happens when such complaints are made about younger children in a family. Nevertheless, the fact that it had been made might be seen as an indication that Menelaus’ position as the younger son made him inferior to the others, those who had been born first. Odysseus, the other warnor who carried both an donig and a oaxog,”> was also one of those warriors whose father, Laertes, was still alive, even though Odysseus already ruled.

The arming scenes of Paris and Patroclus are the major exceptions to this general picture. Both were said to pick up a oaxog when they armed,” although afterwards in battle they used the aonic."” Achilles used the oa@xog both in arming and in fighting, whereas Agamemnon always had an donig."8 ‘The odKog in the three arming scenes was described as péya te ottPapov te.”

This description of them as large and sturdy seems appropriate

ry and elaborate of swift-footed Aiakides,”!0% replaced the line describing the corselet used by Paris. The öoüpe Patroclus picked up in line 16.139 replaced the Eyxog used by Paris in line

3.338. ‘The arming of Patroclus was followed by lines explaining why he did not use Achilles’ spear.!%* Agamemnon’s arming scene began with the three-line repeat found elsewhere.'"> The corselet was next described, as in the scene with Paris and

Patroclus, but in place of the single line a longer description was used.!% Next he picked up his sword with its unusual (for epic) gold studs and his aonic, which was elaborately described.!9 Finally the putting on of his helmet was described in lines

repeated elsewhere and then he picked up the two spears, fig. 34.18 In the arming of Achilles,!™ although the same sequence was followed, there is no description of the corselet. Only after

he had picked up his oaxog were new lines in the form of simi-

where his corselet was described, and 3.338 where the spear he picked up was an Eyxog instead of the pair of S00pe used by

les added. His helmet was also described in terms unique to him. His final action, as in the other arming scenes, was to pick up his spear. Although each scene ended with the same action, the final verse varied as if to indicate to the audience that the arming with its repeated verses was over. After each of these scenes, new actions were described that were unique and different for each of the warriors.

Agamemnon and Patroclus and the more elaborately described Eyxos used by Achilles.!"! The arming scene of Paris was described as follows:

The arming scenes have been nicely balanced. ‘The first and the third, that of Paris and Patroclus, were briefer, as befitted their lesser rank. ‘Phe one is distinguished from the other by a single

for the large tower shield as well as the large figure-of-eight

shield, but not for small round shields. The similarities among the arming scenes have often been noted.! The least elaborate is the first, the arming of Paris, Diagram A in Chapter VIII. All the lines in that scene were found elsewhere except for 3.333

The Weapons Used by the Homenc Heroes

37

A

17)

Achilles. Afterwards, we may surmise, in the /liad it was remodeled for the other warriors to give added richness and greater length to the epic.

-

4

aw

Pas

oe eee

at Fy ff

: we

e

Fig. 56. Ivory plaque portraying wamor carrying figure-of-aght shield and weanng boar's tusk helmet from Delos. line describing the corselet and by the use of different kinds of

spears. The second and fourth, those of Agamemnon and Achilles, were more elaborately described. Although the sequence was the same,!!® the armor of Agamemnon was described in rich detail, adding to the stature of the mighty leader who possessed great wealth. As a sign of his wealth he used the only gold-studded sword in the epic, in contrast to the silver-studded swords used in the other arming scenes. Achilles’ arming scene lacked the descriptions of the corselet and the shield. The scene was elaborated and individualized by the addition of similes that emphasized Achilles’ stature as a mighty warrior and the honor bestowed upon him by the god Hephaestus. The repeated lines found in the four scenes make it clear that all were interrelated. The use of the oaxog in the arming scenes of Paris and Patroclus, in contrast to their later

use of the aonig, can be seen as a misplaced formula. In the later scenes, Paris, one of the great princes of Troy, was said to use the aonig as befitted his rank. Patroclus, as an older man, also used the aonicg. even though he was supposed to be wearing the armor of Achilles at this point. Achilles alone always used the odxog, which may cause us to wonder whether the arming scene was originally designed to describe the actions of

In the arming scenes it is made clear that the shield was suspended from the shoulder by a strap, presumably the Telapov mentioned elsewhere in the epics.!!! ‘These straps, used with both the tower shield and the figure-of-eight shield, can be seen on the inlaid Lion-Hunt Dagger, fig. 44, and the Silver Krater, fig. 55, from the Shaft Grave IV of Mycenae. They illustrate their use in action, carried in front of the figure or worn across the back, suspended from the shoulder. The action of carrying the shield across the back was described in the movements of both Hector with his aonig and Ajax with his oaxoc.!!? In the four arming scenes the warriors picked up the shield before they put on the helmet. This sequence implies that the strap holding the shield passed over the head and was worn diagonally across the torso. It was put on first so that when the strap passed over the head it did not knock into the plumed helmet. The diagonal position of the strap kept the shield more securely in position and prevented it from slipping off the shoulder.!!3 Whether the shield hung from the right shoulder or from the left is not

clear,!'4 but the descriptions in the epics of this strap holding the shields is an important indication that they were the large body shields of the Mycenaean Period and not the small, handheld, round shields of later umes. An examination of the usages of the aonig reveals a consistency similar to that suggested for the oaxocg. The aonig carried by Hector was described when he was about to leave the battlefield to arrange for sacrifices to be made by the Trojans. So spoke Hector of the shining helm, and departed; and against his ankles as against his neck clashed the dark ox-hide, the rim running round the edge of the great shield massive in the middle.!!5 This description makes clear that Hector’s aonig was made of leather and was so large that it extended from his neck down to his fect.!'© It had a rim that ran along its outer edge and it was

described as opgaddecons, having a protrusion or boss of some sort. In another passage Hector’s aonig was said to have been thick with hides and to have had abundant bronze on it,!!? which suggests that the rim was made of bronze. An aonic extending to the feet, again with the rim mentioned, was also carried by Periphetes of Mycenae,!!®8 and thus it is apparent Fig. 57. Gold ring portraying figure-of-cight shield held by warrior from Grave Circle A at Mycenae (enlarged).

38

TALES OF HEROES Fig. 58. (left) Miniature gold shield from Pylos (enlarged). Fig. 59. (nght) Miniature wory shield from citadel at Mycenae.

that this type of shield was carried by Trojans and Achaeans alike. Idomeneus also had an aonic, made of bull’s hide and encircled with gleaming bronze, similar to those of Hector and

geration and poctic fantasy, a phenomenon recognized by scholars of the oral tradition. The aonic of Sarpedon and possibly the aonig of Aeneas appear to have been completely cov-

Periphetes.!!9 The description of Idomencus’ shield adds the

ered with bronze.!2> Sarpedon’s shield also had a decoration of

further information that it was fitted with two rods. Rods or Kavovec were also mentioned in the description of Nestor’s shield, his aonic, which was glorified by epic exaggeration to be so famous, being made of gold, that its fame reached up to the

gold thread.!?® A figure-of-eight shield covered with bronze and decorated with gold in the poetic imagination of the bard was visualized as a more magnificent piece of equipment than a leather shield merely trimmed with bronze. As a weapon used by a wealthy foreign prince it may have been deemed an appropriate exaggeration. Since all painted representations of the figure-ol-eight shields of Mycenaean date show them as being made of ox-hide with bronze used only for the trim, and since

heavens.!“? The kavöveg were originally interpreted as the two rods used on the inside of a figure-of-eight shield. ‘They were

understood to be the struts that helped to maintain the shape of the large shield.!?!

Identification of the shields carried by Hector and Periphetes as

no fragments of early bronze shields have thus far been found,

the large Mycenaean figure-of-eight shields can scarcely be doubted.!?? That other warriors carrying the aonig had the

the logical conclusion is that the bronze-covered aorig was the result of poetic imagination. In contrast to depictions of the figurc-of-cight shield, the tower shields on the Lion-Hunt Dagger, fig. 44, and on a gold ring from Shaft Grave IV, fig. #5, have a

same kind of shield, however, has been repeatedly questioned. Most scholars see only the vaguest reflection of the great body shields in the text of the Zkad.!> They find it difficult to comprehend how memory preserved knowledge of these shields long after they had ceased to be used,'*4 even though they accept the fact that the boar’s tusk helmet was remembered and that Ajax carried a tower shield. Both the aorig and the oaxog, in their interpretation, eventually came to denote the small rounded shield with central boss portrayed on one side of the Warrior Vase, fig. 125, and on other late vases, fig. 63, even less welldrawn and less well-preserved. Artistic representations of both the boar’s tusk helmets and the large body shields, figs. 42 43, 56, make it clear that both were known at the end of the Mycenaean Period. The descriptions of the shields held by Ajax, Hector, and Periphetes in the /had signify that these types were remembered in the oral tradition, and if they were remembered for these three warriors, they could also have been remembered for the other warriors in the same epic. It seems hardly credible that a warrior society did not differentiate between the large body shields and the small round shields portrayed on some of the late vases. If both were called aonis and caxog in the Lad, then some indication of this should be evident, even if later bards were somewhat confused about the nomenclature, and some trace of the diflerence should remain in the descriptions of the shields. Occasionally one of the acnideg was described in such a way as to suggest that its description had been influenced by epic exag-

distinctively metallic look. The simpler form of the tower shield might have been covered with bronze, and it may be that the bronze figure-of-cight shield was the result of epic exaggeration based on the bronze-covered tower shield of the Mycenaean Period. The aorig of Agamemnon

is another shield that appears to

have been partially effected by poetic embellishment. It was called ausıßporn, protecting on all sides,'2’ noAvdaidadoc, elab-

orately made,!28 Bovpic, valorous,'2" and KaAn, adjectives appropriate to any shield of importance. This shield was said to have been decorated with ten rings of bronze, twenty bosses of tin, and a central boss of blue glass paste. This decoration is

reflected in the epithets Ondadceoca and evKuKAos used for shields held by other warriors at Troy. The use of tin as a deco-

rative metal!3° and the blue glass paste of the central boss!3! associate the decoration on the shield with the Mycenaean Period and form one more link between the weapons in the /lıad

and the weapons portrayed on Late Helladic artefacts. The many bosses occur on the figure-of-eight shield held by one of the warriors on a gold ring from the Shaft Grave IIT at Mycenae, fig. 57. They also find a parallel in the much later miniature gold shield from Pylos, fie. 58. This small shield was adorned with eighty-four bosses arranged in twelve groups of six and four groups of three located just inside the outer edge. The use of so many bosses as decoration on this shield from

The Weapons U'sed by the Homenc Heroes Pylos suggests that the numerous

bosses on Agamemnon’s

shield were not poetic embellishment but a reflection of elaborately decorated shields of the Mycenaean Period. On a second miniature, one made of ivory from Mycenae, fig. 59, a quatre-

foil decoration replaces the bosses of the miniature from Pylos and the outer edge of the shield plus the projecting central unit are clearly depicted. This central projection can perhaps be

identified as the central boss of blue glass paste on Agamemnon’s shield. Although the central area is not differentiated in the miniature ivory, in the artistic representations of this period, it was frequently painted a different color, separating it visually from the rest of the shield, fig. 61. The unique feature of Agamemnon’s shield was its added decoration of a Gorgon flanked by Terror and Rout, Aeipos te

39

greatly both in rank and in equipment, when great wealth still existed among the more affluent and the matched armaments of the hoplite troops had not yet been introduced. The epithets used for the figure-of-eight shields of Hector and Periphetes are the same as those used for the aonideg held by the other warriors. No variation separating the large body shields from the small round ones can be found in the epithets describing the shields. These adjectives, with the exception of the adjective daeıvöc, are different and much more varied than those used for the odxog.!*” The most frequent epithet used for the aonig is the phrase navtoo’ Eton, which occurs seventeen times, usually in repeated lines.'!#° The most common interpretation for this phrase, by those who have identified the aonic as a small round shield, is that it means equal on all side, hence

®ofoc. This decoration appears to have been inspired by the

round.'4! The use of the word €ton to describe ships,!4? howev-

Gorgon head flanked by ®oßog, Epic, AAkn and ‘Jwxn said to decorate the aegis worn by Athena, which she had received

er, sheds some doubt on the interpretation, since ships were not

from Zeus.!?2 Whatever this aegis may originally have been, its origins appear to go back to remote antiquity.'*} The decoration on both the shield and the aegis was Eotedavwto / Eotegavetai,!*4 usually translated as “set as a crown, "135 which is

rather difficult to visualize. Perhaps a better translation would be “it was set in the form of a crown or a circle,”!3® to be visualized on Agamemnon’s shield as encircling the central boss, in the position of the quatrefoil decoration of the miniature ivory shield from Mycenae.!3’ Only the shields of Agamemnon and Achilles were said to have been decorated with human or animal figures. If their figured decoration had been based on existing shields, as argued by Lorimer, it is odd that other warriors did not also have shields decorated in a similar manner. In later

periods when small, round, decorated shields were used and were portrayed in vase painting, all the warriors had decorated shields. Although their central emblems varied in design, no individual warrior was singled out by having a larger or more elaborate emblem compared to the emblems on the shields of the other warriors.!3# Agamemnon’s shield, just like his cuirass,

in the epic tradition can be understood to have been embellished by poetic imagination in order to emphasize the wealth and prestige of the warrior who was the leader of the entire Achaean army. This reflects a period when warriors differed

round. Far more appropriate, and incidentally more important, is for ships to be well-balanced,

the alternate translation for

Eion and onc that can also be applied to shields.'43 A shield that was mavtoo £ion can be understood to be a shield that was well-balanced or balanced on all sides. The construction of a figure-of-eight shield with its complex shape and large size must have been laborious and the realization of a well-balanced form difficult, far more difficult than in the construction of either a tower shield or a small round shield. If this epithet originally reflected the difficulty with which a well-made figure-of-eight shield was constructed then it becomes understandable why it

became associated with the aonig but never with the simpler form of the oaxoc. The second most frequently used adjective for aonig is the word oOpoadcecoa, which appears eleven times.!4 “Opoadoi decorated Agamemnon’s shield.!+> Hector’s shield was also said to have an omphalos which was struck by a spear held by Ajax,!46 just as earlier Ajax’s shield was hit on an omphalos by Hector.!* The association of these opgadoi with the adjective opgadcecoa is obvious but whether the original shields has only one boss or many is not clear, even though it is generally assumed that there originally was only a single boss.!*# Muluple bosses or

protrusions of some sort are portrayed on numerous MyceNacan miniature representations of the figure-of-eight shields, g be * E

ie,

8’, a

Ge >

Fig. 60. Bronze fragments from shield, fram Late Cypnot II tomb at Aounon.

a

=

>

40

TALES OF HEROES

‚Res. 37-38, and they also occur on representations of the tower shield, fg. 45. In addition to the miniatures, fragments of a real shield dating to the very late Mycenaean or carly Iron Age Period were found in a partially looted tomb at Kourion on Cyprus, fig. 60. These consist of various pieces of bronze trim, some straight and others curved, and three bronze bosses, one larger

than the other two. The bronze fragments appear to have formed the decoration and partially preserved rim of a leather shield.!*? Even though the reconstruction of the shield from Kourion is uncertain,’ the fragments make it clear that at the end of the Mycenaean Period several bosses were used to decorate a single shield. They help invalidate the argument that bosses in the /ltad must reflect the small round shield!) and they suggests that the prototypes originally had muluple bosses. Whether the adjective opgadceooa described these bosses or some other characteristic of the shield is not clear. Although the caxog had omphaloi, the epithet Oudaddeoca was used only for the aonig and never for the oaxog. Figure-of-eight shields, in contrast to the flatter tower shields, had a projecting central

spine, often portrayed in the paintings as being different in color from the rest of the shield, fig. 6/. ‘This protruding ele-

ment of the shield, which forms an important characteristic of the figure-of-eight shield, was probably the origin of the epithet Ongadcecoa for the figure-of-eight shield,!°? and in the epic it

became equated with the central boss of blue glass paste on Agamemnon’s shield. If the aonig and the oaxog were synonymous, and both were small round shields with central boss, then it is difficult to understand why the epithet opgaAdecoa was used for only one and not the other. This difficulty is resolved, however, if the two shields were different in design, one in the shape of the figure-of-eight with its protruding center and the other in the shape of a flatter, slightly rounded tower. Six times the aonig was described as dacıvn,!?? the only adjective it shares with the oaxoc. The use of the adjective shining

has sometimes been understood as an indication that the shields were made of bronze, but the adjective daeıvög was used elsewhere for objects that were clearly not metallic.!5* It has been argued above that a well-oiled leather oaxog can appropriately

be described as shining. This suggestion applies equally to a well-oiled leather aonic. The Aevxaonts carried by Deiphobus!>> has been translated as bright, thus shining,'*° or alternately as a white or a pale shield.'5? If the shields were made of leather, then a Aebkaonıg can be understood to be a shield made of white leather, reflected in the artistic tradition by light colored shields contrasting to ones of darker color, fig. 6/. In the dliad Deiphobus often acted

as a foil to Hector. Deiphobus, sound in wisdom, advised caution and retreat whereas Hector, the warrior of action, always

chose to stop and fight. Hector carried an aonig of dark leather.> Deiphobus, as his foil, might be understood to have been portrayed as carrying an aorig made of white leather, a AevKaonic. Shields and helmets in the epic were clearly understood to vary one from another. This was made clear by the discussion between Pandarus and Aeneas, who recognized Diomedes because of his weapons.!>° The warriors were probably diflerentiated by their use of an aorig or a oaxog. If the AevKaonis is correctly understood as a shield made of white leather in contrast to shields made of dark leather, then color also varied,!"" as well as the decoration and the number of omphaloi, as suggested by the description of Agamemnon’s shield. Another variation appears to have been in size, as indicated by Achilles’ comments concerning Ajax’ shield.!®! Other adjectives used for the aonig are ansıßporn, man-protecting,'©? Bovpts, valorous,!®? and xpatepn, mighty.!°+ These are adjectives appropriate to any shield carried by a hero, Of greater significance is the epithet evxuKAos. It was used five times in the Zltad to describe the aorig.!"> On the first occasion

=

a

w

R ay

JS Ai _

a

Fig. 61. Wall painting of shields

FD)

a,

a

eZ

FERN SO) RRRRRN

> »

Ys —

ar

ads

mann?

from inner court of older palace at

“Tins, Restored drawing by Emile Gillteron,

The Weapons Used by the Homeric Heroes

41

the Trojans and Achaeans were attacking each other, hitting the leather about the torso, apoi omdeccı Poeiac, and the aonidac evKvKAous Aatonia te ntepdevta.! In this passage the warriors were wearing leather about their torsos, in other words they had on leather corselets, not the bronze ones worn by the heroes or the linen ones mentioned in the Catalogue of

Ships.!67 The leather corselets identify these men as the average soldier. Some carried shields which were described as evKv«Aoug; others carried Aatonia, skins of some sort, which fluttered or waved, ntepoevta. The implication of the juxtaposition of the aonidag evmüxkoug and the Aqionia ntepdevta is that the aonidec did not flutter because they were evxuKAot. The Aatontov have been understood to be an undressed animal skin which served as the prototype of the aegis owned by Zeus

which he had given to Athena.!%# This definition presupposes an early stage in the development of the leather shield when shields were no more than pieces of unfinished hide, the Aatonia te ntepoevta of the Iliad. At a later stage when the leather was no longer left ntepoevta, it was made rigid and shaped, hence becoming evKxuKdoc. This adjective is usually

interpreted to mean well-rounded, but possibly well-rimmed is a better definition.'©° Descriptions of the aonig frequently referred to both the hides and the bronze used to make the shield.1?0 The bronze formed the rim that held the leather rigid and bound together the various layers of hide. A well-defined

rim is shown in the artistic depictions of both the tower and the figure-of-eight shiclds, figs. 42-43, 61. If edxuKAog referred to the rim rather than the overall shape of the shield, then the ten KvKAOL xaAkeoı on Agamemnon’s shield can be understood to be ten bands of bronze along the outer edge of the shield as distinct from the twenty omphaloi of tin and the one in the center of blue glass paste.!7! The xv«Aot stitched in gold on Sarpedon’s shield!?? become the stitching along the outer edge of his shield giving it a decorative embellishment. When Achilles

threw his spear at Aeneas, the spear was said to have hit the edge of Aeneas’ shield, avtuy was thinnest, and it flew over the spear passed over Aeneas, passage the spear first hit the

tro xpatmy,'73 where the bronze Aeneas to land behind him.!’* As it broke off two KuKAot.! In this outer edge of the shield and then

Fig. 62. Detail of Silver Siege Rhyton from Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Drawing by A. Jliakıs.

the two leaders standing nearby. Once again the epic description can be seen to be reflected in the artistic tradition of the Mycenaean Period.

In another episode in the epic, the men using the aonidec evKuKAot were identified as the best, the apıctoı, of the Trojans and their allies who warded off the Achaeans as their com-

rades carried the wounded Hector from the battlefield.!7’ This group consisted of Polydamas, Aeneas, Agenor, Sarpedon, and Glaucus.!’® On several occasions in the /liad the helmet, the

it knocked off two xvKAo1. This sequence places the KvKAot on

aonic, and the spear were mentioned together, almost as if they

the outer edge of the shield. Had the KbxAot been omphaloi or

represented the insignia of a special group of men.!?? These

circular decoration, the spear would have been stopped by the impact of the weapon on the decoration. If the «bKAo1 formed the double thickness of the rim, then the spear grazing the outer

the Odyssey when she expressed the desire that Odysseus should

edge of the shield can have knocked off pieces of the rim before

it proceeded to pass over Aeneas to land on the ground behind him. THE DIFFERENT IDENTIFIED

GROUPS BY THEIR

OF WARRIORS SHIELDS

The types of weapons used by the soldiers on the battlefield can be scen as indicative of separate groups and varying ranks within the army. The Locrians were said to have no helmets or aonides edxuKAot or spears, but they relied instead on their bows and slings. Keeping to the rear of the armored soldiers, they shot their arrows from behind.!’® Here a group of soldiers, those who were without aonides edxuKAot, were set apart and

differentiated from those who had aonides edxuKAot. A group of unarmed warriors, relying on bows and slings, was depicted on the Silver Siege Rhyton, fig. 62. These men do not have helmets, shields, or spears and they are clearly differentiated from

same three pieces of equipment were mentioned by Athena in

Fig. 63. Fragmentary kraler portraying warners carrying small round shields from Tiryns.

42

TALES OF HEROES

return home to put an end to the suitors.!8 Later in the Odyssey when Telemachus and his father hid the weapons from the suitors, they took away the helmets, the aorideg, and the spears.!#! Possibly those warriors who used the helmet, the shield, and the spear should be identified as the men who formed the ranks of the aonıorig or aomıöLWTng, groups mentioned thirteen times in the /liad.\82 The first mention of av&pag agmıdıwrag occurred in the Cata-

logue of Ships. Menestheus, the leader of the Athenians, was said to have been especially famed for marshalling his chariots and the men carrying shields.!#3 This statement separates the Athenian forces into two groups, men in chariots and men, presumably on foot, who carried shields. Later two separate groups

who were constanty present in the background and only casually mentioned. In Jad Book 4 when these unnamed soldiers were described, the armies were said to meet together, coming to one place, clashing together with pivots and Eyxea and péve’ avipov xaAKeodupnixwv and aonides dudaddecoar.'™ In this passage,

apart from the fury of the bronze-clad men, the shields, and the spears, there remains the pıvoi. Perhaps in this word the small round shield can be identified. This word usually means leather or skin,!95 but if the small round shields, used by the common soldier, were made of leather then in the soldier’s vernacular, the small round shields might have came to be known as a pıvög in order to differentiate them from the leather Aatoniov

were again implied when the Myrmidons prepared to follow Patroclus into battle. Achilles went among his followers, encouraging both the chariots and the men bearing shields, the

carried by the heroes. In a second passage where the armies clashed, a clamor arose from xaAxoü te pivov te Powv T EünoL-

inroug and the avépas aonıdıwrac.!3

ntawv.'% The yaAxov in this passage can be identified as the

used by some of the other soldiers and the great body shields

During the fighting when Hector had driven the Achaeans back

spears and the Boav Teünoıntaov, the well-worked ox-skins, as

to their ships, a group of avp@v adomotdwv was crowded into a

the shields, well-made or fashioned, presumably belonging to the heroes. This leaves the pıvoi once again to represent the small round shields carried by the common soldiers. These two references are scant attention given to the armament of the common soldier!?’ but the bard, and presumably his audience, clearly viewed the battle scenes in terms of heroes fighting other heroes. This is a concept that pervades the Jhad and it is also a concept that appears as an artistic device in Mycenaean wall paintings. This portrayal of individual combat is in contrast to the mass formation of the hoplite army reflected in vase painting of later periods.!% In the Jliad specific names were constantly mentioned and little interest was spared for the armies in general or for their accoutrements. The heroes were everywhere joining whatever battle drew the attention of the bard and his audience. They rode in chariots, leaping down from them to engage in single combat or to protect the body of a fallen comrade.!99 The action was designed to display the prowess of the individual warrior and not to indicate the tactics of the army as it fought on the battlefield. When Pandarus put aside his bow and joined Aeneas in his chariot in order to attack Diomedes, the emphasis was on the skill of Pandarus. He had

small space together with the chariots,!85 implying once again two different types of forces who normally did not fight together. The otixes aonıotaav were said to stand together,!®6 to

march forward together,!®? and once to break ranks before the attack of Hector.!# Pylaemenes was specifically identified as the leader of a group of warriors named

the FagAayovev

aornıcrawv, whereas Glaucus and Sarpedon were called the leaders of the Auxiwv dontotaov.'89 These were different from the Locrian bowmen, who had no aonidec etx uKAot.

If the best of the warriors in the Jhad carried the great Mycenaean body shields and formed the elite of the fighting force, then it becomes legitimate to ask who, in fact, did carry the

small round shields portrayed in the vase from Tiryns, fig. 63, and whether their presence was reflected in the /had in any way.

The story of the /liad is, of course, a story concerning the actions of heroes and not those of the average foot soldier. In the Achaean section of the Catalogue of Ships, for example, the number of ships in each contingent was given implying large groups of men, but only the leaders or heroes were mentioned by name. When the Achaean forces gathered in council in Book

2 of the Ihad,'% a great host of people was implied, but apart from the leaders only the unfortunate Thersites was portrayed as an individual person. The mass of soldiers formed the background for the actions of the heroes, and their presence was often expressed in terms of similes such as “many

tribes of

swarming flies.”!9! The repeated references to the noise of the battle and to the hordes of men, however, serve as a constant

reminder of their existence even though the average soldier was portrayed as having almost no effect on the course of the war. The fortunes of each side were usually personified by the

actions of the individual heroes. This concept is well illustrated in the description of the fight over the body of Sarpedon, Iliad Book 16. When the Trojans were finally turned in flight. the rout began because Zeus caused Hector to lose heart. Hector

was the first to leap into his chariot. calling on the rest of the army to retreat.!? Later in /ltad Book 17 when the armies were fighting over the body of Patroclus. Zeus took up the aegis and once again turned the ude of war. The rout. here again, was said to have been caused by the actions of a single individual. this ume by Peneleos, who was hit in the shoulder by a spear.!"4 Although the rout began in line 597 it was not unul line 723 that the actions of the army itself were noted, that mass of men

come to Troy to join the archers, yet he was skilled enough to

fight with Aeneas in a chariot.200 This scene was not intended to imply that all archers could serve as charioteers or that charioteers were also archers. Heroes on opposing sides exchanged speeches, genealogies, and occasionally gifts,20! thereby enriching the narrative and conveying interesting information. Presumably this was once again poetic embellishment and not an actual reflection of battle tactics. To be a hero meant that the warrior must be capable of undertaking whatever type of action was being described. When the action centered on the defence of a fallen comrade, warriors leapt down from their chariots to take part in the action.:"- When the retreat was sounded, they again leapt into their chariots and fled. Throughout the action, however, the bard seems to have had a clear mental picture of the various forces fighting on the batdefield and of the stance taken by the different heroes as they fought within the ranks of the soldiers.-"! So clearly did he portray the overall configuration of the forces on the battlefield, that when he recounted the actions of a single individual that seemed at variance to the general action, the bard must have deliberately introduced such action in order to portray the heroic character of the particular Warrior,

The Weapons Used by the Homenc Heroes co

u

“

i ea es 28 «

+>

~

s 8

oi ’

n

if

a 5 “a zu

a

a8

43

a

= "=

=.

= en

tate

tetate

en

Bs o.e 6 se 6 eee

a

sen

“ae

eines

® zu

5 5

8

EEE

eee EB

nts

EB

e

e"

ee ME

2 /

Fig. 64. Wall painting portraying warriors going into battle from palace at Pylos. Restored drawing by Piet de Jong. THE CHARIOT

FORCES

The division of forces, as already observed, was made clear in

the Athenian entry of the Catalogue of Ships.2%* When Nestor

be in a chariot, his actions clearly indicate such a position.?!3 In another episode Apollo saved Aphrodite, lest any Danaan with swift horses hurl a spear at her.?2!4

marshalled the troops, the division between chariot fighters and foot soldiers was again stated and the proper action of the char-

The charge of chariots frequently turned into a duel between two heroes. After the Trojans had been driven back towards the

iot force was described.2°> A description of the two different groups in action was related during the rout of the Trojans after

city, Hector at the Scaean Gate pondered whether to call the

they had been attacked by the Achaeans led by Agamemnon. During the rout footman slew footman, horseman slew horse-

forces together and withdraw into the city, or whether to lead a charge against the Achaeans once more.?!> Influenced by Apollo, Hector decided to fight. He gave the command to spur the

man, and the dust rose from the plain, stirred up by the horses’ hooves.2% The image of dust raised by horses occurred earlier

horses into battle and led the charge of chariots.?!® After this point in the narrative the chariot attack ceased to be seen in

when Hector rallied the Trojans. The two sides facing each other became white with the dust raised by the horses’ hooves as the fighting resumed and the “charioteers wheeled

general terms and became personified by the actions of Hector. Ignoring other Trojans and Danaans alike, Hector sought out Patroclus, the opposing hero. Patroclus, becoming aware of

round.”207 Here fighting from chariots was clearly visualized and the use of a large fleet of chariots is indicated by the visual

Hector, leapt down from his chariot to face him. The situation is full of drama with the two competing heroes facing each

image of dust rising above the plain. Hector as the leader of the chariot forces appeared again in Book 15, where “with a down-

other on the battlefield, but even a moment’s consideration makes it obvious that Patroclus would have been in a far

ward sweep of arm he smote his horses, ... and called aloud to

stronger position if he had remained in his chariot. The idea of his deliberately stepping down from his chariot in order to

the Trojans along the ranks; and they all raised a shout, and ... drove the steeds that drew their chariots, with a wonderous din; and ... they poured forth rank upon rank and before them went Apolio.”208 These passages clearly indicate chariot forces being used for fighting. References to charioteers being killed? and horses going out of control?!” or being slain?!! also reflect fighting from chariots.2!? When the gods joined the fighting, they also used chariots. Athena, fighting with Diomedes in his chariot, attacked Ares who responded by throwing his spear over the heads of his horses. Although Ares was not specifically said to

attack an opponent who was bearing down on him in his own chariot should have been unthinkable, unthinkable that is for the average soldier. Such actions, however, were to be expected of a hero. To become a hero a man must do the unthinkable, he must accomplish something beyond the ability of the average man. Thus Patroclus abandoned his chariot and began his

attack by throwing a stone. Patroclus did have a spear, which the average soldier would presumably have used first, but the hero must do things differently. With a stone and not a spear,

44

TALES OF HEROES

Patroclus accidentally killed Hector’s charioteer, thus forcing Hector to abandon his chariot and to face Patroclus on foot. The fighting in this way changed from a chariot attack to a battle on foot, not because this was the way a normal battle was fought, but because the fighting was between two heroes. Heroes, in order to show their greatness, had to do individual deeds.?'" The fighting had to be one man against another and not one anonymous mass of men attacking another nameless group of soldiers. It was the necessity of portraying heroic action that has caused the apparent confusion in the use of chariots, not the misunderstanding of the bard. Had the bard been consistent, Hector and Patroclus both in their chariots, racing past cach other, would simply have thrown their spears and the encounter would have ended with only the briefest moment of confrontation. Such realism does not constitute epic poetry. In order to perform deeds that could be transformed into exciting poetic images of the battlefield at Troy, the heroes meet in individual combat, they defended the bodies of their fallen comrades,?'® and they gathered booty by stripping the armor from the slain enemy.?!° These actions cannot have been undertaken from a chariot; hence the hero left his chariot for the moment. The capture of the enemy’s horses and chariot then became another form of desirable booty. To complete this action the hero must once again leave his own chariot, thereby endangering his own equipment in the hopes of acquiring that of the enemy.??2 This may be great poetry but as battle tactics it is very questionable, very questionable that is for the average soldier. Once it is recognized that heroes were everywhere and did everything, that their actions represented a combination of tactics used by both foot soldiers and chariot fighters, then the Fig. 65. Stele portraying warnor in chaniol from Grave Circle A at Alycenar.

Fig. 66. (right) drawing of seal impression by A Papailiopoulos and (left) seal stone portraying warnor in chanot from Tholos Tomb at Vaphao and

Fig. 67. Gold ring portraying man hunting with bow and arrow in a chariot from Grave Circle A at Mycenae. apparent confusion of battle tactics fades. Often it is not clear whether the hero was on foot or in a chariot. In the scene where Glaucus and Diomedes met, instead of fighting they exchanged speeches, telling each other their genealogies.2?! Here again this may be great poetry but it surely is not to be understood as normal behavior on the battlefield. When they first met, the audience had not been told whether they are on foot or in chariots, nor does it greatly matter. Only later??? does it become apparent that both must have been in chariots, because they both leapt down, clasped hands, and exchanged gifts, while presumably the battle was still raging around them.?23 On other occasions when the charioteer was slain, the hero was forced to fight on foot or to retreat.22* Since two people were needed in each chariot, fighting from a chariot did not continue if either the warrior or the charioteer were wounded or slain.2?° ‘The retreating chariots stopped to carry the wounded off the battlefield,?2° but this represented a compassionate gesture of one fellow warrior to another and was not the primary function of the chariots. In the course of besieging a fortified city in ancient times, warriors must have been called upon to fight in various ways, and chariot forces were not always appropriate. This is clearly reflected in the /liad. After the death of Sarpedon and the resulting rout of the Trojans, Patroclus called for his horses.??7 He used his chariot to pursue the fleeing enemy, an action appropriate to chariot forces. When Patroclus next appeared, he was at the foot of the fortified wall of the city. Three times he tried to climb the wall and three times he was repelled by Apollo.2?# Although the bard did not mention that Patroclus had left his chariot, any attempt to scale a fortification wall can only have been undertaken on foot.?2" When Hector organized one of the attacks on the Achaean ships, Polvdamas recommended that the chariots be left behind and that the warriors move on foot?) All obeved except: Asius.23! who insisted on staying in his chariot and as a result was slain in the ensuing battle. ‘The recognition that an able warrior must be prepared to fight in both ways was implied in the comments made about Euphorbus, who was praised for his ability to cast his spear, for his

The Weapons Used by the Homeric Heroes

45

horsemanship, and for his speed on foot.?'? Nestor openly bragged that in his youth he was able to fight both on foot and from a chariot.?}3 The handling of a chariot required great skill.??! and occasional episodes involving problems with runaway horses or slain animals were included in the narrative, probably to enhance the feeling of reality.2> The chariots were normally drawn by two horses, and whenever a third horse was introduced that horse served as a trace horse. The third horse was always killed in later action and had no doubt been introduced into the scene in order to allow the chariot with its normal complement of two

horses to escape.” The chariots in the Zltad are reflected in the archaeological remains of the Mycenaean Period. Chariots are portrayed in the wall paintings figs. 64, 69.°"8 on grave stelai from Mycenae, Sig. 65, a seal from Vapheio, fig. 66. a gold ring from Shaft Grave IV at Mycenac,fig. 67, and by terracotta figurines.?"" When chariots were depicted in Mycenaean art. as in the lad. the emphasis was on the single chariot, either waiting or attacking." They were drawn by two horses and carried one or two people. The portrayal of chariots on the stelai of the Grave Circle A at Mycenae and on a gold ring from the grave circle make it clear that chariots were known on the Greek mainland before the end of the Middle Helladie Period?" and that the Mycenaeans were fully aware of how they were used. 2"? The seal from Vapheio indicates that these chariots continued to be used in the Late Helladic Period and that the warriors riding in them carried spears. It is sometimes argued that the terrain in Greece is not appropriate for chariot fighting. While it is undoubtedly true that chariot forces were probably far more effective in the deserts of the Near East than in the rocky countryside of Greece, the existence of chariots in Greece cannot be denied because of the pictorial representations and the Linear B tablets, which catalogue them, fig. 68. In the artistic depictions the spear became the predominant weapon used with the chariot, figs. 64. 66, similar to the action in the /had and to the custom of the Hittites, who had taught chariot warfare to the Mycenacans.?® This type of vehicle appears to have been

adopted from the Near East in the later part of the Middle Helladic Period, before the introduction of the six-spoke wheel used after that time by Hittites and Egyptians alike.?") Mycenacan chariots were consistently portrayed with four-spoked wheels and even though they may have seen wheels with six spokes?) they did not use them for their own chariots.?!° In the Jhad the only time the number of spokes on the chariot wheel was mentioned, the reference was to the gold and silver chariot of Hera and the number given was eight?’ Just as the chariot was glorified with its addition of gold and silver to make it fit for a goddess, it may be that the wheels were also glorified. so as to make them grander by describing them as having cight spokes, twice the number usually found on Mycenaean charıots. Chariots were listed in the Linear B tablets from both Knossos and Pylos. The use of ivory decoration, itemized in the tablets, suggests that some of the chariots were used for “state occasions.?## The ivory in the tablets is paralleled in the /ltadby the simile of a woman staining ivory to be used as a check piece for horses.?"" Other chariots in the tablets were decorated with silver." just like the chariot belonging to Hera described in the Thad?! The more elaborate chariots were presumably not used in battle.’ One group of tablets from Knossos appears to deal

hig. 68. Linear B tablet from “Armoury” of the palace of Anovvos, No. Se 237. specifically with war chariots, fig. 68.2°° These record the issuing of chariots to individual warriors, with each being given only one chariot. With the chariot they were issued horses, usually two in number though sometimes only one,??! and two corselets.?°° The issuing of both corselets and chariots inevitably suggests that men using chariots wore corselets as part of their normal equipment.?% Although many of the numerical signs on the Knossos tablets are missing and some of the readings are still debated, the overall pattern suggested by Ventris and Chadwick has now been generally accepted.” The number of chariots mentioned and the issuing of cuirasses indicate that they were being used in battle. Their number is not very large in comparison to the numbers recorded in the Egyptian and Hittite records,2°® which suggests that not all soldiers were issued chariots and that a substantial portion of the army fought on foot?” The division of the army with some of the forces fighting from chariots and others fighting on foot is reflected by the armies in the dhad. The issue of chariots, horses, and armor by the palace can be interpreted to mean that part of the army at least was controlled by the palace and that the equipment issued was palace property." A similar type of control appears to be reflected in the /iad. When Achilles withdrew from the battle, the Myrmidons and Achilles’ faithful follower Patroclus also stopped fighting. When the situation on the battefield had become desperate, they once more joined in the conflict, but only after they had sought and gained the permission of Achilles. Evidence for the use of chariots can also be found in the Odyssey. “Velemachus and Peisistratos were said to have traveled from Pylos to Sparta by chariot,?®! and in Mycenaean art people riding in chariots, continue to be portrayed throughout most of the period,fig. 69. In the scenes where the departure of the chariot is described, there occur many repetitive phrases??? indicating a formulaic tradition of great age. This journey has often been dismissed as fanciful?’ but unless chariot travel and a widespread system of roads had been remembered in the oral tradition, the concept of a long chariot ride would not have occurred to the bard. References to chariots in the Linear B tablets suggests travel by chartots.2"! Evidence for a widespread system of roads, dating to the Mycenaean Period, has been found in the areas around Mycenae and Pylos.2°* The roads surrounding Mycenae were carefully graded, retained in places by massive evclopean walls and carried over ravines and gullies by means of culverts or bridges, The careful grading of these roads and their great width, which averaged 3.50 m.. clearly indicate travel by chariots in the Mycenaean Period.

46

TALES OF HEROES

Three times cuirasses belonging to individuals were specifically identified as being made of bronze.??! In the four repeated arming scenes, the warriors put on corselets;?”* these were presumably visualized as being made of bronze even though they were

not so described. In a set of repeated lines the two opposing armies meet together in a clash of shields, spears and fury or courage of men wearing bronze corselets.?73 These verses do not say that the armies were wearing the bronze corselets, but that they were fighting with that special courage shown by warriors who wore bronze corselets, a courage no doubt enhanced by the protection of the bronze armor. The clear implication is that only certain individuals or groups of individuals had

bronze protective armor.

NT, ge

Pe o>

Corselets made of bronze are implied in the epithet xaAxoxitwv, of bronze chiton, which was used thirty-one times in the /liad and twice in the Odyssey. This adjective, in the genitive plural, normally came at the end of the line and it usually described groups of men rather than individuals.?”* Only once

ly

was someone said to be actually wearing a xırav xaAxeoc.?7° This very specific use of the epithet yaAxoxitov suggests that it

ih:

i

formed part of the formulaic language. In contrast to the xaAkoyitwv, the yaAxeo@8apvs occurred only twice, both times in the genitive plural at the beginning of a repeated line.?”® The limited usage of these two epithets always in the genitive plural, one at the beginning of the line and the other at the end of the line, suggests that the yaAKoxitwv became synonymous with the yadrxeo@dpvé and that the xırav was similar in shape to the Ompn&.27? Hector was once said to have been covered with

in

NEED

mal Hi)

TTT

Ari

Cc eC ILITTTDLLELLELER

Fig. 69. Wall painting portraying women weaning long chilons nding in a chanot from Tiryns. Composite drawing by G. Rodenwaldi. THE

BRONZE

CUIRASS

IN THE

/LIAD

The bronze corselet or thorax in the /had has been a subject of much debate,” even though it had been clear for a long time that one of the ideograms of Linear B represented some sort of

protective body armor.?®’ The discovery of a Mycenaean bronze cuirass at Dendra in 1960 made it clear that bronze corselets existed in the Mycenacan Period, fig. 70. After the discovery of a complete cuirass at Dendra, parts of others from earlier excavations were subsequently identified, making it clear that the Dendra cuirass was not unique.28 ‘The Dendra cuirass was found in a partially collapsed chamber tomb. The debris of the collapse covered the corselet and later, when the tomb was looted, the bronze armor was overlooked. In the one area of the tomb, lying next to the cuirass, remains of a boar’s tusk helmet with bronze check pieces, a pair of greaves, two swords, various bronze vessels, and assorted other objects were found. The skeleton was only partially preserved, but enough remained to ascertain that the individual was unusually tall. The rich assortment of grave goods and the height of the skeleton suggest that this individual was a man of substance and probably of importance during his lifetime. Corselets, the @dpnE. were mentioned forty-six times in the Ilad.-"" Twice they were said to have been made of linen.??

bronze,2’®

and

eight

times

he

was

referred

to

as

YAAKoKopvatn.2”" In the Iliad the cuirass or Odpné, in addition to being identified as bronze or linen, was also described on six different occasions as shining, gleaming, or the equivalent, and once as being heavy or sturdy.2#° Twice a specific arca of the corselet hit by a

weapon was called 81nA60¢ or double2*! and seven times the ybarov of the corselet was mentioned.?#? The cuirass in the /liad was often described in such a way as to indicate that it was special. These descriptions suggest that the cuirasses, especially those worn by the major heroes, were per-

sonal and highly prized. Some had a specific history; others had been made by Hephaestus; a few were elaborately decorated. In the four major arming scenes, except for the arming of Achilles, there was at least one line giving the history or origin of the corselct.28#3 In contrast to the handling of the greaves, sword, shield, and spear, the corselets alone in the arming scenes were described.244 Meges’ corselet, which was described as heavy or

sturdy, rukıvög, also had its own special history.2# The cuirass made

for Achilles, and the one belonging to Diomedes were

said to have been made by Hephaestus.2#% Diomedes’ cuirass was described as SarddAeog, similar in meaning to the adjective noAvdaidadoc used to describe the corselets of Paris, Menelaus, Hector, and Odysseus.28? The cuirass worn by Agamemnon, like his shield, was elaborately decorated with serpents and bands of blue glass paste, gold, and tin in imitation of Mycenaean inlaid technique. ‘The bronze corselet of Asteropaeus, the only Trojan cuirass described in any detail, was embellished with tin.2#® The use of un as an added decorative material in these two cuirasses and in the armor made by Hephaestus has distinct Mycenaean associations. ‘Ven Achacans were specifically mentioned

as having a 8opng.

The Weapons Used by the Homenc Heroes

47

Ajax the minor had one made of linen and Ajax the major, who appears not to have normally worn one, put one on especially for combat during the Funeral Games.?89 Agamemnon, Patroclus, Odysseus, Diomedes, Menelaus, and Meges each had a @wpné, and each of these warriors, except for Patroclus, was saved from a fatal wound by the cuirass.?% Patroclus alone of this group was killed, but only after Apollo had loosened his corselet and blindness had seized his mind.?9! In addition there was Menesthius, who was called aioAo®apné in the single men-

tion of him in the Jlad; possibly the epithet was given to him to give added stature to an otherwise unknown leader of the Myrmidons.?%? Finally Achilles himself had the cuirass made for him by Hephaestus in addition to his original corselet, which Patroclus had worn. The use of bronze corselets by such an exalted group of Achaean warriors suggests that they were special equipment and were not worn by the entire army, unlike

hoplite equipment in a later period.29 In contrast to the Achaeans, the Trojans who were specifically

described as having a ®wpng were very nondescript, except for Hector and Paris. Like the Achaean leaders, both Hector and Paris were saved from a fatal wound by the thorax.29* When Hector was eventually killed, he was wounded in the throat in

the one place that had not been covered by the bronze armor he had taken off the dead body of Patroclus.295 Apart from Amphius, whose corselet was made of linen, the Trojans named consist of Antiphus, Agastrophus, Orthyoneus, the charioteer of Asius, Oenomaus, Phorcys, Polydorus, and Asteropaeus, all of whom were killed and whose armor was taken as booty.2% Of

the Trojans who were said to wear a cuirass, Paris alone survived at the end of the /had. It would appear as if these warriors had cuirasses for the sole purpose of providing booty for the Achaeans. The Dendra cuirass, fig. 70, proves that bronze corselets existed in the Mycenaean Period, but it also answers some of the prob-

lems that have long perplexed commentators. This Mycenaean body armor was composed of fifteen different pieces of bronze. The upper torso was covered by a plate of bronze on the front and a second plate on the back. Together these two plates formed a cylinder and kept the cuirass from fitting closely to the body, thus allowing air to circulate between the torso and the

armor. The lower torso and upper thighs were covered by a series of three overlapping bronze plates, one series in the front and a second series on the back that joined together on the sides

to form further cylinders. These moved up and down in order to allow the legs greater freedom

of movement.

Additional

curved pieces of metal covered each of the shoulders, and another protected the neck. The entire corselet was originally

lined in leather, as indicated by the position of some of the holes still preserved. Other holes served to attach one piece to another, presumably with leather throngs. The right armhole was made larger than the left, to allow greater freedom for the arm wielding the weapon. Although this cuirass looks awkward and ungainly in comparison to the eighth-century thorax,2?? it does allow great flexibility of movement. It is not close fitting; therefore the same cuirass can be worn by warriors of very different

proportions,””® and in the /liad the armor brought by Achilles to Troy was afterwards worn by both Patroclus and Hector.29 Although there is a slight variation in the ideograms for corselets in the Linear B tablets.“ the overall form is similar to that of the Dendra cuirass. On both the lower part is composed of three horizontal bands, the main part covering the upper torso

Fig. 70. Bronze corselet and boar’s tusk helmet from chamber tomb at Dendra. is a single piece, and the shoulders are articulated separately. In the Pylos ideograms the neck protector, missing on the Knossos tablets,30! was added, as was the helmet. In the /liad during the duel between Menelaus and Paris, Menelaus threw his spear at Paris. The spear pierced the shield, the corselet, and the tunic beneath, but at the last moment Paris

twisted his body and avoided the spear.?02 There has been much criticism of this passage since, it has been claimed, a war-

rior was not able to avoid being wounded after the spear had pierced the corselet and the tunic beneath by a last-minute twist of the body.?03 If the warrior had been wearing the type of thorax used in the eighth century, which was worn close to the body, then this criticism is valid. ‘The Mycenaean cuirass found at Dendra, however, fitted much less tightly. A spear piercing it, with luck, can have just missed the torso and have passed between the metal of the cuirass and the body with its loose-fit-

48

TALES OF HEROES artistic tradition of the Mycenaean

Period, there are no exam-

ples of both the thorax and the large body shields being used at the same time and it may be that they represent two different

types of armament for two different types of warriors.’!? The association of the cuirass with chariots in the “Armoury Tablets” from Knossos, fig. 68, suggests that the chariot forces

were the warriors who primarily used the cuirasses. The large body shields carried by the soldiers on the Stuccoed Stele from Alycenae, the one side of the Warrior Vase and the sherd from Tiryns, figs. 42, 126, on the other hand, suggest that foot soldiers, as distinct from the chariot forces, normally used the shields. In the /ltad twenty warriors were described as wearing

cuirasses and thirty-five were said to carry shields. Only Paris and Hector among the Trojans were equipped with both cuirass and shield.3!# Among the Achaeans both were used by Agamemnon, Menelaus, Achilles, Patroclus, Diomedes, Odysseus, and Meges.3!° Only the greatest and most famous of the warriors used both. Epic tradition with its glorification of the hero demanded that the greatest warriors undertake all manner of heroic fighting. Thus in the tradition they eventually

became equipped with every type of armor known, even though Fig. 71. Bronze greaves from LH [11 C chamber tomb in Kallithea.

originally in the Mycenacan Period the different groups of war-

riors appear to have had different types of equipment.

ting tunic. Albeit a freakish accident, it can have happened and

it provided a means of saving Paris and later Hector while at

THE GREAVES

the same time glorifying the skill of their opponents, Menelaus and Ajax.

A pair of greaves was found in the Dendra tomb, in addition to the cuirass and other weapons. A particularly handsome set of

The Dendra cuirass also clarifies the passages where the cuirass

bronze greaves was found Kallithea, fig. 7/, and greaves the Odyssey. In the four major put on greaves, beautiful ones

was specifically said to be 81nA005.?"* After the duel between Menelaus and Paris, Athena persuaded Pandarus to shoot an arrow at Menelaus, thereby breaking the truce.*°> The arrow

was said to have hit Menelaus at the point where the clasps of the belt met and the cuirass was double. The Dendra cuirass has a second layer of bronze curving around the lower torso just at the waist where the belt would have been worn. It can accurately be described as being 5.xAdoc.

in a later tomb excavated in were worn in both the /liad and arming scenes the warriors first fitted with silver ankle pieces.320

When Thetis asked Hephaestus to make armor she also requested greaves, using a similar description, ones that were beautiful and fitted with ankle pieces.?2! In her request, Thetis

mentioned the same pieces of armor donned in the arming scenes, but in a different sequence, and she omitted any men-

The term yvadov, which occurred seven times in the Zliad,30?

tion of silver. When Hephaestus made the greaves for Achilles,

can also be explained by the Dendra cuirass.?%# When Pandarus

they were said to have been fashioned out of tin.??? Later when Achilles fought, one of his greaves was hit by a spear thrown by

shot an arrow at Diomedes, he hit him in the right shoulder on the yvadov BapnKxoc.*! The next time the YbaAov occurred, Idomeneus struck Oenomaus in the intestines, yaotmp pécon, with his spear, breaking the ®@pnKxos yoadov and thereby caus-

ing his death.3!° This same action was repeated later,3!! when Ajax killed Phorcys. ‘The fourth time the word was mentioned, Menelaus was hit kata otm8og by an arrow shot by Helenus that landed on the ®wpnxog yoadov.3!? When Dolops attacked Meges with his spear, Meges was saved by his nukıvög ... 6apné | tov 6 EGdper yvaloıcıv apnporta, his sturdy cuirass fitted with yvala.?13 Finally, during the marshalling of the Achaeans, the forces left the ships bearing helmets, shields, spears, and GwPNKEs te KpatatyvaAot, cuirasses with massive yoadov.3!4 The reference to the yvadov of the cuirass in these passages seems to indicate that it was a specific part of the cuirass. Weapons hurled at shoulders or lower torsos of warriors wearing armor similar to the Dendra cuirass would have hit the moveable curved bronze pieces attached to the larger stationary bronze plate covering the upper torso. These smaller bronze pieces of the Dendra cuirass fit the description of the ybadov.3!> It has been stated that the bronze cuirass made the body shield obsolete and that the two were not used together.’ In the

Agenor.323 ‘This was the only mention of greaves in any of the fighting scenes of the /Zliad. Once the epithet yaAxoxvnpts was used; this is the only reference to bronze greaves in the epics.*?! All other references to greaves in the /liad occur in the phrase the well-greaved Achaeans, Eüxvnpudeg "Ayxauoi, either in the nominative or the accusative plural and always at the end of the line.325 Unlike the cuirass, greaves were mentioned only with the Achacans and never with the Trojans or their allies.?2® This

limited use of the word in the /liad suggests that the epithet had become a standard formula. It also suggests that after the intro-

duction of this formula into the epic tradition, there followed a period when greaves were no longer worn in battle, hence their almost complete absence from the more individualized fighting scenes. Achilles alone in the /liad was saved from a wound by

his greave. Later he was to meet his death by being hit with an arrow in the foot where the greave did not provide protection. This later event seems to have formed a special link in the oral

tradition between Achilles and greaves: consequently his greaves were remembered in his fighting scene in the /ltad and they served as a reminder of the fate that awaited Achilles. In the Odyssey, a formulaic usage also occurred; greaves were

4v

The aan Used by the Homeric Heroes

7

49

|

) Fig. 72. Wall painting portraying hunter wearing greaves from palace at Pylos. Restored drawing by Piet de Jong. mentioned eleven times, five times as Eücvnnideg Ayanoi, five times as €Uxvqpides Etaipoı,’°’ and once in reference to the greaves worn by Laertes working in the fields. These were defined as: nepi 5€ Kvjpnor Boeiag | Kvnpidédas pantac S€5et0, ypantüg aleeivov, “about his shins he had bound stitched greaves of ox-hide to guard against scratches.”38 The reference to Laertes indicates that greaves were sometimes made of leather and were used in situations other than fighting.??" Greaves were also worn on ships, although shoes appear not to have been.3¢ In later Mycenaean art, the portrayal of shoes or boots was rare whereas a covering on the lower legs was common, figs. 43, 723% These were worn by all the warriors’? except for the

bowmen. In the art of the prehistoric period, however, only the Mycenaeans were portrayed wearing this type of shin protection.333 The identification of greaves in Mycenaean tombs, their portrayal in Mycenaean art, and the formulaic usage of the word associated only with the Achaeans in the Jliad and Odyssey suggest that the greaves in the epics reflect the Mycenaean Period?" and that they were not later intrusions depicting hoplite armor, as has often been suggested.?3>

when it was held by one of the gods. It was called golden when associated with Apollo.*4” Poseidon’s sword, which he held up leading the way for the Achacans, was called deıvöv, terrible or terrifying, elkeAov aoteponn, like lightening, and tavünkeg,

thin or sharp-edged.?”? Elsewhere in the Zliad the Gop was once again described as tavünkes, similar to Poseidon’s sword,3'8

and once each as 0§0."49 and large, neya.?°" In the Odyssey in addition to being called tavinxes and 6&0,*5! it was once called bronze, xaAkeov, and once all of bronze, nayyaAKeov.? The $aoyavov was used fifteen times in the /liad and ten times in the Odyssey. It was described eight times in the /liad and four times in the Odyssey. The most frequent adjective used to describe it was sharp, 050.%53 Twice it was called silver-studded, apyupondov.*>+ Once each it was called large and sturdy, péya

te on Papov te, adjectives usually associated with the gaxog,5 double-edged, aponxes,’ bronze, xaAkKeov,’’’ large, péeya.3*8 and finally peAdvéeta xoxnevta, a phrase whose meaning needs further clarification." The adjective bronze was used at least once for all three types of swords. This clearly reflects the Mycenaean Period, when bronze swords were used and the iron sword had not yet been introduced, fig. 73. It has often been said that the swords of

THE SWORDS

the Zltad were slashing swords and the type of wound inflected

On the battlefield at Troy swords were occasionally used, and three different words for the sword occur in the /liad and the Odyssey, the Eigoc, the Gop, and the daoyavov. The most frequently mentioned was the Ei$og, which occurs forty-two times in the [had and twenty-three times in the Odyssey.386 It was most commonly described as silver-studded, apyupondov,*” sharp, 080,8 and large, neya.’" It was also called double-edged. auonkes,* hilted, Konneig, or sometimes with a silver hilt," and bronze, xaAkeov.’'? Once each it was called sharply-pointed, tavunkec,"3 said to come from Thrace, }!! and described as having gold studs.*

reflects iron swords rather than bronze ones.*6! Slashing swords, however, were known by the end of the Mycenaean Period and a particularly well-preserved example of a bronze slashing sword was found at Mycenae in a bronze hoard of late

The @op was mentioned seventeen times in the Iliad and eight times in the Odyssey. It was most vividly described in the /had

Late Helladic HI B-C date, fig. 74.4? There are twenty-nine incidents Seven of tionable off of an

when the sword was used to inflict a fatal wound. these incidents represent actions that might be queswith a prehistoric sword. These consist of the cutting opponent's arm, once with the §i¢og and once with a

$acyavov, and the chopping off of his head, three times with a Eidos and twice with oaoyavov.*63 These seven incidents were unusual. Wounds on the head and neck were far more numerous and these are appropriate for a bronze sword. They were

TALES OF HEROES Fig. 73. Mycenaean short

When the archaeological evidence for swords in the Mycenaean

bronze sword with elaborately decorated handle

Period is examined, it becomes clear that the great warriors must have had a variety of swords.473 An elaborate typology of swords has been established, beginning with the swords from the Shaft Grave Period, fig. 75. The long, earlier swords were gradually replaced by swords with shorter blades, and the attachment of the blade to the handle was made more secure by gradually increasing the size of the tang fitting into the handle.*74 It is possible to discern a general pattern in those few

from Grave Circle A at Mycenae.

unplundered tombs after the Shaft Grave Period where weapons have been found. There were most frequently two swords with each burial, one long one and one short one, placed along the right side of the skeleton.”’® In the Linear B tablets, names for two swords occur, the €igo¢g and the $aoyavov,’’® and it is tempting to associate these two names with the two swords, the long one and the short one, found in

the graves. If the /iad and the Odyssey reflect the Mycenaean Period then there should be some hint of the two different swords found in the graves and the two types of swords found in the tablets. One of the first difficulties to be encountered in trying to estab-

lish parallels between the two swords of the Mycenaean Period usually inflicted with the 8i405,?#* but once also with the aop.?"’ Wounds on the body were caused once by each of the swords.* Occasionally the sword was identified but the type of wound was not described.’ ‘The warriors who inflected these wounds were Achilles ten times, Diomedes and Ajax each four times, Peneleos twice, and once each for Hector, Thoas, Agamemnon, Antilochus, Leonteus, Helenus, Menelaus, Ajax the minor, and Eurypylus. These men represent some of the greatest heroes on the battlefield, and actions attributed to them might have been magnified to suit their stature as heroes. All three swords were said to have been used by Achilles, Diomedes, and Hector. The Ei¢0¢ and the Gop were used by Agamemnon. Ajax fought with the 8i$0g but he also had a $acoyavov. Automedon fought with a igo and was said to have an aop. Apollo and Poseidon were associated only with the aop. The major weapon used on the battlefield at Troy, however, was not the sword.**4 When a sequence of action can be traced, the spear was first used, frequently a stone came next, and last the sword was drawn.?%’ Sometimes the spear was used against the first opponent and the sword against the second.?’® Occasionally the opponent was wounded by the spear and dealt the fatal blow with the sword.3”! Once the Eidos was said to break, and once the daoyavov.???

and the swords of the /liad and Odyssey is the appearance in the epic tradition of a third type of sword, the aop. In the Odyssey, the aop was first mentioned when Odysseus was in the Land of the Phaeacians. Euryalus, having been less than hospitable, tried to make amends by presenting Odysseus with a gift. This gift was described as an Gop rayxaAxeov, a sword made all of bronze, @ Erı konn | ayupen, with a hilt made of silver and a scabbard of ivory, a gift that was of great worth.?”’ An aop that is all of bronze cannot have a hilt of silver, unless the dop and the konn are two different parts of the sword. Ifthe konn is correctly identified as the hilt or handle,*’8 then possibly the aop in this passage does not mean sword but actually the blade of the sword which was all of bronze.379 In the next line when the

sword was actually presented to Odysseus, it was called a Eigog apyuponaoy, a silver-studded sword.*8° The same words were repeated later when Odysseus, having received the sword, thanked Euryalus for the &i6og and then proceeded to wear the Eidos apyupondov.*#! In this passage the aop and the Eidog must refer to the same sword, the one that had been given to Odysseus by Euryalus. The identification of the €1¢0¢ apyupondov as the entire sword consisting of an dop nayxaiKeov and a konn ayupen avoids a contradiction in the text. It also means that only two different words were used for the entire sword, making the double nomenclature similar to the two difFig. 74. LH HI B-C bronze sword from bronze hoard found tn citadel at Mycenae (0.60 m).

fig. 75. Bronze sword with gold handle from Grave Circle B at Mycenae (1.025 m).

The Weapons Used by the Homenc Heroes

51

LK

ee

eaunn» ee

Fig. 76. LH Ill A bronze swords, one long and one short, with gold nvets from chamber tomb in Athens (0.74 and 0.50 m). Fig. 77. LH III B-C bronze short sword or dagger from bronze hoard found in citadel at Mycenae. Fig. 78. LH III C bronze swords found in graves at Kallithea (0.82 and 0.52 m).

| AN ferent words used for both the shield and the spear. At the same time it establishes the use of two types of swords in the text, which is paralleled by the two different types of swords found in the archaeological record.*#? Further justification for the identification of these terms can apyvponaov, silver-studded, the ¢aoyavov but never for be understood to indicate which were decorated with

be seen in the use of the adjective which was used for the Eidog and the Gop. The use of the epithet can that the Eigog and the ¢acyavov, silver studs, consisted of a blade and

a handle held together by those same silver studs, in contrast to the @op, which did not have silver studs and which meant the blade of the sword without handle.

In the /liad the Gop made of gold was used as an epithet for Apollo, 'AnöAAwv xpvadopos.383 If the Gop is identified as the

blade of the sword then the emphasis of this epithet can be understood

to be on the golden

blade used by the god as

opposed to the bronze blades, sometimes only partially decorated with gold, used by mortals. Poseidon, holding his gop, which was described as tavunxec, Seivov, and eixeAov aoteporn,**+ led the Achaeans into battle. He can be understood to have

been brandishing his unsheathed sword high over his head, almost as if it were a banner; hence the emphasis on the blade, with its threatening, sharp edge, shinning like lightning, which was visible to all who followed him. Other indications of the Gop being the blade of the sword can be found in the Iltad. Achilles, fighting against Aeneas, was said to draw out his Eidos ö&0, and had not Poseidon stopped the fighting he might have

killed Aeneas with the aop.385 Once again there seems to be a contradiction, similar to the one found in the Odyssey, if the Gop and the Eidos are two different swords. The contradiction is avoided, however, if the Eigoc is understood to mean the sword, which was drawn, and the dop is understood as the blade, which was to be used to inflict the wound. A similar situation occurred in the Jihad Book 10 between the ¢aoyavov and the cop. When Diomedes went to the night conference of the

Achaean leaders, he took with him a spear. Since he had left his own sword behind, Thrasymedes equipped Diomedes with a gaoyavov before he set off on his mission. This ¢a4o0yavov was

used by Diomedes to cut off Dolon’s head, but when Diomedes attacked the Thracians, he was said to use an Gop, even though

no mention of an aop had been previously made during the preparation for the mission.3% In another example later in the

Thad, Achilles was said to have left behind all his weapons by the side of the river Xanthus and to have only his ¢acyavov with

him. With this weapon he killed again and again, and terrible were the groans of those he slew with the aop and the water ran

red with blood.38? A contradiction in the text is avoided in both these examples if the @op is understood to be the part of the $acyavov and not a second sword of another type. If the dop is identified as the blade, then the Eigoc and the $aoyavov become the two swords used in the epics, correspond-

ing to the types of swords mentioned in the Linear B tablets and the two swords, one large and one small, found graves after the Shaft Grave Period, fig. 76. The used forty-two times in the /liad in contrast to which was mentioned only fifteen times. It was

together in the word Eigoc was the $aoyavov, the sword asso-

ciated with the arming scenes and it was used in the duels between Menelaus and Paris and between Hector and Ajax.384 The ¢aoyavov was used only four times to inflict a specific type of wound that was fatal,389 in contrast to the Ei$og which was

used twelve times in the same way.3% The greater effectiveness of the Eigoc, and its use in the arming scenes and the two duels suggest that it was the more powerful weapon.3?! There were only two occasions when the ¢doyavov was used as

the major weapon in the /lad. The first occurred in Book 21, the episode mentioned above, when

Achilles left behind his

other weapons and used the ¢aoyavov alone.392 This could be understood to indicate that the ¢aoyavov was the larger of the

swords.393 but it does not explain why such emphasis was

52

TALES OF HEROES

placed on the fact that he had left all his other weapons behind. If the ¢aoyavov were the smaller sword, on the other hand, then Achilles’ actions become even more frightening and thus

more heroic, since even with the smaller sword he was able to kill again and again, until he became weary with slaying.394 The only other time the daoyavov was important was in the final confrontation between Achilles and Hector in Book 22 of the /ltad. Having been deceived by Athena, Hector was without a spear. In desperation he drew out his ¢aoyavov ö&U to attack Achilles.395 This sword was described as neya te otıßapov,’"'

er sword. Later when Odysseus consulted Teiresias and spoke with the dead Elpenor, he used both types of swords, the Eidos and the ¢aoyavov.!!? This represents the only serious inconsistency in the Odyssey.4'3 Telemachus always used the Eigos, almost as if he were trying to prove his manhood.*!* Menelaus as the king of Sparta also carried the Gigoc, as the larger weapon more fitting to a man of his position. Eumaeus, when he had retired for the night and might have had need of a

weapon, took with him the Ei¢o¢.4!> When Neoptolemus went

which can be understood to mean it was large and sturdy for a

to Troy, it was the Eidos and the spear which he handled so eagerly as he waited to attack the Trojans,*'® since the Eidos as

short sword. To the audience the situation would have seemed even more desperate if Hector, having been deprived of his spear through a ruse of Athena, had to face Achilles not with his Eigoc, or his large sword, which we must assume had been

Eigog was the sword given as a gift?!’ or in exchange.*!# When the knife hanging beside the sword was noted, it was the Eidos that was mentioned.*!?

broken or lost in the previous action, but with only his short sword or his ¢aoyavov.

Hector’s defense throughout this final

confrontation was ill-fated and somewhat pathetic. He had deliberately remained outside the fortification walls when the rest of the Trojans had withdrawn into the citadel.*” Afterwards, he was unable to seek sanctuary by outrunning Achilles,3%* and then he was deceived by Athena.*" When he

the larger sword was more appropriate in the fighting. The

Swords were used occasionally in the fighting, but they were not the major weapon employed on the battlefield. A reason for this can be found in the archaeological record. The Mycenaean swords, although magnificent-looking objects, were unreliable as weapons because of the short tang holding blade to handle. The great length of some of the swords, which continued to the

end of the Mycenaean Period, fg. 78, made them difficult to

managed to avoid Achilles’ first cast of his spear, Athena

draw out of their scabbards and it created another obstacle.

returned the spear to Achilles* and with that same spear Achilles killed Hector.“! Earlier Achilles chose to fight with the $acyavov alone, which he had done successfully, but when Hector was forced to fight with the ¢acyavov alone, he was to

The position in which that sword was worn also increased this

fail.#2 may

perhaps reflect this same kind of desperation.) This phrase was used during the general melee of fighting near the ships when all manner of understood to mean hilt, cornevta, but was used to describe

weapons were being used." It is generally with black thongs, peAdvdeta, around the in the Classical Period when pedAdvdetov swords or shields it meant bloodstained.*0>

If the classical meaning were applied to the Homeric usage, konnevta

can be understood

to mean

“to

become dark or wet with blood up to its hilt.” It reflects the desperation of the fighting when short swords were being used in close hand-to-hand combat, and it creates a poignant image of

war similar to the passages where the fighting was so intense that the ground (or water) ran red with blood.” A short sword, ‚fie. 77, in contrast to a spear or a long sword, can more realisti-

cally become bloodied up to its hilt. The

the passage where Hector was said to throw a spear at Ajax, . struck, there where over his chest were crossed the two straps

The description of the $aoyava as nelavdeta Kwrnevta

then peAavéeta

difficulty. An indication of the sword’s position is to be found in which

identification of the dacyavov as the shorter of the two

swords corresponds to its usage in the Odyssey. Large weapons, such as spears, appear to have been left at the doorway and not to have been carried into the houses.#” When the final confrontation between Odysseus and the suitors took place, the only weapon held by the suitors, before Melanthius retrieved the hidden armor, was the ¢aoyavov.*® Telemachus,

being

prepared, did not have a ¢aoyavov but had armed himself with the larger and more important Gigoc.49 During Odysseus’ adventures on his homeward journey, he consistently used the Ei¢oc!! except for two occasions. After his arrival on the island of Circe, he went hunting taking with him his spear and his daoyavov.'!! The spear in this episode was taken to be used in the killing of the stag whereas the ¢aoyavov was needed to cut up the carcass, an activity suited to the short-

one for the sword with the silver nails, and one for the great shield. 7" ‘The strap holding the shield appears to have been worn over the right shoulder, across the upper torso to the left side of the

body.?2! If it crossed the strap holding the sword, as indicated in the Homeric verses, then the sword strap must have hung from the left shoulder to the right hip, which means that the sword was carried on the right side of the body. It may be coinci-

dence, but swords buried with the dead in the Mycenaean Period were usually placed along the right side of the body.*?? Swords, always identified as sharp whether they were the Gigos, the ¢acyavov, or the Gop, were repeatedly drawn from beside the thigh, Epvooanevog napa pnpov.t23 This phrase implies a

vertical motion with the sword being parallel to the thigh. A sword worn on the right, as suggested by Ajax’s straps, had to be withdrawn from its scabbard with a vertical gesture, similar

to the implication of the phrase in the text. Such a position for the sword is contrary to the position of swords throughout later history. If the swords of the same warriors who carried it becomes understandable same side. A sword worn

epics were originally wom by those the large leather body shields, then why both were not carried on the on the left by a warrior carrying a

large body shield could not avoid continuously hitting the inside of the shield, causing considerable wear to the leather of the shield and possibly damaging the scabbard. A sword worn on the right, the position of Ajax’s sword, did not come into contact with the shield, but such a position made it more difficult to

draw and thus less readily available as a weapon for use in battle. The position of the sword and the technical problem of swords breaking at the handle in the Mycenaean Period well explain why swords were so rarely used as weapons on the batUefield at Troy.

The Weapons Used by the Homeric Heroes

53

—> Fig. 79. Short LH III B-C bronze spearhead from Old Epidauros (0.155 m.).

Fig. 80. Long LH III A spearhead from chamber tomb in Athens (0.54 m.). Second longest spearhead known from the Mycenaean World.

THE SPEARS

together in council, his impetuous words almost caused a com-

The major weapon of warfare in the /lad was the spear, which was the weapon used most often to inflict a fatal wound.424 Just as in the case of the swords, specific parallels can be found

plete collapse, which Odysseus was able to stop only with diffi-

naean Period, and like the swords both short and long spear-

culty.4! Repeatedly Agamemnon acted in a way that was not appropriate to his rank or befitting the heroic behavior of epic tradition.‘#2 Someone had to bear the blame for Achilles’ withdrawal from the fighting and for the subsequent disaster. Tradi-

heads were used, figs. 79-80. There were two different words for the spear in the epics, the Eyyog and the ööpv, and once again one of the words, the Eyxog, is pre-Greek and the other,

forces. In order to satisfy heroic expectation and at the same time cast blame on Agamemnon for the near defeat of the

the ööpv, is Indo-European. Whenever a warrior carried two spears, they were always identified as being a ööpv, never an

Achaeans, the bard subtly degraded Agamemnon’s character. It was for this reason, in my opinion, that Agamemnon first

between

the spears of the epics and the spears of the Myce-

€yxoc. The use of the single Eyyog as opposed to the double Sovpe immediately suggests that the Eyxog was the larger of the

two types. This is also clearly implied in the arming scenes. Patroclus was said to take the GAxipa Sovpe, ta oi raAdundıv apnpet, “two valorous spears, that fitted his grasp”*25 because the Eyxog used by Achilles was so large that Achilles alone was

able to wield it.426 When Achilles joined the fighting he took his Eyxoc, which was described as Bp180 péya otıßapov, heavy,

huge and strong.*2” The €yyo¢ carried by Athena was described with the same adjectives.!28 Paris, arming for the duel with Menelaus, took an GAkipov Eyxos, 6 ol radaundıv aprpet, “a valorous spear, that fitted his grasp”*29 although earlier, before the duel began, he had been carrying So0vpe 50w.*30 Ares consistently used the €yyoc, which was called neAdpiov, huge,??! xaAxeov, bronze,'?? and paxpov, long.433 Hector had a special Eyxos, which was described as being evöexannyv, eleven cubits

long.*3* In the two formal duels the Eyxog alone of the spears was wiclded.*35 In Minoan-Mycenaean art, both a single spear and double spears were portrayed. Men carrying the double spears seem to be attendants of some sort, fig. 8/, or people of lesser distinction,* whereas a single spear was more frequently held by the individual heroes in the actual scenes of conflict,

fies. 55, 82,437 If the Eyxoc was the larger and more important weapon, as the epic seems to suggest, it may seem somewhat surprising to discover that Agamemnon, at the end of his arming scene, took up the dAxipa dSovpe 500, Kexopußpeva yarxg, “two mighty

spears, tipped with bronze.”?8 This may at first seem to contradict the conclusions just drawn concerning the two types of spears, but throughout the /liad, Homer constantly belittled Agamemnon. On various occasions it was made clear that Agamemnon was the nominal head of all the Achaean armies, yet repeatedly his actions were less than wise. He refused at first to return the daughter of Chryses, thereby causing the army to

tion made

Agamemnon

the supreme

leader of the Achaean

donned a splendid corselet with elaborate decoration, the only gold-studded sword mentioned in the epic, and a shield whose decoration was rivalled only by the figures on the aegis of

Athena. Then he picked up two spears. Agamemnon did not pick up the glorious Eyxog used by Achilles, but the lesser 500pe used by Patroclus, the less powerful companion of Achilles. By introducing variations within the repeated lines, the bard used the arming scenes as a subtle means of differentiating the various heroes. The magnificence of the armor indicated the rank of the warrior, but that did not always correspond to the final lines where his valor as a hero was symbolized by the type of

spear he grasped. Some of the herocs used both the Eyxos and the ööpv. The bard

appears to have deliberately enhanced or detracted from the action of an individual hero by the type of weapon named. This is clearly illustrated by the actions of Paris. When

he first

appeared, standing before the Trojan army in a boasting pose, he was brandishing two spears, doüpe 50a. The moment Menelaus sought a confrontation, Paris quickly retreated. Later when he had mustered his courage and the confrontation did take place, Paris carried an Eyxog.*"?

A weapon that was thrust into the back of a fleeing enemy, thereby killing the opponent in less than a heroic manner, was always the d0pv,*4 and this once again implies the lesser status

for the 56pv. When a spear was withdrawn from the body of a slain warrior, it became the Eyxog*?? with only two exceptions,*© unless the wound was not fatal and then the 56pv was withdrawn.#7

In one sequence the ööpv was thrown by a Trojan, but the intended victim, an Achaean, seeing the Eyxog, avoided it.+*8

The spear, the S0pv of the Trojan warriors (Hector, Deiphobus, and Aeneas) turned into an Eyxog in mid-flight before it reached the Achaean warriors (Teucer, Idomeneus, Meriones, Ajax, and Automedon). This sequence could be interpreted to

suffer from the plague.'?” Forced to give up Chryses’ daughter,

mean that the two spears were interchangeable, but such a con-

Agamemnon argued with Achilles." When he called the army

clusion contradicts the clear distinction made

in the arming

TALES OF HEROES turned into a S6pu* as if to belitdle its value, was to go to Meri-

ones. Earlier when two prizes were put forth, the first-named prize went to the winner and the second-named to the other warrior. In this last contest to be declared, it was the second-

named prize, the cauldron, that went to Agamemnon whereas the first-named, the Eyxog, having turned into a S6pv, went to Meriones.*55 The words Eyxog and ööpv seem to have been

manipulated by Achilles in this passage in a deliberate attempt to ensure that Agamemnon received the lesser of the two prizes. There are several other occasions when both terms were used. In /had Book 16, line 466, Sarpedon, who usually fought with a d0pv, threw his ööpv at Patroclus and missed, a repeated theme

in the fighting. Often in this type of sequence the spear killed someone else instead. In this passage, instead of killing another warrior or the charioteer, Sarpedon killed the horse Pedasus and the weapon he used was called the Eyxog'?% even though earlier he was said to have thrown the Sdpv. Possibly the €yxoc, was substituted as a more appropriate weapon against a horse. Meges had killed Crocsmus with a ööpv, but when he attacked Dolops the weapon changed into an Eyxoc.*?’ The attack against Dolops failed. Aiming at his helmet, Meges only man-

’

\

\

aged to cut off his plume, an unworthy and rather comic result. The bard, by substituting the more prestigious weapon, tried to create a humorous episode on the field of battle.

\

\

In another sequence the ööpv turned into the head of the €yxoc'4 or the Eyxog turned into the head of a ööpv.'?? Some-

times a line taken from an earlier episode was repeated in later Fig. 81. Wall painting of huntsmen carrying two spears from earlier hunting scene decorating courtyards of the older palace at Tiryns. Restored drauing by G. Rodenwaldt. scenes between the ööpv used by Patroclus and the Eyxog used by Achilles. I would like to suggest that the naming of two types of spears was a conscious choice made by the bard who used

the different types of weapons to enhance or deflate the particular warrior or event involved. The Trojans were said to use the 86pv in this sequence, thereby belittling their stature as warriors, whereas the Achaeans avoided the €yyoc, the more powerful and dangerous weapon, and consequently their actions were made to scem more heroic.#9 A deliberate contrast between these two types of spears occurred in the scene when Helen, against her own desires and at the command of Aphrodite, returned to greet Paris after his abortive duel with Menelaus. In her speech to Paris, Helen spoke sarcastically of both the Eyxog and the ddpv. You used to boast, she taunted Paris, that you were better than Menelaus with the Eyxog. But better not challenge him again, she went on to say, lest he overwhelm you with his 56pv.45° Helen seems to be saying that although Paris boasted that he was better than Menelaus with the Eyxog, in actual fact Menelaus even with the lesser weapon, the ö6pv, could overcome him. Hard words indeed, as Paris himself said.*>!

Another deliberate play with the words can be seen at the end

action where a different type of spear was being used, thus creating still another type of discrepancy. On other occasions it may be assumed that a warrior used one type of spear in the earlier fighting and a different type for later action.*°! For the most part, however, only one type of spear was used at any one

time, unless a repeated line was introduced into the sequence. The occasional changing of one weapon into the other suggests that the two types of spears were not very different and that all

the warriors were capable of using either one.*62 Twenty Achaeans and seventeen Trojans mentioned by name were said to use the ööpv, whereas only eighteen Achaeans, thirteen Trojans, and the two gods were said to use the Eyxoc. Within this group, fifteen Achaeans and eight Trojans were said to use both at one time or another.*#3 Since the two gods used the Eyxog, it might be presumed that it was the more prestigious weapon, and probably for this reason it was more often portrayed than the ööpv in Mycenaean art. When the fatality list is drawn fifty named Trojans and fifteen named Achacans were killed by the ööpv, whereas only twenty named Trojans, four named Achacans, and one horse were killed by the €yxog. This

can be understood to indicate that at the time the epics were being formalized into fixed sequences, the 86pv was actually the more common weapon.'®' A desire for accuracy made the bard

use the ö6pv in his portrayal, while at the same time he added an occasional line or sequence including the Eyxog to create a

sense of importance and grandeur. The various adjectives used

of the Funeral Games in the /ltad, when Achilles set forth as the prizes an €yxog and a cauldron.45? When Agamemnon rose to

to describe the two spears do not conflict with these conclu-

compete with Meriones, Achilles did not allow the contest to

The word €yxog (including used 226 times in the /had, three additional times in the tive most frequently used to occurred thirty-three times

take place, an obvious indication that he had not fully forgiven Agamemnon and was not going to allow him to show his prowess. He claimed that all knew Agamemnon excelled and hence he should have the cauldron. The spear, which suddenly

sions. the alternate spelling Eyxein) was 112 times with an adjective, and epithet Eyx&onakoc.!5 The adjecdescribe the Eyxog was bronze; this in slightly different forms.!#6 The

The Weapons Used by the Homeric Heroes

55

ACR RES

Tabs CCAS : AR Wy Me ITS RN ER

RER TEL sarn== aaaTRIER MCG

SOF

Fig. 82. Boar's Hunt Fresco from Tiryns showing use of single spear in action. Restored drawing by G. Rodenwaldt. next most common

adjective was SoAtyxooxtov, far-shadowing,

used twenty times with one line repeated seven times. This adjective, which was never used with the ööpv, in my opinion, was meant to evoke the notion of speed, the quickly moving shadow of the spear in motion. “OBpipov, mighty, was used thirteen times with the €yzoc, but never with the d0pv. '"8 Maxpov, long, occurred nine times!*” and 8oAıyxög, another way of describing long, occurred three times." Sharp, ouderg, was used eight times, pad’ 080, once, and the longer phrase axaxpevov of€i yarxa, three times.4/! The adjective apoiyvos, curved on both sides, used only for the Eyxog, occurred seven times, always in the dative plural and usually at the end of the line in verses that are identical or almost identical.47? Its almost

exclusive use in repeated or similar lines suggests that it was a traditional epithet that had been used for centuries. MeiAtvov, made of ash, was used six umes.*’+ Bp8v neya ottBapov, huge, heavy and strong, was used five times, twice with Athena, twice with Achilles and once with Patroclus."“? This was another description used only for the Eyxog and never for the dopv. The adjective GAKkipov, mighty, occurred four umes, always in com-

bination with other descriptive words and usually at the end of the line.4?> The Eyxog was called medoprov, very large, on two occasions, once when it was held by Ares and once when it was held by Athena." The spear held by Ajax was once called

péya, large.*’” The unusual epithet avepotpegés was used for

Agamemnon’s spear and €o@Adv was used once for the spears of the Trojans.'“4 The spear belonging to Hector was unique in being described as Evdexannyv, eleven cubits long.'“" The epithets 6Ppipov, neAdpiov, and péya, and the phrase Bp.6d neya

otıßapov imply a large, sizable weapon. These descriptive epithets, used only with the Eyxog and never with the S0pv, serve to reinforce the identification of the Eyxog as the larger of the two spears. In the /liad the S6pv occurred 242 times, eighty-four times with an adjective, excluding the adjective two. Although the d6pv was mentioned more frequently than the Eyxog, it was described less often and fewer epithets were associated with it, which might be seen as another indication that it was consid-

ered the lesser of the two weapons. The most frequently used adjective was shining or flashing, ¢ae.vov, used twenty-four times,“ and once in the plural as raugavoovta.#! Spears identified as being shining were most often being thrown at an opponent and thus were spears in motion. ®aetvov was not used with the €yzoc, but like the adjective 80Aıx6oKıov it was probably meant to convey the idea of movement, with the emphasis on the gleam of flashing light reflected by the moving spear. The d6pv was called 080 nineteen times,!?? o&voets

56

TALES OF HEROES

described as an GAkipov Eyxog, axaxpevov ÖEEi yaAne | Bpıdü peya otßapov.'% This mighty spear upped with sharp bronze was used in the /liad by Nestor and Teucer and in the Odyssey by Telemachus.*# Spears described as heavy, large, and sturdy,

the second half of this description, in the /liad were carried

x ee Ze

gage2 ee

twice by Athena, twice by Achilles, and once by Patroclus.*% The spear carried by Telemachus was always the Eyxoc.4% Laertes, as the father of the avenging hero, used the Eyxog.?® The €yxog in the /had has been identified above as the larger and more important of the two types of spear. Thus it was appropriate for it to be carried by Telemachus, the youth approaching manhood and trying to impress the adults around him, by Athena as a goddess, and by Laertes as the father and grandfather. For this same reason when a spear was given as a gift in the Odyssey, it was said to be an €yxog.?! During the contest with the suitors, Telemachus used both the d0pv and the Eyxoc. At the beginning he stood posturing by his father’s side holding the Eyxog, which changed into a 56pu when he used it to kill Amphinomus, and became an €yx0G again when he returned to his father’s side.?02 He used the 50pu to stab Amphinomus in the back, as in the /liad, where the 56pu was always the weapon used when a spear was thrust into an

opponent’s back. When this same weapon was withdrawn from the body of the slain suitor, it became the Eyxog again, in a transformation similar to that in the /liad. Throughout the remainder of the scene, except for two instances, the 8öpv, the

smaller weapon more appropriate to fighting within the restricted area of the megaron, was used.503 These two exceptions Fig. 83. LH III B ivory figurine weaning boar's tusk helmet from Chamber Tomb 27 at Mycenae.

once,**3 and paxpov thirtcen times,*4 adjectives which were also used with the Eyxog. On three occasions it was called long, 80Aıyöv; two of the spears so described broke during the fighting.*45 References to bronze occur thirteen times and to ash seven times,!#7 adjectives that were also used for the Eyxoc. ‘Twice it was described as mighty, GAktpov,'#4 and twice it was

called pointed, axaypévov.* In the /lad two spears were sometimes grasped and occasionally the dual form was used.” Once

it was said to be without a spearhead and once it was called polished, evEov.*9!

The spears in the /liad could be thought to belong to almost any period had it not been for the special spear carried by Hector.

This spear was said to be eleven cubits long!?? and to have a bronze spearhead, around which ran a ring, a nopxng¢, of gold.*°? On both Crete and the mainland, spearheads have been found that have around the base of the spearhead an added bronze ring, cast separately.*9* These unusual spearheads form the only known parallel for the description in the

Iliad and they help to establish another tie between the /liad and the Mycenacan Period.*" This type of spearhead, the use of bronze, and the combination of single and the double spears in the fighting scenes hark back to the Mycenaean Period, when all the characteristics of the spears in the /had find their counterparts in the remains. Although mentioned many fewer times in the Odyssey, the spears follow the same pattern as those in the /lad. The close similarities between the two epics in the usages of the two different spears is one of the many indications that both were the work of a single bard. In the Odyssey the spear carried by Athena was

were when Ctesippus and then Odysseus were singled out as having wounded an opponent, thus giving added stature to

those particular encounters.?%* Odysseus on two different occasions was said to have used both the Eyxog and ööpv. On the first occasion, having landed on the island of Circe, he carried an Eyxog as he set out to explore. When he saw a great stag, he slew the animal with a ööpv, which he thrust into the back of the stag. The same d50pvu he then pulled out of the stag, which he carried to his comrades leaning on his €yxog.V5 Here again as in the /had, a weapon thrust in the back was a ööpu, whereas the weapon leaned on was the €yzo! Of the four types, the xöpvg alone was not mentioned in association with Patroclus. Hector, however, was said to wear a KOpUG, as Well as a tpusakeıa and a mmAng.>-" whereas Paris in the duel with Menelaus was said to wear a Kopus which a few lines later was referred to as a tpv¢aAeta, although when he

was arming he had put on a kvven as had Patroclus.>! The usages of the different words in the /liad clearly reflect a certain amount of conflation in the nomenclature. In a society where helmets were important pieces of defensive armor, it is surprising that the terminology was not more specific, and it scems likely that the various words originally had very specific meanings. If the original usage of the terms went back for several centuries and was no longer applicable, then a slight confusion in the names at a later time might be understandable. The different metric value of the four different words can have helped to preserve their memory long after the various types ceased to be used, and it has been suggested that some of the words were initially epithets rather than separate terms for helmets themselves.’?? If the original nomenclature had very different connotations, some hint of the differences ought to be reflected by the adjectives used for the different types and by the artefacts of the period which served as the prototype. A wide assortment of helmets has been noted in the artistic representauions of the Late Bronze Age.°?? This variation, however, did not continue after the collapse of the Mycenaean power. The differences between the two cras suggests the possibility that the various words for the helmets originally went back to the prehistoric period, when a variety of different types were used The greatest variety of adjectives was used with the Kuvén. Dolon wore a xvven made of marten’s hide and Diomedes put on a kovén made of bull’s hide." These examples of the Kuven appear to be simple caps made of animal skin and not helmets

hig. 84. LH HIB boar's tusk helmet from chamber tomb in Spata. of the type normally associated with fighting. The «vven put on by Diomedes was described as agadog, that is to say one without a $aAoc, and GAAodog, having no crest or horns.??> Diomedes’ wuven was further described as being a Kxataitvé, which was identified as the type of headgear worn by the young. On the Boxer Rhyton from Aghia Triada, fig. /04, some of the young men wear rounded headgear lacking protrusions; possibly these should be identified as the Kataitv§ mentioned in the Zltad.?2° The helmet worn by Odysseus in /iad Book 10 was also called a Kuven. It was said to have been made of leather; it was covered with boar’s tusks and lined with felt.°2? This kind of helmet is a well-known Mycenaean type called by modern scholarship the boar’s tusk helmet. Examples of this type are known both from the scattered archaeological remains, figs. 70, 84, and from the Mycenaean artistic depictions, ‚fig. 83. It has been widely accepted by even the most skeptical critics that this passage in the dltad reflects the Mycenaean boar’s tusk helmet.°?8 ‘This description serves as proof that the /iad did retain some memory, however vague it might have been, of Mycenaean cwilization, since boar's tusk helmets were not used in subsequent periods.>?" It has been estimated that it took between thirty and forty boars to provide enough tusks for one complete helmet.* Since the number of boars needed for such a helmet was so numerous, this type must have been rare, contrary to the impression given by artistic representations.”5! Originally the tusks appear to have been trophies of the hunt fastened onto a leather cap, the Kuven, as a decoration and as an indication of the warrior’s prowess.? Gradually a specialized type of headgear developed, the boar’s tusk helmet.?34 Although these helmets were drawn with the tusks arranged

58

TALES OF HEROES

Fig. 85. Seal portraying homed helmet from Tholos Tomb at Vapheio. impression of seal, and drawing by A. Papailiopoulos (enlarged). almost identically, the originals probably varied a great deal depending on the number of tusks available. In other descriptions of the Kuvén it was bronze check pieces, xadkorapnog.’** The ed on the Boxer Rhyton, which can be Kataitvg of the /lad, had separately made The boar’s tusk helmet from Dendra, fig. Kuven worn by Odysseus in Book 10, also

described as having headgear representassociated with the check pieces, fig. 104. 70, identified as the had separately made

bronze check pieces. Bronze attachments on the helmets of the Thad are also suggested by the phrase Kuven yaAKnpne, a cap fitted with bronze. Whereas Diomedes’ xvvén was said to be agadog as well as aAA090S, the Kuven worn by Athena and Agamemnon were described as apoigadov Kuvény ... tetpagaAnpov,?!© headgear with projections of some sort, and the one worn by Epicles was called a tetpagadog Kuvén, one with four projections.>%” ‘This seems to indicate that the Kkuvén, in addition to the bronze check pieces and the boar’s tusks, can have had, but did not necessarily have, ¢aAot or HaAnpoı in multiple numbers. Since

four da@Anpot appear to have been set apoigados on the helmets of Athena and Achilles, the description of these helmets suggests that the 6aAog was in the center and two daAnpoı were on either side.8 Helmets with a single projection at the top and additional projections on the sides, suggested by the descriptions in the Jad, find their parallel in Mycenaean art, where boar's tusk helmets with a single projection at the top are often portrayed, fig. #3. Occasionally these helmets are portrayed

with the projections on the sides in the shape of animal horns, Jig. 852" Ifthe oddog is understood to be the central projection, then an explanation is needed for the term tetpagaAos, used twice in the epics. The first occurrence of this word is for the

helmet of the otherwise unknown companion of Sarpedon, Epicles, who was killed by Ajax. The second time it was used it described a helmet, which also had gold plumes, made by Hephaestus for Achilles.’ The fact that this second helmet was made by a god might make us suspect that the term tetpagaaAos grew out of epic embellishment during a period when this type of helmet was no longer worn, Finally, the «uvéy of the arming scenes were said to be Utnovpig?!! with a horsehair plume, and once again helmets with plumes were depicted in Mycenaean art. The descriptions of the xuven in the epic suggest that it was a leather cap or helmet. but they also suggest that the Kuven sometimes had other additions such as boar’s tusks,

horschair plumes of different sizes and shapes, bronze cheek

pieces, or other bronze attachments, a $aAog, or central projection, and the @a@Anpot. Such an array of attachments might at first seem to be difficult to reconcile into a single helmet, but the one attribute associated with this helmet and with none of the others is that it was made of leather.>43 If the Kuvén is visualized

as being a leather cap or helmet to which were added first the trophies of the hunt (the boar’s tusks and animal horns) and later the defensive bronze attachments (the bronze check piece) then it becomes defined as being a leather cap or helmet that was sometimes reinforced or decorated with additions of

bronze, horschair plumes, animal horns or tusks, and a central projecting knob.o4 A second word for helmet in the /ltad was the tpudddeta, a type worn by some of the major heroes.54> The one characteristic

that is associated only with this type of helmet and with none of the others is the avA@nis. There are fourteen references to the tpvoaAeia, and four times it was described as having an avaonic. Unfortunately it is not entirely clear what the auAamıg means.°?'” Hector’s tpusareıa, which had an avAg@nic, was also called tpirtuxog, that is to say of triple thickness, and was said

to have been given to him by Apollo.*" A helmet received as a gift from a god?!" was presumably one of the more elaborate types available. When Thetis asked Hephaestus to make armor for her son, she mentioned the tpvodAeta as the type of helmet she wanted.» This again suggests that the tpusakeıa was the best available, and it should be noted that no warrior wearing a tpugarera was said to have been killed by a weapon piercing the helmet.**! Patroclus’ helmet, which had an avda@nic, also had €@e1pat, a horsehair plume or crest.” These same €8e1pat were mentioned in association with Achilles’ helmet.°?} Horsehair plumes called ttndxopog occur on the tpusakeıa in one passage referring to the army as a whole.** In conversation between Pandarus and Aencas, Pandarus claimed to recognize Diomedes because of his aonig and his tpvodAer.a which had an avAwnız.”°> Paris’ tpudaAeia was said to have a richly embroi-

dered strap.” Nestor, the owner of the golden shield, had a helmet called a tpusarrıa which was called shining. gaeıvn.>>7 These combined references suggest that the tpu@aAeta was a large, heavy helmet with a horsehair plume which was considered more desirable than the other types. In Mycenaean art, helmets with horsehair plumes were frequently depicted. These fall into two major categories, those having a very full and sub-

The Weapons Used by the Homeric Heroes

59

stantial plume and another having one of more modest proportions.>>8 The variation in different kinds of horsehair plumes is well illustrated on the Silver Krater from the Grave Circle at Mycenae, fig. 55. A variety of plumes also occurs in the Miniature Fresco from Thera, fig. 52, and helmets completely lacking

in plumes or with very small ones occur in the wall paintings from Pylos, figs. 64, 103. If the tpusareıa has been correctly identified as the most elaborate of the helmets, then it follows

that the more elaborate representations of helmets with the large horsehair plumes in Mycenaean art were meant to be the tpvodAera. Its characteristic feature, the avA@nic becomes the socket or holder for the heavy plume. The discovery of ivory inlay fragments depicting helmets with large horsehair plumes in the House of Shields at Mycenae**? show that these elaborate helmets were still known in the Late Helladic III B Period. Once the tpudadeta is defined as the heavy helmet with a large plume, then the possibility arises that the anAn& might be the smaller helmet, made of bronze, with only a small plume, similar to the bronze helmet found in Aghios Ioannis, fig. 86. This

helmet covered only the top of the head; it had separately made cheek pieces and at the top there was a knob that had been pierced for a small plume. The word rnAng occurred nine times in the Jhad. Four times it was described as being apoi . . . Kpotagoıaı or NEpi Kpotadotiot, around the temples of the head. The helmet from Aghios Ioannis covered only the top of the head, leaving the back of the head and the neck unprotected. If this helmet is correctly identified as the rnAng of the Jhad, then

the emphasis on the xpotadog becomes pertinent as a description. On two occasions a Trojan wearing a nnAng had his head

cut off in the fighting,*®! which is an appropriate action against a warrior wearing a helmet similar to the one found at Aghios Ioannis. Twice the aniAn& was called daeıvn, shining,’%? an adjective suitable for a bronze helmet though not requiring one.

Fig. 86. Bronze helmet from Aghios loannis.

Only once was a plume mentioned with the mAng.°o3 The fourth term for helmet in the /liad, the Kopus, was used far more frequently than any other,?®* and this word can be identified in the Linear B tablets.*©° It shares almost all the adjectives used for the other helmets except for the avAw@nic, the boar’s tusks and the association with leather. It was made of bronze, fitted with bronze,’ and it gleamed.>*8 It had a ¢aA0¢%" and once a tetpagadog.*”? It had a variety of horsehair plumces?’! and it was said to be heavy.?72 It was worn by the god Ares,?”3 twelve named Trojans, all of whom died before the end of the Iliad except for Paris and Aeneas, and seven named Greeks, four of whom were said to have been killed.”’+ Twelve times the KOpus was associated with the army in general rather than a specific warrior. No single characteristic or adjective is associated only with the xopus. Possibly this term came to be used for bronze helmets of all kinds, rather than a helmet of a specific

type.375 The two other bronze helmets, the tpvedAeta and the mang, are then defined as the larger and the smaller bronze helmets and the xvven becomes the leather helmet or cap,

which often had additions of various types. If this is correct. then it appears natural for the army to wear the Köpug and for it to have been used in the epithets yadKoxopvothns and Kopv8aiodos, in contrast to the tpvedAeta. which was used only twice for the army in general’ while the anand and the Kuven were always associated with specific warriors. One characteristic mentioned with all the helmets is the horsehair plume, and the image was conveyed by the bard that the

battlefield at Troy was full of waving plumes. Many of the artistic renditions of helmets are without plumes, and some of the

actual helmets found have no means of attaching plumes, which suggests that they may not have been as common as the bard of the Zltad implied. The bard, however, was relating the actions of

heroes. Heroes, at least for the purposes of the epic, were naturally portrayed as having the best and most elaborate equipment. This means helmets with plumes and results in a poctic

image of a battlefield full of waving horsehair plumes. This epic emphasis should not be confused with factual presentation. THE BOWMEN It has been argued that bowmen

in the /liad were not consid-

ered important,?”’ but possibly it was the bard's emphasis on heroic action that caused him to minimize the role of the bowmen. So many important Achaeans were wounded by an arrow”’8 that the possibility needs to be considered whether the bowman’s apparent lack of consequence is a modern misconception, The Locrians and the Paconians were singled out as specific groups who fought with the bow.°”? This makes it clear that these weapons were used on the battlefield at Troy. Bowmen are portrayed in Mycenaean art and they make it clear that bows were known and used in that period. Vhe Paconians were also called itnoxopvotys. a term associated with chariot forces.8° “Thus it becomes clear that the Paconians had two dif-

60

TALES OF

HEROES

Fig. 87. LH III B bronze arrowheads from area of Panagia Houses at Alycenar (enlarged). ferent groups of warriors on the battlefield, a chariot force and a group of bowmen. Individual warriors specifically identified as bowmen in the /had were few. Paris carried a bow, which appears to have been his favorite weapon, and whenever he used his bow he always succeeded in wounding or killing his vicum.*8! Paris, being a hero, also used the spear, although with less successful results. Teucer was identified as being the best of the bowmen among the Achacans and he was given many named opponents whom he killed with the bow?” even though as a hero he also fought with a spear." Helenus, using a bow, unsuccessfully attacked Menelaus but soon afterwards succeeded in killing Harpalion with an arrow." Pandarus’®> is perhaps the most interesting of the bowmen. When Athena arranged the breaking of the truce after the duel between Paris and Menelaus, she went to Pandarus.’#® Her choice of Pandarus identifies him as one of the great bowmen on the ‘Trojan side. From afar, Pandarus shot his arrow wounding Menelaus. ‘There are nineteen lines describing his preparations and twenty-one lines describing the result, but the description of his shooting

the arrow took only three lines.>#° During the episode, there was no direct confrontation between Menelaus and Pandarus, and the identity of the bowman who had shot Menelaus was not known to the Achaeans.* In this episode Pandarus won no heroic fame from the Achaeans. It is the similes and the reaction of Agamemnon that make the scene memorable and not the heroic valor of Pandarus. It was this absence of heroic fame, in my opinion, that caused the bard to de-emphasize the bowmen. Pandarus as a well-trained warrior was also able to fight from a chariot, just as Paris and Teucer were portrayed fighting without their bows. Helenus killed one opponent with a sword and Meriones used a spear. Pandarus made known his skill in his speech to Aeneas," when he claimed to have left behind his chariots and to have gone to Troy to fight with his bow. He would not have made such a choice if the work of a bowman were considered demeaning. Menelaus was wounded twice by an arrow and on both occasions was saved by his body armor.* Diomedes was also wounded twice by an arrow. He was so badly wounded on the first occasion that he was able to continue fighting only after he had been revived by Athena. On the second occasion he had to withdraw from the battlefield"! Teucer’s various successes with the bow ended only when one of the gods interfered” just as Pandarus’ arrow had failed

against Menelaus because of the interference of Athena. The repeated refrain that an attack with the bow failed because of a god's interference’ clearly implies that bows were considered effective weapons under ordinary circumstances and they were to be feared on the baulefield. The bowmen, since they were attacking from a distance, were usually safe from a counterattack" and thus it was difficult to portray them in a heroic manner. Pandarus placed himself in a vulnerable and hence in a heroic position when he joined Aeneas in the chariot after he had put aside his bow made ineffective by a god. His actions may have been heroic but they were not wise, since they led to his death. In the Funeral Games only those skills that were considered important were tested, and among those games the bow

was included." The type of bow portrayed in the epics has been fully discussed. The bronze arrowheads commonly used in the Jad are known from Mycenaean remains, fig. 87, and they make their appear-

ance in the Linear B tablets.“ The iron arrowhead employed by Pandarus?”’ was in distinct contrast to the bronze weapons in use elsewhere in the epics. It is a little odd that a single iron weapon’®® was introduced amid the careful identification of the many bronze weapons used by the other warriors at Troy.’ It should be noted, however, that Pandarus was neither an Achacan nor a Trojan but a Trojan ally. He was said to be a son of Lycaon and to have received his bow from Apollo," implying that the bow was newly acquired from an unusual source. It had not been used by his father Lycaon, who was known as a spearman. Although the Mycenacan Period is commonly said to be a part of the Bronze Age, objects made of iron are known from that era.°! With few exceptions they consist of

jewelry.°2 This is in contrast to the Near East, and Pandarus was said to have come from that arca.""' In the Near East iron weapons including arrowheads and a variety of iron tools were widespread before the end of the Mycenaean Age." The iron arrowhead used by Pandarus fits into this pattern, and there is no need to suppose that its use in the Zltad was a slip on the part of the bard, as generally thought. On the contrary, it can be interpreted as part of an age-old oral tradition that carefully preserved the memory of a time when iron arrowheads were used by the people of the Near East, in contrast to the Achaeans, who were stll using bronze weapons.

II THE CLOTHING

IN THE EPICS

OMEN WEAVING IN THE MEGARA while the men fought, hunted, or traveled is one of the many images remem-

also be true of the woolen cloak, the yAatva. When the yAaiva served as bedding or as a cover on a chair by analogy, it can be

bered from the epics.! Although the picture of women weaving

understood to have been a piece of woolen material and not a woolen cloak. This emphasis on the type of material rather than

remains vivid in our memories, the kind of garments worn and

the type of material woven are not entirely clear.? Some of the references to clothing are so generalized that they could be considered to reflect almost any period, but there are some specific

statements that seem to be Mycenaean and to have close parallels to the Linear B tablets. The words for different types of clothing, furthermore, were often embodied in repeated, formulaic lines, which suggests that some of them have a long history in the oral tradition. Cloaks and chitons, xAaivat

te xyitdvec, often mentioned

together in verses that were repeated elsewhere, seem to designate clothing generally worn by men. Many of the lines, partic-

ularly in the Odyssey, describe men dressing in a xAatva and xırav.*t The clear inference is that a chiton and cloak were the

symbols of a properly dressed man.’ Cloaks, yAaivat, were also said to have been used on beds along with other bedding® or on chairs,’ as were the pryyea.® The yAaiva were said to be made of wool, o¥An,? either double-fold!® or single-fold!! in thickness.

They were described as large and thick,!? or very thick.!3 They could be dyed purple in color'+ and were sometimes fastened by a broach.!> The adjectives used with the xAaiva make it clear that this type of cloak was made of wool. In the Linear B tablets references to double-fold, purple, and wool are to be found

reflecting the same adjectives used for the cloaks in the epics. The cloak could also $apog and the xAaiva combination suggests different garments. In

be called a ¢apog. In one passage occurred together with the xırav.!6 that the ¢apoc and the xAaiva were the Odyssey the ¢apog was sometimes

the This two used

with xıtav replacing the word xAaiva.!? The adjectives describing the $apo¢ are large, péya,!® good, xaddv,'? newly or wellwashed, etmAvvec,2? and on one occasion, white, Aeuxov.?! These adjectives, unlike those used for the yAaiva, do not mention thickness or wool. The word apog also described the matenial to be made into a shroud or a sail.?? Homeric sails are

the shape of the garment suggests a culture which was far more interested in the production of cloth than it was in the styling of

garments. A similar phenomenon can be seen in Mycenaean society where the numerous tablets devoted to the making of cloth are in contrast to the artistic representations where the style of the clothing has little variation.2+ Occasionally in place of a cloak an animal skin was worn and once again a parallel for this practice can be seen in Mycenaean art, fig. 90.25 This is in contrast to later periods in Greek art when the wearing of an animal skin was very limited, normally

used to identify an individual as Heracles, Dionysus, a follower of Dionysus, or as a person considered uncivilized because he belonged to a primitive or inferior group. With the Ikad the and once the same

cloak the xutev or chiton was often mentioned. In the xıtwv was most frequently described as xaAkoyxitwv,?" as a xit@v xaAxöc.?? This xırav xaAkög was probably as the 8@pn& made of bronze, and the epithet xaAxo-

xitwv appears to have been a synonym for the epithet yaAxeoBapné.24 Some of the other references to the xırav in the /liad, although not identified as bronze, seem to refer to this same

type of armor. This is perhaps most clearly implied in the anstea of Agamemnon where he stripped the dead of their x. t@vec, presumably their bronze corselets which were prized as booty rather than their woven tunics which were soiled and possibly

torn in the fighüng.?? There is also a second group of y.t@vec in the /liad, which were described as soft, fragrant,3! and wellwoven,?? and these appear to be cloth chitons worn as

clothing.* References to warriors dressing in a ytt@v and a cloak of some sort,3? the many cloaks and tunics Thetis pre-

pared for Achilles before his departure for Troy,?> and the precise statement describing a weapon piercing first the corselet and then the xırav3% make it clear that in the /liad the y.t@vec

said to have been made of linen,? which suggests that the

could also be garments. The use of the same word to describe

$apog used as a cloak was also made of linen. The use of the word ¢apoc for both a sail and a cloak implies that the important distinguishing characteristic of the oapog was not its particular shape but its material. IF this is true for the gapog, it might

clothing and armor suggests that they were similar in shape. In the Mycenaean remains a similarity is to be found between the bronze body armor and a certain type of garment frequently portrayed in the artefacts. The Dendra cuirass, fig. 70, the one

62

TALES OF HEROES tion, Diomedes as one of the great heroes was also said to have had a @@pné, presumably one of bronze, to make him equal in armament with the other heroes on the battllefield.* In the later phases of the oral tradition, he was given whatever pieces of armor seemed desirable for any particular incident and gradually he was equipped with all of them at the same time. ‘The GTpertög xırav of the original tale, however, remained, and it can be understood as another indication that originally the different groups of warriors wore diflerent kinds of armor which the later bards conflated into the armament of the hero.”

Fig. 88. Ivory group from palace at Mycenac. complete

bronze corselet of Mycenacan

date that has been

found, has a simple cylindrical shape that covers the torso and upper part of the thighs. Separately made sleeves cover the upper part of the arms. In the wall paintings from Pylos and Tiryns a garment of almost identical shape, but obviously made of cloth and not of bronze, is worn by warriors, hunters, and their attendants, figs. 64. 72, 81, 89. The garment is usually short, but occasionally it was long. extending down to the feet. This is the garment which should be identified as the yut@v of the /had and Mycenaean representations of it indicate that it was worn by both men and women, fig. 69.4 Occasionally in the wall paintings it was portrayed as a garment with a patterned fabric, as in fiz. 97, but in contrast to the dresses worn by the more elegantly gowned women, the patterns are simple and they lack wide variation. The adjective otpentog was used to describe the yutav worn by Diomedes.# ‘This garment had been pieced by an arrow that wounded the hero. The meaning of otpentög is not enurely clear." It would seem to imply that the yutov was made of cloth, except for the fact that earlier this same arrow was said to have hit the BupnKos yoadov worn by Diomedes.! This contradiction could possibly have been the result ofa conflation of different terms which were not fully understood by the later bards. If the otpertog xırav originally meant a cloth tunic as opposed to a bronze corselet, then the otpentög xutav can be understood to have been originally included in the oral tradition to explain why Diomedes had been wounded by the arrow, whereas others who had been wearing bronze corselets had not been wounded under similar circumstances. Later in the tradition Diomedes’ otpentog xitwv appears to have been remembered as important by bards who retained the formulaic phrase even though they no longer understood its significance. As the heroes were glorified and epic exaggeration began to allecı the tradı-

In the Odyssey when xımwveg were mentioned, the xıwveg are usually garments and only twice do they appear to be armor. Xit@ves as a garment are clearly intended in the passage where Telemachus undressed for the night, in the many references to cloaks and chitons already noted, and in the passage where Eumacus belted up his chiton in preparation for slaughtering the pigs.) Eumacus’ chiton was presumably a long one, since it needed to be belted. in contrast to the short one worn by Telemachus which he removed while seated on his bed. Very few adjectives were used to describe the garment; they were called soft, padaxds,'! good, Kadog.'? bright, ovyadoetg,' fringed, teppideis,!” and pundwv, usually translated as dirty but possibly better understood as old: cach adjective was used only once. The scarcity of adjectives suggests that the yut@v was a common, simple item of clothing that varied litde in shape or decoration. Such simple, mundane garments were of little interest to either the poct or his audience, and possibly for this reason it was so rarely described even though it was frequently mentioned. It is of interest to us today because it finds such a close parallel in the simple tunics worn by both men and women in Mycenaean art. Fig. 89. Wall painting portraying men weanng short chitons and greaves from patace at Pylos. Restored drawing by Piet de Jong.

The Clothing in the Epics

63

Achacan women sought in marriage. When it was used for Andromache’s maid, it can be understood to indicate that this maid, who was unmarried, was special in some way and that she was not an ordinary servant or slave.

Tlenioı also appear as covers for chairs®! and chariots,® as part of the ransom for Hector’s body*} and as a wrapping for the golden urn holding the cremated remains of Hector’s body.®* The néxAot of this last group are clearly not female garments,

although this is the usual interpretation of this word.® The oapoc and the xAaiva, both used as cloaks, seem to have been differentiated by the material and not by the cut of garment itself. "This emphasis on the material rather than on the style of the garment may possibly have also been true for the n£nkoc. Such an interpretation makes the word nénAog mean a fabric, one that was highly prized, presumably for the delicacy of the

weaving and the color or pattern woven into the cloth. Understood as a special fabric it is appropriate for all the uses of the

peplos mentioned in the epics, whether it is a garment worn by a goddess, an important item in the marriage chest, a gift,®

part of a ransom, or a covering for chairs and precious objects. The many, varied adjectives used to describe néxAou support the suggestion that they were an especially elegant type of material. Unlike the yitov, ménxAo1 were usually described“? and each description varied.6® The peplos that was to be dedicated to Athena was the one considered the xapıEotatog NdE péyiatoc®? and $iAtatog.’? It was presumably one of the néxAou napxoixtAa Epya yuvankav | Zidoviwv?! that Paris had brought back to Fig. 91. Male figure wearing long chiton from wall painting portraying procession of men from palace at Pylos. Restored drawing by Piet de Jong.

Fig. 90. Wall painting of man wearing animal skin from Pylos. ing by Piet de Jong.

Composite draw-

In contrast to the clothing worm by men, the clothing worn by the women in the epics was described in much greater detail.

Aphrodite and Athena were said to wear a garment called a nénAoc, and a nEnAoc was dedicated to Athena at Troy.” ‘Trojan women were called €Axeoinendog, with trailing or long flowing robe.5! Helen, Lampetie, and Ctimene were called tavonerdoc, with long robe.*2 Dawn was said to be xpoxönenkog, with saf-

fron robe.>? The epithet eünenAog, usually translated to mean wearer of a fine robe, or fair-robed, was used by the Trojans in reference to their sisters-in-law;>' once it was used for Andromache’s maid,’ once for Nausicaa, and once for Achaean women being sought in marriage.*’ When Telemachus was

leaving Sparta, Helen gave him a néndog, which he was to keep for his bride to wear on their wedding day.** A nenAog was one of the gifts brought by the suitors to Penelope.?° When Nausicaa went to wash the clothing in her marriage chest, one of the items mentioned was a néndoc." The association of the nendog with maidens and marriage, although clearly implied by these

passages, has not been frequently noted. It suggests that the epithet evrendog, used by the Trojan men for their sisters-in-law, should be understood to mean that these women were well endowed with peploi, that is to say they had many peploi in their dowries or marriage chests. This meaning is also be appropriate for Nausicaa, the unmarried maiden, and for the

64

TALES OF HEROES

Troy and Hecuba had stored in the thalamos. The peplos Antinous gave Penelope was described as péyac, nepiKaAAnc, and noixidoc,.’2 Size was mentioned in the description of both the

peplos to be dedicated to Athena and the one given to Penelope, which indicates that the size also varied.’? The mention of color in the descriptions implied by the adjective roıKiAog sug-

gests that color was another important aspect of the peplos. The nenAor

owned

by Helen were called ranroixtAoı,’t and the

peplos used to wrap the golden urn holding the remains of Hector was identified as purple, nop$üpeog, and soft, nadaxoc.’3

Aphrodite’s peplos was called $aeıvög, bright or brilliant, possibly in reference to the deep hue of its color,’® and reference to color is part of the epithet xpoxönenkog used for Dawn.’’ Aphrodite’s peplos was called apBpdoiog and was said to have

been made by the Graces.’8 The peplos worn by Athena, which was also noiKidoc, was said to have been made by her very own

hand.’? The repeated reference to the person who had made

Fig. 92. Wall painting of Lady from Cult Center at Mycenae. Fig. 93. Two female figures from wall painting portraying procession of women from palace at Pylos. Composite drawing by Piet de Jong.

6) G

at

%

the peplos suggests that a fine neniog was difficult to weave and hence was considered a prized possession. The peploi used to

cover chairs in the palace of Alcinous were described as Aentoi Eüvvntor ... Epya yovaixev,®° again suggesting the weaving of some very fine or delicate fabric.8! In Minoan and Mycenaean wall paintings the cut of the garments was very similar one to another, but the actual fabric portrayed was frequently depicted as having intricate patterns, figs. 92--94,82 which is in contrast to the very plain material used for many of the xırwvec. This deli-

cately patterned material seen in the description of the peploi suggested by functions in the epics. When Helen was war into a fabric,#3 she was probably another scene Andromache

wall paintings fits the the epithets and their weaving scenes of the weaving a peplos. In

wove elaborate designs into her

purple cloth.& These women and the goddesses must have been weaving a special material that was different from that made by the servants who wove and spun.#° The weaving of special designs and battle scenes recalls the weaving of the peplos by the maidens of Athens for dedication to Athena. In the later Athenian example, the emphasis was on the weaving, that is to

say on the fine quality of the cloth itself, and this same meaning can be applied to the Homeric peplos. As in the case of the gapoc and the xAaiva, the emphasis was on the matenal itself rather than on the shape or cut of the clothing.

The garment called a peplos in modern scholarship is often associated with pins or broaches worn on the shoulders, fastening together the front and back of the garment.®’ Such broaches are only vaguely, if at all, associated with the peplos of the

epics. Aphrodite was said to have scratched her hand on a golden broach worn by one of the 'Axariadwv Eüneniov.#® This

does not mean that the broach and peplos were worn together, but that on one occasion a golden broach was worn by one of the women from Achaea, one of those who belonged to a group called ednendo.. That the woman from Achaea was wearing

the broach at the same time she was wearing the peplos was not stated. Antinous presented a peplos and twelve broaches to Penelope, but there is no necessity, as often assumed, to believe that twelve broaches were the usual number worn with the peplos.#9 The gift given by Antinous was by far the most extrava-

gant of the suitors’ gifts. The other gifts mentioned were a golden chain strung with amber beads,” a pair of Epnata, usually

translated as earrings although this identification is uncertain,?! and finally a necklace with a beautiful jewel." In the epics the only broach of importance was the one Odysseus had worn

The Clothing in the Epics

65

which Penelope had given him, and this broach was worn with

a xAaiva. It had no association with the peplos. It was described as being made of gold, having double clasps, and being decorated with a dog and a fawn.” Jewelry, seals, and other objects decorated with animals can be found in the prehistoric era, figs. 95-96, as well as in the Orientalizing Period.” The decoration by itself gives little indication of date or style. The unique fea-

ture of the broach was the double clasps, which has no close parallels in any ancient period.?5 The importance of this broach was that it is identifiable as the one worn by Odysseus. To make this possible, the broach had to be unique, unlike any other known. It was probably for this reason that the double clasps were added to the description,” and not because the epic was

Fig. 95 Seal stone from Midea

Fig. 96 Seal stone from Mycenae.

describing a broach known and worn by Homeric people.

depicted in the scene of Hera preparing for the seduction of

The elaborate gowns of the Homeric women were most clearly

Zeus.” The goddess put on a garment described as außpöonog, one that had been made by Athena with great skill and embellished with many elaborate details.”® The garment was called a €avoc” and it was fastened, nepovato, with gold fastenings, xpvoeing & Evetio, along the torso in a position described as Kata om8oc.!°° The Eavög is obviously a garment that had Evem, a fastening of some sort made of gold as befits a goddess. Such a description is not very informative. The phrase cata oti8oc, however, is more suggestive. This phrase is not appropriate for fastenings at the shoulders such as those used on the archaic or classical peplos.'°! There is one garment from the ancient period, however, that has not been associated with Hera’s &avög but that can be described as being fastened kata ormbog. This is the type of garment worn by the Minoan snake goddess, fig. 97, and it was frequently depicted in Minoan,

Fig. 94. Female figure from wall painting portraying procession of women from Tiryns. Restored drawing by Emile Gilliéron fils.

; =|

Theran, and Mycenaean wall painting, figs. 92-94, 114-17.1%2 The statuettes of the goddess portray her wearing a tight-fitting

\\)

bodice, which was held together below the exposed breasts by a fastening made of a material different from that of the bodice itself. This same type of garment, with a clearly defined trim at

the point the bodice meets below the breasts, is also to be seen on an ivory group found at Mycenae, fg. 88. These garments clearly fit the requirements of the line: xpvaeing 5° Everior Kata otmdog nepovato. After Hera had fastened her dress, she put on her belt, a Cavn, which was decorated with a hundred tassels.!9% The Minoan snake goddess also wears a belt, although one without pendants.

The tassels of Hera’s belt have been compared to the poetic description of the aegis, which also had many tassels.!% Prehistoric belts with dangling decoration have been found and there

is no need to interpret the belt worn by Hera as an intrusion.! Hera next put on €pyata in her well-pierced Aoßöcg.!% These Epnata were described as tpiyAnva popdevta’ yapic 6 aneAapNETO ROAAH,!97 “Eppata are generally understood to be earrings, but the Minoan snake goddess does not wear earrings, nor are they worn by any of the women portrayed in Minoan-Mycenacan wall paintings.!%® If these Eppata were earrings, then they represent the first important, clearly demonstrable postMycenaean object thus far discussed.!® Caution, however, is indicated. The word éppata., identified as carrings by modern scholarship, occurs only twice in the epics.!!0 In the /had they were worn in the Eütpnntorat AoBoio. The word Aoßög was used only once in the epics,!!! in the description of Hera dressing. The identification of Aoßög as an ear or ear lobe seems to be based on the understanding of the €ppata as earrings. It is questionable, however, whether well-pierced or skillfully-pierced is

66

TALES OF HEROES are unusually heavy to be worn suspended from the ears.!!! They could, however, have been worn attached to the neckline. If these are the prototypes of the €ppata in the epic, then the Eppata are not earrings but broaches and the evtpytor Aoßot are not the well-pierced ear lobes but the well-pierced neckline. Broaches suspended from the neckline were not always portrayed on the dresses worn in the wall paintings, which suggests that such broaches were worn only with garments especially designed for their use. This explains why the Eütpntor Aoßoı were specifically mentioned in the scene of Hera dressing. If the Epyata are understood to be some sort of pin or broach suspended from the neckline, then possibly the twelve mepovar given to Penelope by Antinous can be understood to be a type of Eppata. Twelve nepovar suspended from the neckline, although extravagant, are not only possible but they also find a parallel in the painting of "La Parisienne.”!!! The repovaı received by Penelope had curved clasps described as KAnioiw evyvayntoic apapvtat.!!> Although different from the avaoit of Odysseus’ broach.!!® the description of this type of clasp resembles the clasps of the so-called earrings of the Grave Circle at Mycenae. If €ppata in the later part of the oral tradition came to mean earrings, then it is understandable that some later bard found twelve earrings to be excessive and thus changed the twelve Eppata into twelve repovan. If the women in the epics wove garments similar to those worn by the Minoan snake goddess, then the significance of the epithet AeuK@Aevoc!!? becomes clear. The emphasis of this epithet is on the lower arm rather than the entre arm.!!# The garment worn by the Minoan snake goddess covered the upper arm but left the elbows and lower arm exposed. The classical peplos left the entire arm bare.!!" References to mourning women beating their put into proper perspective. At the very end of Period, during the Dark Age and the Geometric ditional gesture for mourning was to place the

Fig. 97. Minoan snake poddess from palace at Knossos. an appropriate description for the car lobes of a goddess. ‘The actual process of piercing ears is fairly simple and in a society accustomed to the use of pierced earrings, such a description seems mundane and somewhat unnecessary. Possibly another definition for both the €ppata and the Aoßög should be considered. The description of the €ppata worn by Hera in the /ltad

was repeated in the Odyssey to describe the only other Eppata mentioned in the epics, the €ppata given to Penelope by Eurydamas.!!? The triple drops of the description have been compared to an early Minoan pendant from Crete, fig. 98. Two matching pieces of gold jewelry. usually idenufied as carrings. were found in Shaft Grave III of Grave Circle A at Mycenae. ‚fie. 99. These are similar to earrings worn by women in the Thera wall painungs, figs. 1/4 115. but they are also similar to those worn on a later Minoan wall painting, known to the scholarly world as “La Parisienne,” fig. 700. In the Minoan wall painting, however, the jewelry is not worn as earrings but as broaches suspended from the neckline of a garment. A set of gold broaches found at Dendra might be another parallel for the broaches in the Minoan wall painting. Although these are similar to the other pieces of jewelry identified as earrings, they

breasts are also the Mycenaean Period, the trahands on top of

fig. 98. Early Minoan pendant.

The Clothing in the Epics

67

as the ones from Aghia Triada, figs. /04-106, the gold cups from Vapheio, figs. 48-49, and the wall paintings, figs. 94. 102.'!29 This emphasis on the belted, narrow waist is in marked contrast to representations of later periods.!3 The male counterpart for the Cavn appears to have been the Cwomp.!3! In the Odyssey, Eumaeus bound up his tunic with his

Cwomp before going to the pens to slaughter pigs for the midday meal.!?? The context makes clear that this Gaomp was a belt of some sort. In the /liad various warriors were hit with a spear on the Caomp.'33 The descriptions of these events suggest that the Cwothp was worn at the hips just below the waist, rather than at the waist itself. Two different belts were said to have been given as presents. They were described as being goiws, red or purple, and gaetvdc, shining or bright. Presumably such belts were elaborately decorated and highly regarded since they were considered suitable as gifts.!34 They were probably worn over the metal cuirass so that they could be seen and admired. The other belts described support this interpretation. They were called gleaming, ravaiodoc,'35 and one of them was described as being richly decorated or worked, 5ardaAeoc. '3° This same belt had a gold buckle!*’ whereas another belt was

either made of silver or had silver decoration.!3# Brightly colored belts with gold decoration are depicted in the wall paintings,!3 and fragments of bronze found in Mycenaean graves have been identified as parts of metal belts.'*® Elaborate belts

worn by warriors on top of the cuirass seem to be indicated by both the /had and the archaeological evidence. They suggest,

furthermore, a solution for one of the apparent contradictions

Fig. 100. Wall painting of “La Parisienne” from palace at Knossos. the head,!2° but in the /iad first Thetis and her sisters and later Briseis expressed their anguish by beating their breasts.!2! This is the kind of gesture that seems natural to a woman who was bare-breasted, and in Mycenaean art the gesture of the hand on the breast was frequently depicted.!22 In the scene of Hera dressing, her belt or Govn was described. In the Odyssey, Calypso and Circe also put on a Govn when they dressed,!?3 and Poseidon removed the Zavn from Tyro as preparation for seducing her.!?* The belts worn by Calypso and Circe were made of gold and were described as being xaAn, adjectives appropriate to garments worn by goddesses. Tyro’s belt, on the other hand, was called nap@€vin, or maidenly, which is rather ironic in view of the action anticipated. The emphasis on the belt is also clear in the epithets €0Gwvoc, xaAAilwvoc, and paOvCwvoc found in both the /liad and

Odyssey.'2> The different epithets appear to be alternate ways of expressing the same idea.!:* Once again a parallel for this type of emphasis can be found in Minoan-Mycenaean dress, which has as one of its prominent characteristics a very wide belt worn by both men and women, who are most commonly portrayed with unusually narrow waists,fig. /01. This is particularly clear in the carved gems and gold signet rings. figs. 35, 57,12” but it can also be seen in the bronze figurines, 12? the stone vases, such

in the Zltad. During the fighting Polydorus was said to have been fatally wounded by Achilles when he was hit in the back with a spear at the point where the gold clasps of the belt were fastened and the corselet was double.!*! A heavy metal belt, similar to the plates of the cuirass, logically consisted of two cylindrical parts fastened together with clasps, one in the front and the other in the back. Since metal lacks the flexibility of cloth or leather, such clasps served a useful as well as decorative purpose. They also allow Achilles, when he attacked Polydorus, to

strike him in the back and at the same time to hit the clasps of the belt, which had been fastened together on top of the cuirass. The men in the /liad wore another kind of garment which seems to have been only for male use, the pitpn. At the end of the duel between Paris and Menelaus, Pandarus shot an arrow Fig. 101. Gold nng from chamber tomb at Mycenae (enlarged).

68

TALES OF HEROES

at Menelaus. ‘This arrow was said to pierce the belt, the Coop, and the cuirass and to have hit something called the pitpn.!*? This pitpn was described as an armor for the flesh, a barrier against arrows, and a man’s chief defense, which constitutes a fairly elaborate description for a piece of defensive armor. The same pitpn mentioned in a later passage was said to have been made by a bronzesmith.!?3 Ares likewise wore a pitpn, which was pierced by a spear aimed by Diomedes at the lower torso.!44 A garment made especially for men to guard the lower torso is most obviously identified as a loincloth. The difficulty with this definition is that there is another male garment called the Capa, which also seems to be a loincloth. Such a garment was donned in preparation for a boxing match held during the Funeral Games.'*5 This Capa had been mentioned earlier with the pitpn almost as if they were two separate items of cloth-

ing.!* The only apparent distinction between them is that the pitpy was said to have been the maker of the Capa was original distinctions between in the one, as opposed to the

made by a bronzesmith whereas not described. Possibly one of the the two consisted of the metal used other, which was non-metallic.

In the Odyssey the Copa was mentioned in one of Odysseus’ false tales. He spoke of going out on an expedition in the heat of the day; rashly leaving behind his cloak, his xAatva, he wore only a Copa. Later after the sun had set he suffered from the cold.!*’ In his story Odysseus did not say that he had gone without any garment but he complained, when the temperature dropped, about the inadequacy of the garment he was wearing. In both the {lad and the Odyssey when one of the heroes arose from bed, he was usually described as putting on some sort of garment.!*# Fig. 102. Male figure wearing abbreviated loincloth from wall painting portraying life-stzed men in procession from Pylos. Composite drawing by Piet de Jong.

Fig. 103. Wall painting of river battle showing fighting warnors weaning fuller loincloths from palace at Pylos. Restored drawing by Piet de Jong. In Aegean prehistoric art, male figures were rarely shown nude, unless they were foreigners or they had been swimming.'!*? This is in direct contrast to the heroic nudity of later Greek art.!50 A specific social ban against nudity by adults explains why Odysseus felt compelled to mask his nude body with a branch when he first approached Nausicaa after his arrival in the Land of the Phacacians.!5! Later, when he was being bathed by Nausicaa, he appears to have had no hesitation to appear without clothing.'52 The two different attitudes might reflect social cus-

tom which allowed nudity in appropriate situations, such as swimming and bathing, but demanded social contexts

clothing in normal

In Minoan-Mycenaean art, nude figures were rarely portrayed. Men, especially those engaged in physical activity, were shown wearing a wide range of loincloths.!53 These varied from a very abbreviated type, usually worn by figures with narrow waists, ‚fies. 48-49, 101--102, to a larger, fuller style that almost looks like modern athletic shorts and is often worn by figures with a fuller waistline, figs. 44, 103. Some have an explicitly metallic look, whereas others are clearly made of cloth. In the Mycenaean period, when these garments were worn, they must have had various names to differentiate the styles. In the periods following the collapse of the Mycenaean world, this type of garment was no longer worn and nudity among men became acceptable. References to this type of garment in the epics, the kitpn and the Zapa, most logically originated in the periods when the garments were worn. If the oral tradition was referring to garments no longer in use, then it becomes understandable that there was some degree of confusion concerning the original distinction and hence the use of both terms in the description of Menelaus. Neither the Capa nor the pitpy occurred very frequendy, which might be another indication of the bard's uncertainty concerning the exact definition of these words. The men in the /had were frequently called Kapn Kopoovtes ‘Axavoi, the long-haired Achacans.!’+ The term long-haired is

The Clothing in the Epics

69

and a single long lock. The long hair of the more aristocratic figure reflects the long-haired combatants of the Boxer Rhyton, whereas the shorter hair and lesser rank of the younger man more closely resemble the short hair of the laborers on the Harvester Vase. The single long lock of the youthful figure on the Prince’s Cup alone separates him from the older, short-haired

laborers of the Harvester Vase. The variation in the portrayal of hair on these three vessels suggests that the length of a man’s hair in Minoan society was an indication of his rank and that the style varied according to age.!°9 Any group of men portrayed with long hair was immediately identified as the adult males of the higher ranks of society. In the artistic tradition the figures, both male and female, in the bull-jumping scenes, were always portrayed with long hair.!60 This characteristic identifies

them as members of the upper ranks of their society. By analogy with the art, the long-haired Achaeans in the epics are the

more important members of their society, representing the noble rank expected of a hero. Another epithet used in both the /liad and Odyssey that seems to

have special connotations in the prehistoric period is the word for bright or shining, oıyadöeıc. This epithet was used for clothing, Einata,!6! a headdress, SEopata,'6? bedding, piyea,!63 and chitons, x.t@vec.'64 Objects that were said to gleam were usually special in some way. They included the articles from Nausicaa’s bridal chest, the special chiton belonging to Odysseus given to him by Penelope, and the headdress Aphrodite gave to Andromache as a bridal gift. The xıtav worn by Odysseus was said to shine like the sheen of a dried onion and to glisten like

the sun.!65 Other references mention cloth glistening with oil.!66 Attempts have been made to associate the use of the adjective

ovyadcetc with the concept that the material so described in the Fig. 104. Boxer Rhyton from Aghia Triada.

Fig. 105. Harvester Vase from Aghia Triada. relative,!55 but in most societies it is the women

and not the

men who have long hair. In the /ltad this epithet was used only for the Achaean men.!56 In Minoan art, men as well as women were frequently portrayed with long hair.'!57 This characteristic for men is more rarely found on the Greek mainland.!*8 An

example of long hair can be seen on the Boxer Rhyton from Aghia Triada, fig. 104. Male figures, both helmeted and without helmets, were portrayed with long, flowing locks. Their activities made such a hairstyle hazardous, and the unrestrained long hair must be seen as an artistic convention and not as a realistic portrayal of actual circumstances. The artist seems to have been determined to make it clear that these figures belonged to a group who wore their hair long. In direct contrast to the figures on the Boxer Rhyton are the laborers portrayed on the Harvester Vase, which also came from Aghia Triada, fig. 105. These men have short cropped hair. Only one figure has longer

hair, even though it is still short by Minoan standards. This figure is clothed differently and is more isolated, as if he were in a

class apart, somehow more important than the others. The Prince’s Cup, another object from Aghia Triada, contemporary with the other two vessels, fg. 106, portrayed yet another alternative hairstyle. A young male figure with short hair except for a single long strain is shown standing in front of an older figure who has long, flowing locks. The higher rank of the second figure is made clear by the more elaborate necklace worn around his neck. Here the long hair seems to be another indication of the more important rank or position of the older figure, as opposed to the lesser status of the younger man with short hair

we

Dun)

70

TALES OF HEROES A similar reflection of the wealth of the prehistoric times can

perhaps be seen in the headdresses worn by women and goddesses in the epics. A variety of words were used to name them.’ There was the kpndepov worn by Hera.!’#® Andro-

BRETT el

mache,!7® Ino,!#" Nausicaa’s companions,!#! and Penelope when she appeared before the suitors.!#? Hecuba,!#3 Calypso, and Circe!#! wore a xaduntpn and Thetis donned a Ka@Auppa.!#5 Andromache’s kpnndepnov was worn with an aGprvé, a Kexpvuoados, and a niexım avadeoua. The whole ensemble was called a shining 5€opata and identified as a wedding gift given by Aphrodite to Andromache at the time of her wedding to Hector.!# As a wedding gift from a goddess, it probably represented one of the more elaborate types worn during its period.

Unfortunately most of the words used in the description of this headdress occur only in this one passage and thus the meaning

of these words is not clear. The elaborate description of Andromache’s headdress, nevertheless, suggests that the original prototypes were varied and often very complicated. The type of headgear worn on different occasions also suggests some varia-

tion in their style. Circe and Calypso put on the kadüntpn when they first dressed in the morning, which implies that it was fairly simple, perhaps no more than a band around the head restraining the hair. The xpndepov appears to have been worn when

leaving the house or, in the case of Penelope, when she went before the suitors. It was worn by Nausicaa’s companions when they went to the shore for the laundry, but they took it off when they started playing ball. Thus the kpniöepov appears to have been more elaborate than a simple band and it was large or heavy enough to restrict vigorous physical movement. Thetis donned a xaAvupna as a sign of sadness which was dark in color in contrast to the xpnöepov worn by Hera, which gleamed like

the sun, and the one worn by Penelope, which also glistened. Fig. 106. Prince's Cup from Aghia T nada. epics referred to linen that had been oiled to make it shine.!6/ The adjective ovyadoets was also used for chanot reins, nvia,!%# a chair, Opovog,!6® and the upper chamber, vrepwiov.!’" Throughout the epics objects are said to gleam or shine, and a variety of different adjectives conveyed this idea. The images of

batde portrayed in the /lad constantly include the mention of shining armor and gleaming bronze. It was argued above that the allusions to bright shields referred to their well-oiled leather surfaces and that the concept of their shining was a reflection of the care with which they were maintained, as opposed to the battered shield of Laertes, which was covered with dust and was falling apart.'’! The palaces were also said to gleam,!’? and the connotation of a shining or gleaming house seems to reflect a building that had been properly maintained, in contrast with the palace of Odysseus where dust lay on the floor and the beams of the megaron were smoky.!73 The gleaming cloth can be contrasted with those used by Laertes, whose bedding did not gleam and whose chiton was said to be dirty or gray.!7+ His use of articles that did not gleam appear to reflect his sadness and grief over Odysseus’ long absence. These images of objects shining or gleaming convey the idea of wealth and opulence in a properly ordered society, when the possession of gleaming precious objects was a ssmbot of status and success. ® Such images conjure up the wealth of the Bronze Age when Mycenae was sull “rich in gold” before the period of depressed economy during the Dark Age.

Since it was worn as a sign of sadness, it was probably large and enveloping, fully covering the head and much of the face. The most elaborate appears to have been the d€opata, the gift of the Fig. 107. Lady with elaborate headdress from Pylos. Restored drawing by Piet De

Jong.

The Clothing in the Epics

71

Fig. 108. Wall painting from Cull Center at Mycenae with lady weaning fringed tunic in center, second figure with elaborate dress on right, and smaller lady with elaborate headdress on left.

goddess consisting of various different elements, some woven as indicated by the adjective mAextH and possibly others made of silver or gold, as befits a present given by a goddess. In representations of the Minoan-Mycenaean world, the headdresses

vary, and it is reasonable to suppose that in the Mycenaean Period the different types of headdresses had different names. The simplest type portrayed is the single band worn by the female athletes,!#° which may possibly be identified as the KaAvntpn donned by Circe and Calypso when they first dressed in the morning. A more elaborate jeweled band was worn by

the ladies of the court, figs. 93 94, and possibly Penelope can be understood to have put on somewhat similar headgear when she approached the suitors wearing a Kpndepov. The most elab-

orate are the complicated, often tall concoctions frequently worm

in association with religious events, figs.

107 108. These

consist of various different elements and they find their closest epic parallel in the elaborate ö£onata worn by Andromache. In

the epics, however, there is an almost complete absence of epithets or specific adjectives for the headdresses, which suggests that they were only vaguely remembered and the specific differences between them were no longer clearly understood by the bards. This need not be surprising if they were describing cloth-

ing of a past era that was no longer worn in the later phases of the oral tradition. The different terms, however, were preserved and they seem to reflect an opulent period when headdresses were varied and often very elaborate.198 It has been the assumption in recent Homeric scholarship that

the epics date to the cighth century B.C. and that everyday

objects such as clothing reflect that period. Literary references to clothing are difficult to date, since the same term can be used for centuries even though the clothing itself changes and the connotations differ.'*9 The cloaks and chitons in the epics, for

example, were described in such general terms that a specific date for the references is hard to establish. Only one small detail describing the tunics seems to be Mycenean, and that is the single reference to a fringed tunic, fg. 108. Other details in

the clothing that seem to be specifically prehistoric include the dress worn by Hera, sets of twelve broaches worm at the same time, and the use of amber in jewelry. Changes in the style of clothing occurred after the fall of the Mycenaean civilization, as

indicated by the preserved representations in vase painting and other artefacts, but none

of these can be identified in the

descriptions of clothing in the epics, whereas numerous parallels between the epics references and the Linear B tablets have been found. Clothing in all periods mirrors the attitudes and tradi-

tions of the particular society and it is in this area where the closest parallels with prehistoric times are most clearly to be found. The absence of nudity can be seen in the epics and in Mycenaean wall paintings and is in direct conflict with the mores of later societies. The wearing of animal skins by the rich

and noble occurred only in the earlier periods. The emphasis on long hair and its significance in prehistoric culture are reflected in the epics, although long hair ceased to be of social

significance in later periods. Descriptions that emphasized belts

72

TALES OF HEROES

are paralleled by the varied belts depicted in the art of the Late Bronze Age in contrast to the later periods when the belts were simple and almost entirely hidden by the folds of the garment.

Emphasis on women’s elbows and lower arms in contrast to the entire arm is appropriate to the prehistoric period when the upper arm was covered and only the lower arm was exposed. Later the garments revealed the entire arm and such an emphasis on the lower arm or elbow seems unwarranted. The frequent mention of fine cloth woven by specific women or groups of women implies a society interested in fabrics and a period rich in the manufacture of cloth. The use of words to describe the gleam or shine of clothing reflects the opulence of Bronze Age society and its great prosperity, which no longer existed after the collapse of Mycenaean culture. The numerous words for the headgear wom by the women, although not clearly under-

stood, must have evolved at a time when women actually wore a rich variety of decorated bands and other types of headdresses. The very existence of such a variety once again connotes a period of wealth that provided the leisure as well as the material for such frivolities. These allusions to clothing and customs in the epics appear to have originated in the Bronze Age, where their parallels are to be found. They suggest that the men fighting on the plains of Troy or traveling through the Aegean world with Odysseus wore garments similar to those portrayed in prehistoric art. The women in their megara, as they await the return of their husbands and loved ones, can be visualized

weaving fine cloth with elaborate patterns similar to the elaborately patterned garments portrayed in the wall paintings of the Late Bronze Age.

IV THE LAND OF THE PHAEACIANS AND THE SEA

AJOR PORTIONS OF THE Odyssey took place in the fabled Land of the Phacacians, where Odysseus was entertained in the luxurious, richly appointed palace of Alcinous and Arete. So great was the wealth and elegance of this country that it has been called imaginary. The prototype for the settlement itself, however, has almost universally been identified with Greek

of houses and some sort of division of land was an obvious necessity, whatever the original period of the settlement may have been. Nausicaa, in describing the city to Odysseus,

implied that it was on a peninsula with harbors on either side.’ Although this location has frequently been associated with eighth-century colonization, cities relying on the sea, beginning

colonies of the eighth century B.C.! The palace of Alcinous, as discussed above, is similar to the other palaces mentioned in the Odyssey, but the association of the city with eighth-century colonization has not been seriously questioned. Perhaps it is time to reexamine this relationship and once again to reconsider the

with the Early Helladic Period, have been located on similar peninsulas throughout Greek history. On the island of Keos a walled town spanning the Bronze Age has such a location, fig.

nature of this legendary land as it compares to prehistoric cul-

location of the Phaeacian city on a peninsular site has no bear-

tures of the Aegean. When Odysseus first landed, spent after weary days at sea, he sought refuge beneath a double bush that grew from a single root, one part wild and one part of cultivated olive.?2 The mean-

ing of this passage has been disputed? and the obvious interpretation of it as a reference to grafting cultivated olive branches to the roots of the wild olive has been denied.* In Mediterranean lands today, when olive groves are not properly tended, the grafted branches of the tame olive retain their foliage. At the same time the roots of the wild olive give off shoots of the wild strain which gradually intermingle with the tame branches, if the wild shoots are not trimmed.5 Once this phenomenon has been observed, the interpretation of the text becomes obvious. Bushes growing from the same spot are grafted branches growing together with the original foliage from a single root. The gvAin is identifiable as a wild olive onto which the tame olive had been grafted. The description of this phenomenon was

surely meant to indicate that Odysseus had landed in a place where civilization was known and the customs of the people were recognizable, a place that was real and not a legendary

country that existed only in the world of fantasy. The unrestrained growth of the wild olive, furthermore, emphasized the isolation of Odysseus’ place of landing in this strange new land.

The beginning of Book 6 in the Odyssey related the history of the land. The city was said to have been founded by Nausithous,

who built the fortification walls, houses, and temples and divided the agricultural land among the people. Thus was the foundation described, but such a description fits any new settlement that included fortification walls and temples. The construction

109. A similar type of settlement is represented by the “Arrival

Town” on the Miniature Fresco from Thera, fg. /12.3 The ing whatever on the chronology of the epic or the date of the City’s prototype. Nausicaa told Odysseus that a road led to the city and that close by there was a grove sacred to Athena and a temenos belonging to her father.? Groves sacred to divinities occurred in prehistoric times as well as later. Temene belonging to individuals, as distinct from gods or heroes, however, were a phenomenon that occurred only in the earlier period.!0 Within the city of the Phaeacians there was an agora,!! and also a sanctuary of Poseidon constructed of large stones.!? The use of large stones was common

in Mycenaean

and Minoan

architecture, whereas it

was absent in the periods immediately following the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization and it did not begin again until the middle of the seventh century B.C.!3 Modern scholarship tends to think of “The Agora” as a market place and political meeting area particularly characteristic of the historic polts.'* Such a def-

inition implies that the Phaeacian city was an incipient polts of the historic period. In the /liad and Odyssey, however, the agora does not have any implication of marketing or of democratic government. The word described an open place where people gathered together,!5 where debates were held,!6 and where dancing and feats of skill were performed.'? Only the powerful took part in the debates, and the average person was expected to attend as a spectator and not as a participant.!® The activities taking place in the agoras of the /lad and Odyssey imply a large

open area of some sort and there is no necessity that this area had an architectural form. The Achaean meeting place on the plains of Troy, which was specifically called an agora,!? was presumably without architectural embellishment. The city of the Phaeacians had an agora, but the founder Nausithous was

74

TALES OF HEROES Fig. 109. Peninsular site of prehistoric settlement on island of heos.

not said to have built it. When dancing was organized in the Phaeacian agora, special preparations had to be made.?" This suggests an open area without formal architectural setting. An

open area of this sort on a Mycenaean site would not have left any archaeological

remains.

On

Crete, the large courtyards

within the Minoan palaces and the stepped areas outside the palaces at Knossos and Phaestos?! must have been used for public gatherings. The Minoan wall paintings portray assemblies of large collections of people,?? and an outdoor meeting of

various different groups of men is depicted in the Miniature Fresco from Thera, fig.

111. Public gatherings of some sort were

obviously held in the prehistoric period and the agoras of the Thad and Odyssey may reflect such meetings rather than the later

agoras of the historic polis. Nothing in the description of the City of the Phaeacians need be eighth century, whereas the king’s temenos must be prehistoric and the stone architecture must be either prehistoric or later than the eighth century. In the Odyssey the bard explained the specific reasons for the foundation of the city in Scheria.?+ The inhabitants had previFig. 110. "Departure Town"

ously lived in spacious Hypereia, which lay close to the land of the Cyclopes. The Cyclopes were men of overweening pride and, being mightier than the Phaeacians, they plundered them

continuously. To avoid the ravages of the Cyclopes, Nausithous moved his people. This move included all of the people and not just a portion or colony of them. In the eighth century, colonies

were sent out because the land could no longer support the entire population and the need arose for new land. Only a por-

tion of the people from the founding city were part of the new colony. The new settlement also served as an outpost for trade, and close ties between the mother city and the new foundation were maintained.?! The cause for the resettlement of the

Phaeacians and the movement of the entire population, as related in the Odyssey, reflect a completely different set of circumstances. Nausithous and his people, being overwhelmed by their neighbors, settled in Scheria, in a place far from other men. The location of the city was chosen to isolate the community from other settlements in a period of unsettled and troubled times when communications with the original homeland were no longer considered desirable.?® The new city had good

and sailing ships in Miniature Fresco from Thera.

te N

The Land of the Phaeacians and the Sea harbors, and the Phaeacians were known

75

for their skill at sea,

caring “not for bow or quiver, but for masts and oars of ships.2% In a splendid passage of fanciful epic exaggeration, the Phaeacians were said to have been so skilled as seamen

that

their ships needed no pilots or steering oars, but were guided by the thoughts of men alone.?” This gracious land of luxury with its love of peace does not reflect the robust and adventurous expansion of the eighth century. It should go back to a much earlier period when one group of people fled to an isolated island in order to avoid conflict with a new, incoming move-

ment of people whose superior strength and warlike attitudes created a conflict between the two different cultures.

The final collapse of the Phacacian civilization was foretold by Nausithous, the founder of the city. It is rather unusual that the founder himself recognized such a danger, but Nausithous told

his people that Poseidon would one day become angry with them and would fling the top of the mountain down upon them.?® In the epic the ship that had carried Odysseus to Ithaca was turned into stone upon its return.2” The preted this as a sign of Poseidon’s anger and tain was going to fall on them as foretold by henceforth ceased carrying mortals from one

inhabitants interfeared the mounNausithous. They city to another, in

other words they ceased to trade, and they made a sacrifice of twelve bulls to Poseidon.*° Whether Poseidon was appeased by the sacrifice was not related in the epic, but the clear implication is that the Phaeacians no longer mingled with other men.

Usually something foretold is assumed to have happened at some later date. Even though the Phaeacians had been warned that Poseidon would one day be angered at them for providing transportation for strangers, they never hesitated to help Odysseus, and not one murmur of disagreement was heard when the time came to ferry him back to Ithaca. This attitude of the Phaeacians seems to have been very light-hearted in view

of the serious consequences that had been foretold. The notion of mountains falling on top of cities, prophesied by the founder and quietly disregarded by later generations, but eventually taking place and causing the disappearance of the city, has the distinct sound of a settlement built in a volcanic

area. On the island of Thera, a prehistoric city with close ties to Mycenaean centers?! has been partially excavated, and this city suffered from volcanic eruption. It may well be that the Land of the Phaeacians in the epic tradition arose from a remembrance of that island and the catastrophe that destroyed it.?? The locaFig. 112. "Arrival Town"

Fig. 111. "Meeting on the Hill" in Miniature Fresco from Thera.

tion of Scheria was vague in the epic and the eventual cause of its disappearance was not specifically stated but only foretold. The threat of volcanic eruption must have been apparent to the ancient inhabitants of Thera from the day of its foundation, and the consequences of an eruption, similar to the prophecy of

Nausithous, must have been unmistakable. Inhabitants of such a city, however, can do nothing about a possible eruption but ignore it until the feared event finally takes place and action of some sort becomes necessary. After such an eruption the fate of the people can remain unknown in many parts of the world, but their cessation from trade, corresponding to the Phaeacian oath to stop transporting mortals, is immediately evident to all their former trading connections. The luxury depicted in the epic corresponds well to the extraordinary number of finds from the excavation.3? The wealth of ancient Thera must have been partially based on trade, since it far exceeds what an agricultural community alone could have accumulated on such an

island.?? The representation of ships on the Thera Miniature Fresco, figs. 110, part of the life of earrings depicted terparts in other

112, 120, make it clear that travel by sea was the island. Vases found on Thera, fg. //3, and in her wall paintings, figs. 1/14-15, have counareas of the Aegean world, figs. 99-100, which

and sailing ships in Miniature Fresco from Thera.

i

FL

phy ti DER rf}

%

aa

;

Ly

76

TALES

Fig. 113. Swallow vase from Thera. clearly indicates trade between the ancient inhabitants of Thera and those of the other islands and the Greek mainland. The Phaeacian men in the epic were known predominantly for their ships and hence for their trading, since their knowledge of ships and the sea must have been based on their own experiences derived from extensive travel by sea, which had to have had some purpose. The women were known for the weaving of fine cloth? which can be understood as another indication of trade, for it must have been through trade that their fame spread. Although it is not specifically said that the Phaeacians were different from the other people in the epic, certain differences can be isolated, just as differences as well as similarities between the Mycenacans and the people of Thera can be seen in the archacological record. In the epics the Phacacians, similar to the Achaeans, avoided nudity in social situations, and nudity for the most part is lacking in the wall paintings from Crete, Greece, and Thera.» The clothing worn by the Phaeacians appears to have been the same as that used by the Achacans. and the clothing portrayed in the wall paintings from ‘Thera is similar to the dress portrayed in the wall paintings of Crete and the mainland, figs. 7/4 77. The palace of Alcinous had a megaron with a fixed central hearth, an enclosed courtyard, thalamoi for sleeping, a separate thalamos for storage of precious objects, and other features found in the Achacan palaces mentioned in the epies. It also included characteristics unique to this one palace, such as fixed seats along the walls of the megaron and water piped into the building. The archacological parallels for these special features are with Crete and not with the mainland. “Phe general disiibution of rooms ın the buildings.

the use of many

and

the position of important

architecture Minoan The

windows,

of Vhera

architecture

Phacacian

that

women

reflect do were

the elaborate

rooms some

not

occur

known

mterion

on upper ol the

for

on

the Greek

their

stairways,

floors in the

characteristics

of

mainland,

weaving.

and

the

OF

HEROES Linear B tablets from Crete are especially rich in their itemization of the production of cloth. Great numbers of loom weights used for weaving have been found at Thera,” and on the newly recovered wall paintings from Thera the fabrics depicted are exceptionally varied and incredibly delicate. Arete had an especially honored position." and this may reflect the greater importance of women in Minoan culture, as indicated by the art. Women were frequently portrayed in the wall paintings from Thera. Several times in the epics, the sun was said to have set and therefore it was time to go to bed.4! In the Land of the Phacacians Alcinous after the banquet urged Odysseus to relate his adventures. He stated that the night was still before them, a long. long night, and it was not yet Gime to go to bed.!? On Crete elegant carved stone lamps have been found, and these numerous lamps indicate that late evening activities were common in that culture. Lamps were also found in quantity in the excavations at T'hera."° On the mainland, by contrast, few lamps have been found and these are usually made of coarse fabric, suggesting that the Mycenaeans, similar to the Achaeans in the epics, avoided socializing after the setting of the sun." Although the gods of the Phaeacians and the Achaeans were the same and both shared songs relating to the exploits at Troy. Aleinous regarded himself and his people as somewhat separate from the others. He stated that the gods came and openly feasted with the Phaeacians,'© which they no longer did in the lands of the Achacans.!” The great wealth of Alcinous’ palace and his possession of gold and silver watch dogs made by Hephaestus gives a legendary grandeur to the Land of the Phacacians that also sets it apart from the rest of the Achaean world." The culture of Thera had some of its own idiosyncrasies that set it apart from Crete and the mainland, just as the Land of the Phaeacians was set apart from the homeland of the Achaeans in the epics. A series of weights found on Thera correspond to those used in Babylon and these differ from the system of weights used in Grete and the mainland.* As already noted, the Theran women in the wall paintings wear earrings and use quantities of cosmetics, which differentiate them from the women depicted in the Minoan and Mycenaean wall paintings. Theran hairstyles were more varied and interesting than the stvle portrayed on the paintings and artefacts of the mainland and the usual style adopted by the Minoan ladies. The similarities and differences between the Phaeacians and the Achacans in the epics are closely paralleled in the archaeological record of Thera and the mainland. The fate of the inhabitants on Thera is similar to that foretold for the Phaeacians. So many are the correlations between Thera and the Land of the Phacacians that the latter must in some way reflect the former? The eruption of Thera took place long before the traditional date of the Trojan War, so at first it might seem difficult to have a warrior returning from Trov visita land that had long ceased to. exist. In the past century, however, a great deal has been learned about the oral tradition and how it worked. The earliest songs dealt with single events that could be sung at one sitting, and the history of an individual hero was described in a series of different tales. each covering only one episode.?! Later these became combined into longer tales ın which heroes of diferent centuries met together on the battlehelds of oral epic, the warriors became mightier, the achievements were exageerated, the venealogies were embellished. the cities grew in size. and

The Land of the Phaeacians and the Sea

77

Paris in the /lad. Circe was the woman who tried to use her charms to beguile men for her own evil purposes, the counterpart of Aegisthus. The introduction of Nausicaa into the tale merely represented one more

type, the innocent, guileless

female. Odysseus rejected these women in order to return home to Penelope, who remained steadfast in her love, faithful to her

husband, caring for their child as she maintained to the best of her ability the estates left in her charge during Odysseus’ absence. Penelope represented the ideal woman whom all the men in the poet’s audience would have wished to marry,?’ and she provided the reason for Odysseus’ determination to return home. Marriage between Nausicaa and the newcomer*® was probably suggested in order to portray Odysseus’ refusal, thereby showing once again his determination to return to his own home and to his wife, Penelope. But first Odysseus and Nausicaa had to meet, and to accomplish this Odysseus was said to land in an isolated part of the island that was no longer cultivated and rarely visited, hence the double bush at the beginning of the episode. To account for Nausicaa’s presence, the poet introduced the device of the laundry, not because Nausicaa usually did such laundry but in order that she might be the first person on the island to meet the stranger. The laundry that was being washed was part of her wedding chest, and it immediately identified her as young and marriageable. She was responsible for introducing Odysseus

to her family, and thus afterwards it

seemed appropriate for her father to offer Odysseus her hand in marriage. Fig. 114. Wall painting of young lady wearing earning from Thera.

defeats were sometimes turned into victories.5? The story of the Odyssey, as we have it today, is not one single episode that could be sung in a single evening. It must come from the later part of the oral tradition when the various individual episodes were combined into one long, extended epic. Odysseus’ recitation of his adventures in the Land of the Phaeacians represents one of the clearest examples of this type of consolidation.*3 The bard needed a frame for the recitation of the different events and for this reason he seems to have introduced into the epic the visit to the Land of the Phaeacians. If this is seen as a new addition to the oral tradition concerning Odysseus’ return, then the Land of the Phaeacians can be understood to have been borrowed from another cycle.5+ The omission of the Phaeacians in the

Ikad and their absence during the Trojan War can perhaps be understood as an indication that they belonged to a different period and to another epic tradition that was originally unrelat-

ed to the story of Odysseus and the other heroes who fought at Troy. The introduction of the Land of the Phaeacians into the Odyssey created a situation whereby a hero from a later period visited a land that no longer existed, but this does not necessari-

ly mean that the land itself was fictional. If the setting were borrowed from some other song, it would still retain some historicity, even though it was misplaced within the story of the Odyssey.

The addition of this visit suggests that Odysseus’ encounter with Nausicaa was not part of the original tale, even though she played such an important part in introducing Odysseus to the land and city of the Phaeacians.*° Throughout Odysseus’ travels he had met and slept with a variety of women. Each of these women served as a foil to Penelope. Calypso represented the female seeking sexual pleasure, the female equivalent of

Since the oral tradition of which the Odyssey forms only one segment had a long history of development, the conflation of mateFig. 115. Wall painting of seated lady wearing earring from Thera.

78

TALES OF HEROES

adventure is the concept of the floating island.®'! Although a variety of imaginative suggestions such as mirages, icebergs, and floating pumice have been made to account for the notion

of the floating island,© the simplest and most obvious explanation has escaped modern

scholarship.

In the carliest days of

exploration, when an island accidentally discovered could not be located again, it might most logically have been thought to

have disappeared because it had floated away. In the period when skills in navigation were minimal and the

Mediterranean remained sparsely inhabited, a ship blown off course must have occasionally reached uninhabited islands that

had plentiful water, rich foliage, and a variety of wild animals. After resting and replenishing their supplies, the crew eventually tried to find their way home again in their ships.®7 As they slowly returned home, bearing with them tales of a wondrous new land, the glories of this new land no doubt became increasingly magnified.##® After the sailors had returned, tales of the new land were repeated,®" until the day came when someone unhappy at home’? decided to seck the fabled land. Because knowledge of navigation was still uncertain, the new land was not to be found and the explorers were forced to return home.

It was not appropriate to question the veracity of the original tale?! nor did the young men who had returned home empty-

handed want to accept blame for not finding the island.’? ‘Thus the concept developed of the floating island, which justified the Fig. 117. Wall painting of lady from Thera.

Fig. 116. Wall painting of lady from ‘Thera.

rial from many different sources is not surprising. It is known from the artistic tradition that songs existed during the Mycenacan Period, fig. 137, as well as in the periods preceding the coming of the Greek-speaking people, fig. 118." The existence of many pre-Greek words in the Greek language has long been recognized. It should not be surprising if the earliest Greek-

speaking people, in addition to using the pre-Greek words, also became

acquainted with the legends and ideas of the earlier

people, legends that they gradually incorporated into their own songs and traditions. The pre-Greek word for the sea, @@Aacoa, was incorporated into the Greek language, and along with this

word earlier stories about the sca may well have been adopted by the Greek-speaking people. Ships, driven off course by stormy seas and contrary winds, pass crashing rocks and singing sirens, and landing on islands belonging to divinities or on such exotic places as the Land of the Lotus Eaters®! indicate a period of exploration into unknown waters. These tales are generally thought to reflect the rediscovery of foreign lands alter the collapse of the Mycenacan civilization. but they could just as logically reflect earher exploration by the Mycenacans themselves."? There is also the possibility that some of them stem from an even earlier period of travel by people who lived in this area before the arrival of the Greek-speaking people.’ One idea associated with navigation which must have come from the very earliest days of maritime

The Land of the Phaeactans and the Sea

79

Fig. 118. Early Gycladic lyre player.

original description but allotted no blame to the later generations of explorers. Trading by sea continued throughout the prehistoric period, and artistic representations of these early ships have been found, figs. 110, 112, 119-20. Black-hulled ships sailing over a wine-dark sea form one of the many vivid images remembered from the /liad and the Odyssey.”3 Some of these references correspond to representations of ships in Mycenaean art,“4 and many of the epic references seem to reflect this same period. These ships were propelled by oars or by square sails.7> The mast, when not in use, was removable.” They were guided by a single steering oar, a andaAıov,’’ and were anchored with pairs of anchor stones, evvai.’® The epithets used for the ships can be understood to reflect those qualities that were considered important. The most {requently used is 8on. which occurred at least filty times in the Ihad™ and fifty-one times in the Odysser®® but very rarely was it used in lines repeated elsewhere.®! Other epithets for speed appeared much less frequently: oxvopes was used ten times in the Iltad and three times in the Odyssey? axdados and oKeidos were cach used once in the dad and wwiee in the Odywer8) and the phrase Beovens vnog occurred once in the Odys." This emphasis on speed may well reflect the troubled times at the

end of the Mycenaean Period, when piracy appears to have been rampant in the Mediterranean and trade routes were being disrupted by new waves of people.#> Another group of epithets refer to the rowing benches. The most commonly used of these is EüooeAyos, usually understood to mean having good rowing benches* or benched.®’ This epithet appeared fourteen times in the /had and fifteen times in the Odyssey.88 This same image is reflected in the epithet noAvKAnis."” used seven times in the /ltad and four times in the Odyssey the single usage in the /ltad of noAvGuyos, having many benches,?! the sarcastic Jad reference to a ship with a hundred benches, exatößvyog,"? and the double usage of wellbenched, ed$vyog, in the Odyssey.) The importance of good benches may originally have been associated with speed, which was made possible by the use of oars. References to the oars themselves appeared more rarely, but they include a greater percentage of repeated lines compared to the other epithets used for ships. Long-oared, d0Arynpe qos, was used three umes in the Odyssey for ships and three times in a repeated phrase deseribing the Phacactans.”! In the Odyser the epithet expetos. fitted with oars, was used four times in a repeated line as part ofa longer refrain and once in a unique bine. The oared ships reflected in many artistie representations appear to have ha

80

TALES OF HEROES Odyssey. This is sometimes understood to mean curved,!% whereas others have understood it to mean oarswept!"7 or wheeling both ways, hence easily directed.! Ships were also called sea-going, movtondpos,! well-balanced, Eicag,!!0 wellmade, evepyng,!!! more rarely nepıxaddng, another way of saying well-made,!!2 and once strong-sterned, edrpupvos.'!!3 All these images can reflect almost any period of maritime history, but their variety again suggests a period when ships and trade were considered an important part of life.

Fig. 119. Gold ring from Tinns.

been common in the Mediterranean for centuries, and it is not surprising to see this image reflected in the epic poetry. The very limited use of these epithets, however, suggests a remote origin possibly reflecung a time when speed provided by the gars was considered important, similar to the usage of the epithet Bon. The second most common epithet used for ships is black, peAaiva, which occurred thirty-nine umes in the /ltad and fortythree times in the Odyssey. It was used twelve times in the Catalogue of Ships in identical or similar lines, but elsewhere its appearance in repeated lines is very infrequent. ‘The repeated use of this epithet in the Catalogue of Ships suggests that the epithet was as old as the Catalogue itself. Two of the lines from the /liad were repeated in the Odyssey, which supports the view that a single author was responsible for both epics. In order to make the hulls of ancient ships watertight they are thought to have been covered with resin, thus giving them a dark hue, which is considered the origin of the epithet. The visual image of the dark hull was intensified by the shadow cast by the ship as it sailed over the water in the bright Mediterranean sun, The third most frequent epithet. hollow, yAvoupn, appeared forty-one times in the /ltad and twenty-two times in the Odyssey.“ This image was enhanced by the less common epithet KotAn, also generally understood to mean hollow, which was used twenty-one times in the Jad and eighteen times in the Odyssey. ® These epithets are sometimes understood to mean that the ships did not have full decks.” but all ships must be hollow, whether or not they have decks, and it is known that ships with decks were already being constructed in the prehistoric period. Both words were used elsewhere as epithets for caves, harbors, and related other objects.!° Possibly the epithet was meant to emphasize the hollow interior, which made the inside of the ship spacious and thus able to carry large quantitics of goods. A spacious sailing vessel capable of holding many commodities creates a vivid image and at the same time emphasizes that aspect of the ship that was important in a trading vessel!!! The epithet, peyaxntmg), with large hull, used three

times in the Jliad,!® connotes the same concept. Another group of epithets refer to the shape or workmanship of the ship. The epithet kopevn, curved or beaked.!" was used fifteen times in the Zhad, usually in association with Achilles, and twice in the Odysser. both times in reference to ships of Idomeneus.!"" OF Jess certain meaning is the epithet apolekıcoa,

used

seven

times

ın

the

Jad

and

twelve

times

ın

the

Finally there is a small group of epithets, that seem to refer to the decoration of the ship’s hull. ‘The most commonly used is Kvavorpwpoc, which occurred three times in the Iliad and ten times in the Odyssey.!'4 When this epithet occurred in the Iliad it referred twice to Achilles’ ships and once to a ship attacked by Hector. In the Odyssey it was used only for Odysseus’ ships, except for one reference made by Nestor and one reference made in a false tale of Odysseus. Usually this epithet is thought to mean dark-prowed,!!5 but more literally it might be thought

to mean the design painted in xvavog on the sides of the ship. !1% Possibly related to the idea of decorated hulls are the epithets kiAtorapnog!!? and goiviKxonapnos,'!§ usually understood to mean red or vermilion prowed. Well-remembered because of

the visual image they present, these epithets are in fact used very rarely. Once in the Catalogue of Ships piAtonapnos was used for the ships led by Odysseus. In the Odyssey prAtonapnos was used once and $dowviKonapnog was used twice to describe ships unknown by certain groups of people with whom Odysseus came into contact. The repeated references to redhulled ships in association with Odysseus raises the possibility that the epithet originally referred to a special emblem found on Odysseus’ ships that distinguished them from the ships of the other leaders. Finally there is the curious epithet op8dxpatpos, used three times for cattle but also twice for the ships of Achilles.!! This epithet when applied to cattle refers to their upright horns. When used with ships it has been understood to describe the tall projections forming the stern and bow of the

ship, fig. 1/9.!29 Since there is no indication that Achilles’ ships differed from those of the other Achaean leaders, it is curious that his ships alone were given the epithet op6dxpatpoc. If redhulled ships are understood to apply only to ships associated with Odysseus, possibly the unique use of the epithet op8oxpaipos for the ships of Achilles was meant to refer to an

emblem of bull's horns painted on the side of his ships.!?! The association of ships belonging to Achilles and Odysseus with special emblems in the epic tradition might also explain why the epithet Kvavonpwpos was used in reference to their ships in contrast to the ships of the other leaders. The epithets for ships in the epics present a vivid picture of dark-hulled ships with capacious hulls swiftly sailing over the sea, which in many ways are similar to the ships on the Miniature Fresco from Thera,fig. 120. The wide variety of epithets, their liberal use throughout the epics, and their rare use in repeated lines, however, are unusual. The variety and usage of the epithets seem to imply a period of vigorous maritime trade and although some might be thought to suggest prehistoric umes, most of them could belong to almost any period. There is one detail in the deseripuon of the ships, however, that places the ships firmlv within a chronological frame. and that is the use of a single steering oar or andaktov. In the Odyssey the mdaatoy always appeared in the singular!?? and a single steer-

The Land of the Phaeacians and the Sea

81

Fig. 120. Ships in Miniature Fresco from Thera.

ing oar was portrayed in the Thera Miniature Fresco!?? and in other representations of Minoan and Mycenaean ships. This is in contrast to representations of ships in eighth-century vase

painting, where two stecring oars are portrayed,!?! and to the reference to double steering oars in the Hymn to Apollo.'25 The use of a single steering oar in the epic ships can be seen as a

when he led the Minyae to the island of Calliste.!37 This might suggest that the thirty oarsmen of the Linear B tablet did in fact represent a full contingent of oarsmen. Representations of ships on Minoan seals indicate that twenty- and thirty-oared ships were used in the prehistoric period.!?? A war ship guided by a single steering oar and manned on each side by nineteen oars-

type.!26

men protected by oval shields is depicted on a sherd from a Late Helladic III C krater. Partially on the basis of this sherd,

The ships in the epics varied in size. Some were propelled by twenty oars whereas others had fifty,!27 but the size alone does

been interpreted as having twenty-five oars on each side.!39

clear indication of a prehistoric date for the original proto-

the well-known fragmentary pyxis from a tomb near Pylos has

not necessarily help to date the prototypes. The Boeotian ships were said to have carried 120 men.!?# How many of these men were oarsmen, however, was not stated. Thucydides!?9 thought that the Bocotian ships had a hundred oars because he assumed that most of the crew served as oarsmen. Ships built enurely of

were dropped and the stern cables, the npuyvriora, were made fast. These same cables were loosened when the ship was made ready to sail.'49 Men spending the night on moored ships were said to have slept near these cables.!*! Because of the existence

wood cannot exceed a certain length, and fifty oars on a side

of the npuyuvnora, Homeric ships are said to have been beached

arranged in a single row are not possible on a wooden ship.!30 In order to accommodate a hundred oars, the Boeotian ships had to have two tiers such an arrangement B.C.!3! Thucydides’ contingents of armed

of oarsman on each side and evidence for docs not occur before the eighth century belief that these ships did not carry large personnel who were not also oarsmen was

based on naval practice of the fifth century B.C.!32 The ships in the /liad were transport ships taking troops to a foreign land, unlike their fifth-century military counterparts, which were designed to fight at sea. Similar to the cargo vessels of the pre-

historic period, the ships that went to Troy may have depended primarily on their sails. The 120 men on the Boeotian ships may well have predominantly consisted of armed personal who

took turns at the fifty oars when need arose.!?? The Phaeacian ships were said to have been manned by fifty-two youths.!*4 One obvious explanation for this number is that there were fifty

oarsmen with two extras,!* but it may be that the number represents a slight epic exaggeration.

The

Phacacians

were

admired for their skill as seamen and in order to emphasize their particular skill and the unusual speed of their ships, they may have been said to have had ships of fifty-two oars, an increase of two oars over the normal fifty.

In the poetic tradition when ships were moored,

the anchors

stern to.!42 The ships portrayed in the early representations have high curved prows and sterns but appear to lack rams.!*3 Rams on the prows of ships were not depicted on the Thera Miniature Fresco, but an appendage was added to the stern, visible on both the Thera Fresco and other early representations of ships.' The existence of the stern projections makes it

unlikely that ships of the prehistoric period were beached stern first.!45 If the Homeric ship reflected ships of the Mycenaean Period, then the npuuviioıa appear to be misplaced or to have been misunderstood by modern scholarship.!* In addition to the rpuuvnora, the literary tradition also refers to anchors, ev-

vai, and neiona, or mooring lines.'!4? These were used when ships were anchored off rocks,!#8 but they also seem to have

been used in harbors.'*? When Odysseus described the land of the Cyclopes, telling of its natural advantages which the Cyclopes ignored, he mentioned among these advantages a

harbor giving safe anchorage where reioya, evvai, and npvvnoia were not necessary.!*© This seems to indicate that both the reiopa and the npupvniora were associated with mooring the ship and that ships were not always moored in the same

way. In the Land of the Phaeacians, cach ship had its own énionov or station,'>! but this does not necessarily mean

that

When ships with fifty oars were first built is uncertain, but the archaeological evidence suggests that ships with twenty oars,

these ships were beached. A wharf may have been intended. In the Thera Fresco two of the ships still floating in the water were

thirty oars, as well as fifty, were known in the Late Bronze Age. In the Linear B tablets a group of thirty oarsmen was listed.

Whether this represented a full contingent for a thirty-oared ship or whether this was a partial listing remains uncertain. !3

portrayed without a crew, fig. 1/2. These ships must have been secured in some way, and since they are still afloat, they must have been moored, presumably to a wharf.!5? The npupvioia in the Mycenaean Period may have been used only when a ship

Herodotus mentioned

was moored in this way or anchored in open water. If this was

ships with thirty oars used by Theras

82

TALES OF HEROES

the case, then the existence of the rpuyuviiora as opposed to the

oar.!56 The wash of the sea created by the stone pushed the ship

reiona does not indicate whether ships were beached prow to or stern to.

to shore and it was only with difficulty that the crew managed to save it. When they rowed out a second time, twice as far as

One passage in the Odyssey seems to indicate that ships were originally beached bow to, contrary to later custom. This passage described the actions of the Phaeacians when they prepared to put the sleeping Odysseus ashore at Ithaca.!53 They were said to have driven the ship half its length onto the shore by the force of the oarsmen. The sailors were then able to step directly from the ship onto the shore. The statement that the ship was driven onto the shore by the force of the oarsmen implies that the ship was beached bow to, the direction in which the oarsmen normally propelled the ship. This method of beaching a ship has been explained as unusual and likely to have been used only during an attack. It enabled the ship to be more quickly beached, thereby gaining the greatest possible advantage of surprising the enemy.!5* When the Phaeacians beached their ship, however, their landing was not a prelude to an attack and there is no reason to suppose that they beached their ship in an unusual manner. If the landing procedure used by the Phaeacians is understood to have been normal for its period, then the date of this passage must precede the eighth century and the introduction of the ram.!55 Whether Homeric ships were beached prow to or stern to has interesting ramifications in the interpretation of one passage in the Odyssey. After Odysseus and his comrades had escaped from the cave of Polyphemus and were on board their ship, Odysseus taunted the Cyclops. The angry giant threw the top of the mountain at the escaping ship and this rock was said to have landed just in front of the ship, barely missing the steering

before, once again Odysseus taunted the Cyclops, who once again threw a huge stone at the ship. This time he cast it behind the ship, barely missing the steering oar,!5? and the wash of the sea created by the stone pushed the ship from the shore out to sea. The stones thrown by Polyphemus, once in front of the ship and once behind the ship, were said on both occasions barely to miss the steering oar. This sequence appears to place the steering oar first in the prow and then in the stern. It confused ancient commentators, who concluded that the line with

the steering oar in the prow must be an intrusion and should be omitted. !58 If the ship had been beached bow to, however, the

contradiction no longer exists and the text need not be changed. A ship beached in this manner, when it first entered the water, moved backwards with its stern and the steering oar towards the open sea. If the ship were in this position when Polyphemus threw the first stone, then the stone can be said to have landed in front of the moving ship, just missing the steering oar and creating a wash that drove the ship back towards the shore. Once the ship was fully afloat and free of the shore, it had to be turned around so that the bow faced the direction in which the ship was to travel.159 At the end of this maneuver, the steering oar at the stern of the ship was in the rear part of the moving ship, and hence in a position to be barely missed by the second stone thrown by Polyphemus. Such a reconstruction, based on the premise that ships were beached bow to, avoids the necessity of changing the preserved text. At the same time, it indicates that the original version of the story dated to a period preceding the eighth century B.C. and the introduction of the ram.

V THE MEN WHO FOUGHT ON THE PLAINS OF TROY

ONG SECTIONS OF THE /liad recount the fighting between the Achaeans and the Trojans below the walls of Troy, fg. 12]. Drama was introduced into the fighting scenes! by reducing the confrontation to individual duels,? exchange of speeches,? boasts of a hero,* and many other devices.> When

a duel

was described, all other fighting was ignored.5 In the later part of the epic when Achilles finally rejoined the fighting, the other Achaeans ceased to exist for all practical purposes. The pace was varied by having the gods interfere with the fighting, helping certain of the warriors, or bringing disaster to others.’ The action narrated can be understood to be a poetic rendition and not a true picture of the actual battle tactics. The bard conveyed the impression of cavalry charges and mass movements of troops in the background, but his scenes were constantly dominated by a single hero or groups of heroes.® But just as the buildings, the weapons, and the clothing in the epics reflect the Mycenaean Period, the people themselves who were named in the epics might also be thought to have belonged to that era. The likelihood that families did remember the adventures, achievements, and names of their ancestors is often meet with

disbelief by modern scholars. They ignore the fact that in the past the telling of stories and the recounting of genealogies were an important part of family life and unity. Young children living in a household spanning three generations were drawn to their grandparents for the stories told by the older generation of their own youth. While performing tedious daily chores in the past, mothers have often entertained their adolescent daughters with stories of the mother’s own courtship, whereas the fathers have routinely boasted to their sons of early achievements and daring feats of adventure. Adult siblings living apart renewed memories and reestablished close personal ties by retelling their own shared childhood experiences or recalling their favorite family stories remembered

from their childhood while their

own children listened to the tales of their parents. The use of prized family possessions that were once owned by earlier members of the family and had been long treasured, helped to make the ancestors seem like “real” people to the younger generation. Seal stones with portraits of early ancestors, such as the one in ‚fig. 122, helped to preserve the memory of the early Mycenaean

inhabitants on the Greek mainland. In the modern period with television, audio stereo systems, and written literature, it is easi-

ly forgotten that in the past, when inclement weather kept fami-

lies indoors, the only entertainment available was conversation and song. The often repeated tales of the past helped to entertain the living, but they also served to keep alive the memory of earlier members of the family or clan. It should not seem surprising if families, during the illiterate days of the Dark Age, did retain some remembrance of their ancestors’ names and achievements, which were recounted to children and grandchildren to while away the tedium of uneventful days. Whether the names mentioned in the epics represent such a remembrance ought be based on the evidence of the epics themselves and not on our preconceived concepts based on modern life. A surprisingly large number of individuals, both divine and mortal, were mentioned by name

in the Jhad. There are 245

names of warriors who are said to have died in battle. Another ninety-four named heroes took part in the fighting and were still alive at the end of the Jitad. In addition there are over 150 patronymics, more than forty names of divine and semidivine personalities, approximately forty-five tribal names, and close to three hundred geographical names.!° There are also the names of wives and children, the Trojan men inside the fortification walls who were too old to fight, the names of grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and assorted individuals and groups who were named but who were not present on the battlefield of Troy.!! If there is an occasional slip or conflict, this is not surprising. Mistakes of this kind serve to remind us that the epic represents an oral tradition.!? Since the information concerning individual heroes was often remembered by their descendants,

the bard had to maintain some semblance of accuracy if he wished to preserve his credibility with his audience.!3 At the same time it was his duty to confer greater honor on some and less honor on others. One means of conferring honor was to name the victims of the hero; the greater the number of victims named, the greater was the accrued fame.!* A conscious organization of the material is indicated by the number of named victims associated with each of the major heroes, since this number closely reflects the bard’s characterization of these same individuals. It was a formidable task for the bard first to remember and then to present the names of over three hundred warriors in addition to their patronymics, places of origin, and the names of their opponents.!5 These figures serve as one more indication of the genius, whoever he may have been, who was primarily responsible for the epics as we have them today.

84

TALES OF HEROES

Fig. 121. The fortifications at Troy. It is often said or implied that the names used for some of the people, particularly the minor characters, were made up by the bards, who had certain groups of such names available for different types of people.!® [fnames of minor characters were simply invented, then it becomes difficult to understand the use of the same name for two diflerent people who were unrelated."” The creative genius who was responsible for the /liad was surely able to invent a wider variety of names and he did not have to depend on duplication. People in the Classical Period considered the information preserved in the oral tradition to be history.!8 Tt may not have been a very accurate history as evaluated by modern historians, but to the ancient Greeks it represented the only history available. Since the names and genealogies formed an important part of their historical past, no audience allowed a bard to use them indiscriminately. Some evidence, slight though it may be, for the historicity of names in the /had can be found on the Chest of Cypselus seen by Pausanias in Olympia.!" In the dad Agamemnon fought Coon, the eldest son of Antenor, over the body of the dead Iphidamas.:" [phidamas was mentioned only in this one scene and Coon was mentioned only one other time.?! If bards were accustomed to using made-up names for unimportant people. it could be supposed that Iphidamas and possibly Coon were among those names made up by the bards. This particular episode. however. was depicted on the Chest of Cypselus and for this to have happened the names must have had some histonicity. It is not feasible to suppose that a bard in Tonia and an artist in Corinth accidentally used the same made-up name for

the opponent of Agamemnon. Also shown on the Chest was the duel between Ajax and Hector, two of the great heroes at Troy.?2 It is understandable that these names became famous and that they occurred aftenwards both on the Chest and in the had. A third Trojan subject shown on the Chest was the abduction of Aethra from Athens by the Dioscuri. Aethra, the daughter of Pittheus, appeared in the /had briefly as a companion of Helen, but her abduction by the Dioscuri was not mentioned.” The scene on the Chest must have depended on some other source of information that was not the /lad we have today. Unless Homer had seen the Chest, which is the least likely possibility if Homer is assumed to have been an Ionian bard, the reoccurrence of the same names in the Jad and on the Chest can only have been the result of'a shared oral tradition that preserved not only the names of important people, but also those of

their less significant opponents.?! Episodes depicted in the early vase been basis much

paintings that were based on this same for the other parts later summaries by

not mentioned in the /lad must have oral tradition.2> It also formed the of the Trojan Cycle preserved in the Proclus and Photius.

A study of oral traditions in other cultures suggests that bards might on occasion deliberately introduce details that were recognized and accepted by the audience as new to the tradition. One of these is an indirect compliment to the particular audience belore whom the bard performed. ‘The appearance of the city’s patron god or goddess represents the kind of alteration that was deemed acceptable’ Another change that apparently occurs is the addition of characters from other eyeles belonging

The Men who Fought on the Plains of Troy

85

to different periods and possibly even different countries. The Song of Roland has been shown to have such a conflation of different centuries.2/ The seer Theoclymenus, who suddenly appeared in the Odyssey secking passage to Ithaca, might be such a person.?® Although he has his own history and genealogy, he had no direct connection with the events being related. He made several prophecies after his arrival,2? but his words merely served to reinforce the audiences’ awareness of the difhculties caused by the suitors and in no way did they eflect the events being related. Any additions or changes to the tradition had to be acceptable to the audience and could not conflict with the received knowledge of the oral tradition. A bard could not include a warrior known to have died at Troy in the episodes of the “Returns” without being denounced as ignorant

by his patrons. A hero whose descendants listened to the tale in later times could not suddenly act in a dishonorable way that was contrary to the perceptions of his personality held by the audience. Any sudden change of important events would have been denounced by the audience who believed the songs recounted the true history of their families’ and friends’ ancestors.3! Some bards were no doubt better trained than others. They would have learned and remembered the traditions which included silver cups with gold and inlaid decorations, such as fig. 123. Others, less well trained, would gradually forget such details. As the traditional stories passed down from one generation to another, changes and alterations emerged, and the tradition as it was remembered in one area gradually diverged from that in another. This diversity can be detected in some of the vase paintings that show people and events differing from the tradition as it was preserved in the Zliad. The black-figured amphora in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, dating to 570-60 B.C.,°2 depicts Thetis with her sisters Neoptoleme, Kymatothea, and Panope taking armor to Achilles, but in the /liad Thetis went alone with the armor.3? Even though thirty-three of Thetis’ sisters were named in another scene of the /liad, Neoptoleme and Kymatothea from the Boston amphora were not Fig. 123. Silver cup from chamber tomb at Mycenae.

Fig. 122. Seal stone portraying male head from Mycenae (enlarged). menuoned.4 These changes that gradually crept into the oral tradition® should be viewed as mistakes. They were not delibcrate alterations knowingly introduced by the bards. ‘That variants existed and that some bards were more knowledgeable than others was well known in ancient umes, but an unconscious alteration of the tradition is quite different from a deliberate falsification or conscious fictionalization.*” "The study of oral traditions in other societies suggests that it was almost inevitable that earlier heroes came to be associated with later events. A certain amount of conflation no doubt occurred in the very early days of the heroic tradition, but the core of these tales centered around ‘Troy, a city known through archacological research.’® The tales coalesced into an epic cycle around

86

TALES

OF HEROES Modern literary erities might call this ficuonalizauen but the bard himself understood such portrayal as a means of making the stories "more real” and thus “more true.” This distinction is very important if the achievement of this particular bard whom we call Homer is to be fully appreciated. It was his characterization of the heroes that makes the /fad memorable, a characterization so human that the personalities in the {lad are remembered long after the details of the actual events are forgotten,

Fig. 124. Gold mask from Grave

Cure A at Mycenae.

this city and they were considered the beginning of Greek histoN.. ga The people named in the epic were considered to be the ancestors of those who eagerly listened to the tales throughout the centuries when the oral tradition was passed down through generations of bards. Although only related in the remotest possible way, ifat all, to those carly Mycenaeans who were buried beneath gold masks.fig. 724, they stl thought of them as their ancestors, and their memories were cherished. Each person in the audience must have waited impatiently to hear the deeds of his own Mycenaean forebear as he sat listening to the tales on occasions similar, no doubt, to those portrayed in the Odyssey when Phemius or Demodocus sang." For these deeds to take place, however, the fighting had to commence at Troy itself, and this happened only after Achilles and Agamemnon quarrelled. Although the siege at Troy had continued for nine long vears, there had been litde actual fighting. The Trojans had remained within their fortified citadel, for they feared to face the might of the Achaeans as long as Achilles remained on the bauleheld." Agamemnon was the leader who held a superior rank by hereditary right, but who was unequal to the demands of his people.'? Achilles was the fearsome warrior, whose rank was far less than that of Agamemnon, but whose stature as a hero was far greater. Achilles’ action made it clear that fame could be won, even though authority was inherited. As the epic unfolds it becomes clear that Homer considered the lame that could be won to be more important. The confrontation between the two warriors represents the basic core of the story around which the other events were related. The drama of the /had depends primarily on the clash of personaliues and the interaction of differing individuals, As the narrative progresses the personalities of the heroes are revealed by their own words, by their actions. which did not always correspond to what they said they would do!" and by what others said about them," The bard rarely voiced opinions as if they were his own!) but he managed to portray the people in such away that his perceptions

and

evaluations

of their personalities

were

made

clear.

Except for tragments.® only the works of Homer, Hesiod, and the Momence Hymns have survived. Originally there were many other epics, which are illustrated in the early vase paintings and which formed a rich source of material for the later Atheman tragedians. The paucity of literature from this early period makes it difficult to evaluate what Homer and Hesiod personally contributed to the oral tradition as distinct from the inherited tradition. Herodotus made the statement that Homer and Hesiod taught the Greeks the names, genealogies, appearances, and personalities of the gods.!"" The genealogies of the gods were the subject of Hesiod's Theagony and they are not an important part of the Thad and Odyssey as we have them today. The names of some of the Olympian gods are to be found in the Linear B tablets and hence they were part of Greek culture long before the ume of Homer and Hesiod. ‘This leaves the personalities of the gods, and possibly Homer's contribution was the memorial portrayal of these personalities, both divine and mortal. Herodotus’ statement could be understood to mean that Hesiod and Homer made the gods “more real” and hence “more true” in the eves of the ancient Greeks. Hesiod by defining their genealogies and Homer by attributing to them rich personalities.?! The fame accruing to the warriors who had fought at Troy and who seemed so “real” to later audiences was probably responsible for the popularity of the /iad among their descendants. The war was necessary for them to carn their fame, but it was also necessary in order that “the will of Zeus be fulfilled.” 2 "The Pig, 125. Warnor Vase from Miycenae.

The Men who Fought on the Plains of Troy

87

will of Zeus,” as stated in the Cypna, was to reduce the number

of people because the world had become overpopulated.** This reference to the will of Zeus in the Proem clearly indicates that the /liad was only one segment of a much larger tradition. Vases, such as the Warrior Vase from Mycenae, fig. 125, with its row of warriors marching off to war, may be an early representation of any part of a rich oral tradition of fighting and

plunder. The Proem of the /liad raised the question of the extent of man’s control over his own fate as opposed to the interference of the gods, a recurring theme throughout much of Greek literature. The bard of the /liad did not dwell on this

problem, but he showed his awareness of it in the opening lines of his epic. Of far greater concern to him was the concept of honor and how it was to be achieved. Honor, in the /liad, was achieved by fighting, and the heroes had to perform deeds that men of the current generation, who in later years listened to the

epic, could no longer accomplish.*! They had to be where the fighting was fiercest,°> whether it be in a chariot or on foot, and

they had to wield all the various different types of weapons known to have been used. Audiences throughout the centuries must have listened eagerly to hear their own ancestors named and heroized within the epic.°® They would have remembered seeing or hearing about objects such as the Stuccoed Stele from Mycenae, fig. /26, with its depiction of marching warriors, and they would have wanted to know the fate of these men who had lived so long ago. The greater the number of warriors mentioned, the greater the interest of those who listened to the stones in later years. Each Achaean warrior had to be named, his genealogy given, his opponents enumerated, and his feats

recounted. The Trojans had to be allowed a partial victory in order that Achilles might win greater fame, but the heroization of the Achaeans could never be slighted.?’ One way to achieve this was to say that a Trojan had killed many without naming

the slain,*® whereas the Achaeans’ defeated opponents were often cited by name, thus adding to the glory of the individual

warrior.*" If one of the aims of the /iad was to preserve the names of real men who had in fact fought at Troy, even though the names were sometimes inadvertently changed by later bards, then it becomes easier to understand some of the apparent discrepancies in the Catalogue of Ships. It is almost universally accepted that the Catalogue was not originally part of the had, but the question is rarely raised why it came to be associated with it.#! The recognition that one of the important aims of the /liad was to confer honor on the participants of the Trojan War suggests that the Catalogue was included because of the many names it preserved. It served to emphasize the number of people who were affected by the argument between

Agamemnon and Achilles and therefore it enhanced the importance of the argument and increased the fame of Achilles. Commentaries on the Catalogue frequently begin with the observation that the Bocotian contingent was given far more prominence than those of other areas.°? If the Catalogue had been passed down through many generations of bards, then it is understandable that the beginning of the Catalogue was preserved more fully than the parts towards the end. The begin-

ning of the memorized text was repeated more frequently than its end,®} and hence was remembered with greater accuracy. Smaller entries or areas missing enurely could be the result of condensation or loss. The position of an entry in the original Catalogue also seems to have affected its length.o4 The first entry was seventeen lines’? whereas the very last was only two

Fig. 126. Stuccoed Stele from Mycenae. lines, even though the Lycians of the last entry, led by Sarpedon and Glaucus, were more prominent in the /liad than Peneleos, Leitus, Arcesilaus, Prothoenor, and Clonius of the first entry. Some of the entries were lengthened by the addition of many place names*’ or the names of many leaders."* Occasionally the Catalogue cited specific characteristics of an individual," or related his past actions,”® but more frequently it reported the genealogies of the leaders.’! The Catalogue indicated that many warriors had gone to Troy, but only the leaders of each contingent were named. It was the leaders who won the fame and not the individual soldiers.

The various parts of the Catalogue were organized in one of several very specific ways. This organization is far more rigid and formulaic than the battle sequences used in the fighting scenes.’? In the Achaean section the description of an individual contingent frequently ends with the number of ships going to Troy. Repetitions of phrases or of whole lines are common in the /liad and Odyssey, but the lines indicating the number of

88

TALES

OF

HEROES Once it is recognized that the core of the Catalogue preserves a received historical text, then it is no longer troublesome that great warriors such as Ajax of Salamis or Odysseus were said to command only twelve ships,8? and that Achilles, so prominent in the Iltad, and Menestheus of Athens, who played only a small role, were each said to have led fifty ships.8! Had the Catalogue been a product of the poet's imagination, then the number of ships might be expected to correspond with the importance of the individual warrior, If the Catalogue represents a historical text, more or less faithfully preserved, then the number of ships expresses the size and commitment of the native city, and not the importance or prowess of an individual warrior. The emphasis in the /liad was on acquiring fame through heroic actions. The confrontation between Agamemnon and Achilles was intended to make clear that fame was achieved by heroic deeds and was not based solely on inherited wealth or power. The number of ships in the Catalogue represented the family inheritance and background, not the achievement of the individual.

Fig. 127. Silver Bull- Head Rhyton with gilded hors from Grave Circle A at Afycenae. ships are far more repeuuve than other parts of the epics. When epithets accompany the ships in the Catalogue, thirty ships are always hollow’? whereas forty ships are black’! Such a strict formulaic repetition is in contrast to the wide variety of epithets used elsewhere.”? This constitutes one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the Catalogue was received by the bard of the Iliad and was not substantially reworked by him before he included it within his epic. A few changes had to be made in the original catalogue in order to make the current Catalogue correspond to the situation on the battlefield in the tenth vear of the war. Achilles was said not to be fighting’® and Protesilaus, who had been the leader of the men from Phylace, was no longer alive? but the changes are few and perfunctory, Philoctetes. who had suflered a snake bite nine vears before, still remained on Lemnos while Medon led his men. Tf the Catalogue was basically a memorized text. itis understandable that the creative genius who was responsible for the rest of the epic showed hitde personal interest in the actual Catalogue itself. His lack of personal involvement can be seen in the fact that so few lines from the Catalogue are repeated outside the Catalogue itself? A talented bard naturally has greater interest in developing his own phrases, creating his own images, and presenung his own interpretanions than in the rote recitation of someone else's

words,

A catalogue preserved by oral tradition might be expected to develop certain inaccuracies. One of these seems to have occurred in the numbers of the ships. The total number of ships, 1.186, was probably an epic exaggeration, and if the total was exaggerated then it follows that the individual figures making up the total must also be exaggerated.“ In the Catalogue all numbers above twenty-two are always multiples of ten. It seems unlikely that there were so many contingents of a number like forty and none of forty-one or thirty-nine. Some of the changes were probably caused by the requirements of the meter, which made certain numbers unacceptable."* The lines reporting the number of ships are so formulaic, furthermore. that one line may easily have been inadvertently substituted for another. Numerical accuracy, however, is not to be expected in the oral tradition. In poetic terms, if two is good, then four is better, as long as the relative balance of forces remained fairly accurate. If Agamemnon, the leader of the entire force, had the most ships and Nestor, the next most important commander, had the next largest contingent, then the poetic demands of accuracy are satisfied. The absence of absolute accuracy does not trouble the poetie mind. The distinction between relative accuracy and absolute accuracy can be demonstrated by the epics themselves. In the Zliad when sacrifices occurred, hecatombs were frequently used to describe the number of animals being sacrificed. So many sacrifices occurred in the space of so few days, it becomes obvious that the numbers must represent epic exaggeration.44 To an ancient audience the numbers were understood to indicate that the Achaeans made due sacrifices to the gods and were more than generous in fulfilling their obligations. This same lack of mathematical precision can be seen in the Odyssey. When 'Telemachus first arrived at Pylos, he found the people making sacrifices to Poseidon.’ In prep uration for the sacrifice, the horns of the bulls were gilded. recalling the Bull Rhyton with gilded horns found in the Grave Circle at Mycenae, fw. 127, Vhere were nine companies of people and each company was sacrificing nine bulls: in other words a total of eighty-one bulls were to be sacrificed, When Athena joined the company in the guise of a companion to Telemachus. she referred to the sacrifice as a hecatombe? Cleark the bard was not intending to sugeest that either Athena or Poseidon were so lacking in wits that thes did not Know how many amımals were sacrificed. He

The Men who Fought on the Plains of Troy

89

was merely using hecatomb to indicate a large number of animals appropriate to the occasion had been slaughtered. Another discrepancy occurred in the number of cities said to exist on Crete. In the Catalogue the number one hundred was used, which is ten more than the figure given in the Odyssey. Presumably neither number was meant to be exact, but can be understood to mean a great many cities in the same way that a hecatomb was meant to indicate a great many animals. There is no need to postulate that the Odyssey represented a later date, when the island was less populated, than an earlier /lad that reflected a more densely inhabited country. Both ninety and one hundred are much greater than the number of cities found in the Argolid, the area of Pylos or Lacedaemonia.™ The number associated with Pylos in the Catalogue was nine, and nine place names are to be found on the Linear B tablets from its palace8° When Telemachus visited Nestor, he found the people of Pylos divided into nine groups, and cach group was sacrificing nine bulls.” The significance of the number nine for the area of Pylos remains uncertain,”! but the repetition of the same number in both the tablets and the Odyssey forms another link between the epic and the Mycenaean Period. Agamemnon was said to have had by far the most people as well as the best”? He had a hundred ships, which was only ten more than the ninety ships from Pylos and twenty more than the eighty ships from Argos and Grete.’ According to the Cat-

alogue he led the people from Corinth and areas north of Mycenac. Mountains lie north of Mycenae. A dominating citadel on the site of Mycenae logically first controlled the plain and the sea coast to the south before spreading north to the other side of the mountains." Earlier in the /iiad, Agamemnon was said to rule many islands and all of Argos, but in the Cat-

alogue Diomedes led the people from Argos as well as those from ‘Viryns.” The existence of three fortified citadels, Mycenae, Argos, and Tiryns, so close together presents an archacological problem.” All three citadels were fortified, inhabited, and apparently flourished at the same ume. From the citadel at Mycenae, it is possible to see the site of Argos, fig. 128, and the sea coast near which Tiryns lay. These three citadels, located so near one to another, must have been associated to cach other in some way. The archaeological remains indicate that Mycenae was the largest and most important of the three citadels."8 She could not have maintained such a position for long, if she did not control Tiryns with its access to the sea and Argos, which lay almost midway between Tiryns and Mycenae.” The obvious solution is to suppose that Argos and ‘Tiryns were in some way dependent upon and dominated by Mycenae. In the Catalogue the people of Argos and Tiryns as well as some of the nearby areas were led by Diomedes, Sthenelus, and Euryalus, Diomedes being the leader of them all, and with them came cighty ships.!"" This passage did not say that Diomedes ruled the area: it said that he led. qyetto. the men from those areas, together with Sthenelus and Euryalus. Achilles was also said to be the leader, apyog. of those who dwelt in Pelasgian Argos,!!! even though his father Peleus was still alive and was presumably the ruler, Menestheus led the Athenians, but again it was his father Peteos who was called the king.!?? There is no need to assume that the person leading the warriors was necessarily a ruler, even though occasionally one person did hold

Fig, 128. View of Argoltd from Mycenae.

both positions, as in the case of Agamemnon, Nestor, and Menelaus. If we understand the men named in the Catalogue to be the military leaders,!®? and not necessarily the rulers of the area, then our whole perspective changes. If Diomedes is understood to have been the military leader of Tiryns, fg. /29, then the power he held must have been conferred on him by the ruler or monarch of the entire area.!?! The archacological remains suggest that the ruler of the Argolid was the king of Mycenae, the position held by Agamemnon in the /had. This makes Agamemnon Diomedes’ superior both in rank and in power. Agamemnon then becomes indirectly responsible for 180 ships, the combined total of Mycenae, Argos, and Tiryns. Such a number is twice the largest number provided by any other kingdom, which is the ninety ships from Pylos.!") This combined total does indeed fit the statements made in the Catalogue that Agamemnon led by far the most people as well as the best, since after Achilles Diomedes was the most feared by the people of Troy. Evidence of Diomedes’ position as a subject of Agamemnon clearly emerges in Book 4 of the /ltad, when Agamemnon went among the Achaeans, inspecting the troops and encouraging the warriors. Those who were prepared he praised, but those whom he found Jacking he scolded. When he reached

90

TALES OF HEROES

Fig. 129. The fortifications at Tıryns. Diomedes, he spoke to him harshly and unfairly.!®% Later when Diomedes referred to this incident, he made it clear that he had felt that the rebuke had not been justified,!0” but when the orig-

inal incident took place, he had said not a word.!9 It was Sthenelus, son of Capaneus, who answered on behalf of Diomedes, only to be hushed by Diomedes himself.!® During this incident Diomedes’ behavior and attitude towards Agamemnon was that of a younger man responding to an older and more powerful figure who was in a position to affect his

future career. Later in the epic, after Diomedes had proven himself worthy of the command entrusted to him, he felt secure enough in his position to disagree openly with Agamemnon. !!0 If Diomedes had gone to Troy with authority vested in him either by his own right as king or by a separate king of Tiryns and Argos, then he did not need to be so circumspect towards Agamemnon. Had the authority been granted by Agamemnon,

Diomedes’ position was quite different.!!! It might be objected that Diomedes had had nine years in which to prove his worth. In terms of the /liad, however, those nine years scarcely existed. Anything of major importance that occurred before the opening of the /lad had to be revealed to the audience before other actions depending on the earlier ones could be fully developed. After nine years of fighting the warriors were well-known to each other, but that did not relieve the bard from the necessity of presenting them to his listeners. Episodes such as the “viewing from the walls” were included in the /lad, not because Priam needed the information, but in order to inform the audience.!!? The audience did not necessarily know the different physical characteristics of the major

heroes nor the past events related in this scene. It was the audience to whom

Helen was being presented and for whom

her

position in relation to the Trojans was being clarified.!!3 For similar reasons, Diomedes was first presented as a dependent, younger man and then as a warrior proving his worth. After he

had established his reputation as a warrior and had proven himself worthy of the position of responsibility given to him, he

was then able to set himself apart from Agamemnon.!'!* The great length of the /liad made it possible to depict in rich detail the personalities of the heroes in a way not possible in the shorter songs.!!5 In order to clarify the presentation the bard almost totally ignored the fact that the war had been continuing for

nine long years. Many examples can be cited. The duel of Menelaus and Paris, if it took place at all, logically took place long before. Although the duel may have been out of place chronologically, it did serve to make clear to the audience the

original cause of the war,!!® and it revealed the personalities of the two conflicting men.!!? As Thucydides implied, the wall protecting the Achaean ships was most naturally erected soon after their arrival.!!® Its construction during the tenth year, however, served a very real dramatic purpose. It indicated the desperation of the fighting and the awesome consequences of Achilles’ refusal to fight. These were so horrendous, according to the epic, that the Achaeans were forced to build a wall for

their protection, a wall that had previously been considered unnecessary. So desperate was their plight that the wall was built in one night, even though they had had nine years in which the wall could have been constructed at a more leisurely

pace. Historical accuracy is here sacrificed for dramatic effect.

The Men who Fought on the Plains of Troy

9

Fig. 130. The Mycenaean fortifications on the Acropolis in Athens, (left) with Parthenon in background; (nght} adjacent to the southwest wing of the later Propylaea on the Acropolis in Athens. If events had to be slightly readjusted, this was of little consequence to the poetic mind. From the bard’s perspective, the wall was known to have been built and it mattered little exactly

when this had taken place. If it created a greater dramatic effect to say it had taken place at this point in the narrative, then a litue alteration was permissible.

For a similar dramatic effect,

Diomedes’ relationship to Agamemnon was first presented as if they had gaining a two days This may

just begun the war. Diomedes was then portrayed reputation as a great warrior and within the space of he was able to justify his position as a true war leader. not be a very realistic sense of timing, but it is an

excellent dramatic presentation. This rearrangement of chronological sequence by the bard should not be understood to be deliberate fictionalization. The

bard was attempting to be truthful in so far as he understood that concept. This can be seen in his handling of the Athenian entry in the Catalogue of Ships.''9 The question is sometimes asked by modern commentators why Menestheus, son of Peteos, led the men from Athens, and not the better known

Theseus.!20 Although little is known about Menestheus or his father Peteos, they were mentioned in a few other ancient sources. They appear to have been historical figures who once lived in Athens, and quite possibly Menestheus was mentioned in the Catalogue because he had been the leader of the Athenian army.!2! It has also been questioned why Athens alone was mentioned.!?? Although scattered Mycenaean remains have been found in the areas surrounding Athens, nothing comparable to the Mycenaean fortifications of the Athenian Acropolis, Sg. 130, have been found associated with these areas. This dis-

tribution of Mycenaean remains seems to indicate that Athens alone was an important center during the Mycenaean Period, and possibly for this reason she alone was mentioned in the Catalogue. Changes, distortions, conflations, and exaggerations may have taken place in the oral tradition, but deliberate falsification, as understood by oral poets, was scrupulously avoided. The deliberate substitution of one name for another would have been considered a falsification. If Menestheus had been part of the original tradition, even though he was less well-known in later umes than Theseus, he was included by those bards who were attempting to record history and were trying to avoid distortions in the tradition. In the Odyssey Odysseus meet Theseus in Hades,!?3 which places Theseus, according to the tradition, earlier than the period of the Trojan War. Menestheus’ appearance in the Catalogue rather than his better known countryman Theseus might best be interpreted as an indication of the purity of the tradition transmitted by Homer and the Homeridae. Menestheus was not the only leader mentioned in the Catalogue who had little or no role in the subsequent action of the epic. Forty-four people were named in the Catalogue, and of these nine were not mentioned elsewhere in the /lıad.!?* Epistrophus, one of the Phocian leaders not mentioned elsewhere, is considered by some to be fictitious,!25 but if one is fic-

titious then the others become suspect. This group of nine mentioned only in the Catalogue include ‘Thalpius and Polyxinus.!26 They were named as leaders along with Amphimachus and Diores, who reappeared in later action when they were killed.!27 Agapenor from Arcadia, who immediately preceded them in the Catalogue, was also in this group.!?® His country

92

Fig. 131.

TALES OF

HEROES

View of the remains at Troy.

had been unable to provide him with ships and so he used ships provided by Agamemnon. Nireus of Syme was not mentioned later, but we are told that he was a weakling and so few accompanied him.!*" He was followed in the Catalogue by Phidippus and Anuphus from the islands of the southern Sporades, another pair occurring only in the Catalogue.!3" And finally the last two leaders in the Achaean Catalogue, Gouneus and Prothous, complete the list of those mentioned only in this part of the Ihad.'3' This list can be divided into three parts. The first consists of men who held joint leadership with others who were killed in the subsequent fighting (Epistrophus, 'Thalpius, and Polyxinus). ‘The second comprises those who were weak in leadership (Nireus and we assume Agapenor, since he had to borrow ships). The third segment is made up of leaders from the fringes of the Mycenaean world (Phidippus, Antiphus, Gouneus, and Prothous). The first were remembered as companions of the slain, The second, though remembered, were weak and presumably did not play an important role at Troy. The third came from areas in which the bards had litte interest and therefore they lacked the incentive to include their leaders in the later narrative. ‘Vhis falls into a logical pattern that has no need of the addition of fictitious names to make it comprehensible.

Schedius, the son of Iphitus. was listed as a leader in the Phoclan entry along with his brother Epistrophus.!? Schedius reappeared only once. in the passage describing the fight over the body of Patroclus; in that scene he was killed by Hector. oN second Schedius, the son of Perimedes. another leader of the Phocians, was said to have been killed earlier by Hector. Iı

may be that the two warriors were originally the same person whose parentage was uncertain," but it is equally possible that Schedius was a popular name among the Phocians.'4° Two different warriors could have had the same name, and by some unhappy chance both were killed by Hector.” At least eightythree names preserved in the Jad applied to more than one person, and occasionally the same name was held by both an Achacan and a Trojan." If a primary aim of the bard was to confer honor, then those who had died at Troy were named in order that they be remembered and honored. Ten of the forty-four Achaean leaders mentioned in the Catalogue were killed in the subsequent action. Commentators have frequently observed that Bocotia and the nearby areas form a disproportionately large element of the Catalogue, but itis also to be noted that the Bocotians and their neighbors form a disproportionately large segment of the casualties. The large number of fatalities possibly served as an incentive to retain this portion of the Catalogue in full detail. The catalogue of the men who fought on behalf of Troy, fig. 137, was much shorter and included fewer names.!" There were sixteen Trojan entries comprising sixty-two lines, as opposed to the twenty-nine entries and 266 lines for the Achacans. A total of twenty-seven Trojans and their allies were listed by name. Seventeen, or well over half, were later said to have been killed. Six were not mentioned outside of the Catalogue and their fate is uncertain, The remaining four ‘Trojans appear to have survived. This is in contrast to the forty-four Achacans listed in the Catalogue. Ten, or less than one fourth,

The Men who Fought on the Plains of Troy

93

were killed, nine were not mentioned again, and the remaining twenty-five survived at the end of the epic. The brevity of the Trojan Catalogue is especially striking because the number of

Trojans named elsewhere in the /had was nearly twice that of the Achaeans. ‘There were 222 names of Trojans and their allies mentioned in the /had. One hundred and ninety-three of these men were killed by the Achacans, leaving only twenty-nine named warriors on the Trojan side alive at the end of the epic. This is in contrast to the 117 named warriors on the Achaean side. Fifty-two of these men were killed and sixty-five were alive at the end of the /liad. The disproportionately large number of named warriors on the ‘Trojan side appears to result from the bard’s desire to add luster to the exploits of the Achaean heroes by preserving the names of their victims, and thereby giving added fame to the conquering warriors. Some of the Trojan names, such as Alexander, Hippothous, and Cassandra, might have been unconsciously Hellenized,! but this does not mean that these names were fictitious.! The gradual transformation of an incomprehensible foreign name into a recognizable form inevitably occurred during the years of oral transmission. The transliteration of the Trojan names into

the Greek alphabet at the ume the epics were written down may also have been partially responsible for the conversion. In

the Zliad it was specifically stated that the Trojans and their allies spoke a variety of languages.!# A mixed linguistic background for this area is suggested independently by the archacological record.!?? Occasionally people, such as Paris/ Alexander, places, such as Ilium/Troy, or things, such as the river Xanthus/Scamander had double names, which have come to be variously interpreted.! ‘The most obvious explanation for the Hellenization of names and for some of the duplication is that they are a result of a mixture of Greek and non-Greek people living together. One name represented the Greek name or its Hellenized form and the other its non-Greek equivalent. Just this type of ethnic intermingling is in fact suggested by the Catalogue, and the discovery of objects made of ivory, which must have been imported, such as the ivory pyxis from an Athenian burial, fig. 132, make it clear that contact between the Greeks and the non-Grecks of the Mycenaean Period did often occur. In the Carian entry of the Trojan Catalogue, the people led by Nastes from Miletus were said to be BapBapodwvor. Although others at Troy appear to have spoken a language that was not

Fig. 132. Ivory Pyxts from tomb in Athens.

Greek, this is the only group that was specifically named as being BapBapdowvoi.!!7 Excavations at Miletus have uncovered

extensive prehistoric remains including part of a Mycenaean house and fortification wall,!' but this does not justify the conclusion that the entire city was Mycenaean. A mixed population speaking different languages in prehistoric Miletus seems to be indicated, similar to the ethnic mixture that existed on the Asia

Minor coast during the Ottoman Empire, when only one segment of the population was Greek-speaking. If the oral tradition

reflected the prehistoric period and preserved the memory, of Greek- and non-Greck-speaking people living together in early Miletus, then it is understandable that the BapBapodwvor of the city were identified in the Catalogue. Had there been no memory of a mixed culture in the city, then it is somewhat odd that only one specific group of people was identified as BapBapogwvot as distinct from the other groups of people in the Trojan Catalogue who also spoke a non-Greek language. As a reflection of the prehistoric period the Bapßaposwvoı of the Carian entry can be understood to be the people in carly Miletus who did not speak Greek and who took part in the war. By

implication, other portions of the city by virtue of their language did not classify as BapBapodwvot, that is to say they spoke Greek, and they did not take part in the war. The Trojan War, regardless of its original significance, in later years became the

Fig. 133. Linear B tablet no. PY Ta 721 with ideogram for footstool on right matching footstool portrayed on gold ring from ‘Tins, fig. 47.

94

TALES OF HEROES

Fig. 134. The Laconian Plain, home of Menelaus.

great mythical prototype of the confrontation between the Greeks and the East. For the descendents of the Mycenaeans who had lived at Miletus and for the Greeks who later inhabited the city and turned it into a major Greek center, it was important to specify that they and their ancestors had not been among the allies of the ‘Trojans, hence the special emphasis on the BapBapodwvor in the Carian entry. In the Jltad and the Odyssey, no obvious historical event occurring after the fall of the Mycenaean civilization was mentioned, and almost all overt references to the Tonians living in Asia Minor were avoided.!" The omission of later historical events is usually said to be a deliberate anachronism. Such a historical awareness is rather astonishing in a preliterate era, and it suggests that the Trojan tales were already firmly established in the oral tradition before these later events occurred. It is often claimed that the society described in the epics is not Mycenaean. This argument emphasizes the complicated bureaucratic government, with its elaborate hierarchy of rank, which has left its imprint in the Linear B tablets. This hierarchy is said to have no parallel in the epies.!°9 The obvious possibility that the names of government positions might have differed from those used by the military and thus were not used in the epics has not been given serious consideration by the proponents of this theory. They also ignore the fact that these tablets often list items such as footstools inlaid with ivory, fig. 133, which have parallels in both the epies!®! and in the artefacts of the Mycenaean period, fig. 47. It may never be known how closely the social mores of the epics correspond to those of any given society, but a hierarchy of

power and position in the epics did exist. Diomedes, as argued above, held power vested in him by Agamemnon and was therefore his subordinate. At the same time his position was more important than those of Sthenelus and Euryalus. Other contingents listed m the Catalogue also had more than one leader, which suggests the same kind of hierarchy in other cities. Odysseus stated specifically that although many held high rank, only one person could be the supreme leader of all.!52 This was an obvious military necessity, but the need to verbalize it reflects a consciousness of rank and hierarchy. Agamemnon may have held the highest rank on the battlefield but his power over the others was clearly not absolute. It was in his

power to divide the spoils as he saw fit, but he did not have the power to insist that Achilles and the Myrmidons continue fighting. The bard of the /liad was not interested in the type of inherited power held by Agamemnon. He was intent on portraying honor being won by heroic deeds, so he did not emphasize the rank of one hero as higher or better than another.!53 Nonetheless the initial argument between Agamemnon and Achilles was based on rank.!*4 ‘Phe confrontation between the

Achaean leaders and the upstart Thersites'® clearly illustrated the great social division that separated the rank and file from the leaders. ‘This same division was implicit in the relationship between the Myrmidons and Achilles.'°® When Achilles stopped fighting, the Myrmidons whom he led also stopped fighting. Even his immediate followers who were closer to him in rank, Patroclus and Phoenix, did not join in the fighting until they were given permission by Achilles. After permission had been given, Patroclus armed while Achilles went among the

huts of Myrmidons rousing the soldiers. The men rushed forth

The Men who Fought on the Plains of Troy

95

eager to join the fighting; even the nyntopes and the pédovtec of the Myrmidons were eager.!?” Whoever the irntopeg and the

n£dovtes may have been, the implication of the statement is that they were not just simple soldiers but held some higher rank.!5® The bard informed us that Achilles had appointed five leaders, but he himself was head of the five. The five leaders were then named,!*" and in front of the five were placed Patroclus and Automedon.!® The ranks and the hierarchy are very clear: Achilles was the leader, below him were Patroclus and Automedon, then came the five who led the five contingents of soldiers, and at the bottom were the rank and file.!©! Somewhere in this hierarchy the nyntopeg and the n£dovteg were

placed, though where they ranked is not clear. In the Land of the Phaeacians, a hierarchy of rank is also indicated. Alcinous was the most important, and below him were twelve men of high rank whom Alcinous said were kings, Baoireic.'©2 Although Alcinous and these twelve were called BaciAetc, Alcinous’ statement makes it clear that they were not all equal.!#3 The twelve were addressed by Alcinous as nytopeg

and peédovtec, the same phrase that had been used in the Ihad.\®'! In addition to these ranks the Phaeacians had nine officials called atovpvitar who were chosen from the people to oversee the dancing and the games of skill.!% The repeated use of the phrase, nyntopes nde pédSovtec, always in the nominative and frequently in the opening lines of a speech, suggests the nyntop and the pédv were old titles preserved in a formula. The term nyftwp as a rank occurred alonc,!% but pédav by

itself was never used. The relationship between the ranks of the BaciAeic, the nyntopes nédé pédovtec, and the nine aigupvitar may not be clear, but the existence of the different words does indicate a hierarchy of some sort. The formulaic usage of iymtopes nöE pédovtec and the single appearance of the aioupvitau in the Odyssey suggest a lack of understanding by the bards. This is exactly the type of situation we might expect to find in the epics if the terms had originated in the Mycenaean era but had ceased to be used in the governments and armies of subse-

quent periods. Once the bureaucratic government ceased to

Fig. 136. Fortifications at Mycenae with view of plain below.

Fig. 135. Gold omaments from tomb in Athens. exist, the various nuances of the ranks were gradually forgotten, and the specific terms eventually dropped out of the language

and were all but forgotten in the cpics.!#7 The absence of titles in the literature reflecting the hierarchy of a bureaucratic government does not necessarily indicate anything about land and the tenure of land, as has sometimes been argued.!68 How land and wealth were accumulated in the epics may not be altogether clear to modern scholars, but some indi-

cation of the process is suggested. A certain amount of wealth was plainly accumulated by loot,!® and some by trade, particularly foreign trade that necessitated the use of ships,!?° but the

chief source of wealth must have been land.'7! The rich Laconian plain, the home of Menelaus, fig. 134, must surely have formed one source of his wealth. The statements describing Eumacus!?? make it clear that land and the produce of the land

were considered important in the epic, but this does not indicate any specific period since land was the chief source of wealth in almost any agricultural society existing before the industrial revolution. In the epics land was acquired through

96

TALES OF HEROES

inheritance!?3 or by marriage,!’* and children too young to rule could lose their rights.'75 Whether this represents a stable soci-

fame in distant lands. Travel and adventure were possible in

ety is debatable,!76 but it does indicate a wealthy society where’

abroad for long periods, political power devolved upon their wives.!92 This was a world of hope and splendor. The remembrance of the past was no doubt somewhat distorted by later people living in poverty at a time when opportunities were limited and the pursuit of fame was no longer possible.!93 Men of the Dark Age remembered their heroic ancestors with awe and

rank was important for the privileges it bestowed.'??7 No man holding an important position in the society was said to do agricultural work or other arduous physical tasks.!178 Men of high rank were preoccupied with fighting!’?9 and games of skill.!8&0 Women, especially when the men were gone for long periods of time, held positions of power.!®! The most arduous household work undertaken by the mistress of the household was the spinning and weaving of fine cloth.!82 Household tasks were performed by a staff of servants.!83 The basic work of farming was left in the hands of slaves, such as Eumaeus, and other servants,

such as Melanthius and Philoetius. The existence of slavery is clearly attested. Some of the slaves were highly honored,'® possibly because they had come from high ranks of another coun-

try and had been captured in war,!85 or had been seized as children from noble households.!86 Slaves were sometimes purchased for high prices.!#’ Individual households were so affluent that they retained full time bards.!88 Gifts of great value were casually exchanged.'®9 The wealth portrayed in the /liad was so great that it was measured in terms of oxen.!® This vision of

great wealth and luxury must surely represent a later generation’s nostalgic memory of an earlier time when life seemed secure within the massive fortifications of the Mycenaean citadels. It reflects a period when wealth was so vast that the people could afford to bury quantities of gold with their dead,

those days, and when

the pursuit of heroic exploits kept men

no doubt with envy. The slack months when agricultural chores were few offered them time for the stories of the past. Tales of

sacking of cities, of loot and of people captured into slavery,!%* excursions into Egypt,!95 mass movements of people,!% ships wrecked at sea,!97 heroes absent for long periods of time or never returning,'% usurpation of power at home with resulting blood feuds and political unrest,!99 these and many other inci-

dents formed the core of the oral epic tradition that was handed down from one generation to another.?® But behind the gloss

of excitement, the details of the stories reveal a society that was unsettled and on the verge of disintegration.2°! A similar picture can be drawn

from the archaeological record of last days of

Mycenaean power.?02 Behind the glitter that so richly colors the history of the earlier period, the comprehensible outlines of the society remain within the structure of the epics. This was a society led by warriors who had accumulated great wealth through inheritance, marriage, trade, and war. They lived in large, com-

plex houses staffed with many servants. They traveled in chari-

fig. 135. During the Dark Age life reverted to a simple agricul-

ots and visited the other palaces, where

tural society and to subsistence economy.!?! The houses were small and at the beginning of the Dafk Age trade was almost nonexistent. The people living amidst the ruined fortifications of the earlier period must have viewed with awe the grandeur of the cyclopean fortifications and the extensive remains of complex domestic buildings. The massive walls of the Bronze Age, fig. 136, must have represented in their imaginations great

goods when possible, or looted their neighbors when trade routes began collapsing. This was a society peopled by person-

wealth, confident security, and gracious living. The great and

powerful men of the ruling class were able to seek wealth and

friends entertained

them with banqueting and song. They fought with weapons characteristic of the Late Helladic Period. They owned objects of gold and silver whose descriptions recall actual objects once used by Mycenaeans. Items of luxury, preferably from abroad,

were deemed necessary for a good life. They traded for these alities so powerfully portrayed by the bard that they still live today in our imagination.

VI THE ORIGINS OF THE WRITTEN TEXTS OF THE ILIAD AND THE ODYSSEY

J: HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED that some of the elements in the /liad and Odyssey were based on Mycenaean culture, but

their number and importance has often been debated.' The previous discussion has tried to show that these reminiscences are far more pervasive than is generally recognized and it now appears the tradition must have started long before the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization, fg. /37. Many of the problems confronting the Homeric scholar, such as the definition of the words poyes, necööpan, and the double meaning of @aAapos, can be resolved by knowledge of the Mycenaean Period gained through archaeological research. Cremation of the dead, per-

haps the custom most frequently cited as post-Mycenaean, did occur sporadically in the prehistoric period. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that the Late Helladic cemetery found at Troy consisted only of cremations,? and it was at Troy that the cremations of Patroclus and Hector took place. The image of horses standing still as a stele on top of a burial mound? has been associated with the Geometric Period.* Stelai on burial mounds were erected in the prehistoric period, but afterwards the custom was abandoned and not renewed until the seventh century B.C.5 The image in the /ltad can be either prehistoric or seventh century but it cannot be Geometric or

Dark Age. Temples and cult statues from the prehistoric period have been identified and these can no longer be classified as post-Mycenaean.® The eating of fish throughout the entire Bronze Age can be documented by the discovery of fish bones and fishhooks. Paintings of youths holding fish were found at

Thera, and men carrying fish were portrayed on early vases.’ Warriors carried two spears in the epics but also in Mycenaean art, figs. 54, 8]. Trade Mycenaean Period has record. The “baneful Bellerophon tale most the prehistoric period,

with Phoenicia before the end of the been established by the archacological signs” written on a folded tablet in the logically refer to the syllabic writing of when literacy was confined to a scribal

class and knowledge of writing was limited. The discovery of a folded wooden tablet identical to the one described in the Iliad in a Bronze Age shipwreck off the coast of Turkey now makes this deduction almost certain, even though it has been occasionally challenged, fig. 138." Trumpets made of horn similar to

those in the Bible can now be shown to be prehistoric and these form an early parallel for the similes in the Jad." Suggested references to hoplite warfare." use of four-horse chariots,!? and

horseback riding!3 are so vague that they become questionable as indications of a specific date.!* Odysseus’ broach, gorgon heads, and lamps need not necessarily be dated to any specific

period.!? Certain elements are timeless and are appropriate to any agricultural society,'© whereas exaggeration and glorification are inherent in the oral tradition.'? Nevertheless, when all

questionable items are discounted, there still remain certain specific customs and artifacts that must be Mycenaean. They: include Ajax’s tower shield, fig. 42, the body shield of Hector,

figs. 42.-43, the subject matter of the decoration on the shield made for Achilles, Ags. 52, 110, 112, metal objects decorated with inlay, fig. /23, two-horse chanots used in warfare, fig. 66,

the shape of the bronze cuirass, fig. 70, silver-studded swords, the boar’s tusk helmet, figs. 83-84, ships steered by a single

steering oar and beached bow to, fig. /20, “Nestor’s cup,” fig. 139, the dress worn by Hera, figs. 92-94, emphasis on belts, fig. 101, the lack of nudity, temene belonging to kings, a single ruler in each country who gained power through hereditary right or through marriage,!® government over wide areas that included many cities, the geography of the Catalogue of Ships, an almost total absence of people living in Ionia, except for an oblique reference to Miletus, and the architecture of both the palaces and

the fortifications. Occasional details in the epics can be isolated that reflect the same historical events that have been established independently by the archaeologists. The destruction of Mycenaean Thebes before the fall of Troy was mentioned in the Iliad and has been verified by excavations.!? The only iron weapon on the battlefield of Troy was used by Pandarus, who came from an area using iron arrowheads at the end of the Bronze

Age.20 The sanctuaries at Delos, Delphi, and Dodona, mentioned in the epics, were already in use in the Mycenaean Peri-

od.?! Hector made the statement that formerly Troy had been known for a wealth that no longer existed. The excavators of ‘Troy found an earlier city of greater wealth beneath the later,

poorer city identified as the one belonging to Priam.22 A solid core of the culture described in the epics can be identified as Mycenaean. The specific tales associated with Troy most logically started in the era when the war itself was fought.23 This tradition most naturally included episodes from all ten vears of the Trojan War as well as events from the periods both before and after the war itself. The written texts we have today. however, obviously cannot have been written down before the

98

TALES OF HEROES had already taken place by the middle of the seventh century B.C.34 They indicate only the terminus ante quem of the spread of the oral tradition; they do not indicate how long before the seventh century this spread occurred. The entire Trojan Cycle is

depicted, not just the events associated with the Wrath of Achilles or the Return of Odysseus. The scenes are to be found on vases,3° bronze dedications in sanctuaries,*® and later in

sculpture.3’ For this tradition to spread over such a wide area, there must have been many bards, singing many different tales. The Spartan lawgiver Lycurgos was said to have became

acquainted with the tales of Homer during his travels and to have been so impressed with them that he took them back to Sparta.34 Lycurgos’ activities can be understood to refer to the spread of the oral tradition rather than a written text of the /liad

and the Odyssey we have today. The information known in Fig. 137. Wall painting of bard prone lyre from the megaron of the palace at Pylos. Restored drawing by Piet de Jong.

introduction of the alphabet some four hundred years after the fall of Troy. Since writing did not exist during these centuries, this information must have been preserved by oral repetition, with each generation passing the Mycenaean information and stories to the next generation. Specific details were probably remembered in a variety of different ways. Parents and grand-

parents must have repeated to their children and grandchildren stories they themselves had heard in their own childhood. Wandering bards collected information which they helped to spread

by their travels.?* Gradually the episodes became codified into specific songs that spread throughout the Greek world. At some point the texts of the Zliad and the Odyssey were written down. These texts as they exist today have been almost universally accepted, and only small segments are disputed.?? The purity of

the texts and the lack of variant readings are astonishing in view of the many narrative inconsistencies apparent in the early artistic representations of the Trojan Cycle, the very early period of its beginnings,26 and the difficulties of its vocabulary.?? During the centuries of oral transmission variant traditions occurred that are reflected in the vase paintings and contradictory statements of ancient literary authors,28 but these are not reflected in the texts as they are preserved today.29 Whatever the various stages of this transmission may have been,? it is an unavoidable conclusion that there must have existed a period when the remnants of Mycenaean recollections were passed by word of mouth during the Geometric Period by oral bards, fig. 140. Milman Parry revealed the mechanics of the process by

which this information and the earlier descriptions were preserved.3! It is now recognized that an oral tradition, once started, can continue for centuries. It has also become clear that it is

usually an outside agent or some factor independent of the tradition that causes the songs to be written down, and that it ts possible for an oral tradition to exist within a literate society.*? What outside agent may have been responsible for the writing

down of the Jihad and the Odyssey and when and why this happened had not yet been determined. 3! Scenes from the enure Trojan

Cycle can be identified in the

vase paintings from a wide area of the Greek world, but these artistic representations do not inform us when the Wrath of Achilles was first sung or who separated the Return of Odysseus from the returns of the other Achaean leaders. The depictions of the Trojan Cycle show that the spread of the oral tradition

archaic Sparta included names that are not preserved in the Iliad and the Odyssey; these must come from other source. No trace survives of a Doric text originating from a Lycurgan tran-

scription, nor of an Ionic text reflecting a copy of a written text held by Ionian bards.?® As the oral tradition of the Trojan War

spread, variations and differences developed.* Such variations were recognized in antiquity,*! but one clan of singers, the Homeridae, was considered especially knowledgeable, and spe-

cial deference was accorded to their cponymous founder, a bard called Homer. Associated in some way with the Homendae were two other names, a very early Creophylus whose descendents were known to Lycurgos of Sparta, and Cynaethus, who was said to have been in Syracuse at the end of the sixth century, but none of the Homeridae were honored more than Homer himself.42 In later times Homer was often quoted as an

authority on early Greek history.) His /liad and Odyssey became the basis of Greek education for generations. Various epics and hymns came to be associated with his name,** and his descendants, the Homeridae, were considered the custodians of his works. The name of Homer became famous,* but little is known about the man himself. Xenophanes, Simonides, Heraclitus,

and Pindar named and quoted him as if he were a well-known person, not a shadowy,

unknown

figure of the distant past.*

Fig. 138. Folding tablet from Late Bronze Age shipwreck.

The Origins of the Written Texts of the Wiad and the Odyssey Whatever knowledge centuries B.C. was dates and genealogy his biography are so familiarity reflected

99

they possessed in the sixth and early fifth forgotten, and afterwards even Homer's were uncertain.?’ Later attempts to write contradictory as to be useless.!# After the by Pindar, Simonides, Heraclitus, and

Xenophanes, the total obscurity of Homer’s life is a very curious lapse in the later tradition. If there had been an eighth-century monumental composer of an /liad whose work was instantly recognizable as so superior to all other previous epics that it was memorized,* this lapse is even more peculiar. Possibly more puzzling is that the famed /liad appears to have been unknown in Athens even as late as ca. 570-60 B.C. when the Francois Vase was painted, fg. /4/. One of the scenes on this

vase depicts the chariot race from the Funeral Games of Patroclus. Five contestants were identified on the vase, but among the five on the vase only Diomedes was mentioned as a contes-

tant in the /liad.°® The winner on the Francois Vase appears to be Odysseus, with Automedon coming second. The other two contestants on the vase, Damasippus and Hippothous, do not appear amid the Achaean warriors mentioned in the Jltad. Eumelus, Menelaus, Antilochus, and Meriones, who took part

in the race as told in the /ltad, were not portrayed on the vase. If Antilochus had been included among the participants on the Francois Vase. then it could possibly be argued that the painter simply made a mistake. Anyone who had listened to the Iliad we have today, however, can not have failed to remember Nestor's long harangue to his son and Antilochus’ subsequent behav-

ior.’! The conclusion seems inescapable that Klitias, the painter of the Francois Vase, had neither heard nor read the text of the Iliad as we have it. Other vase painters of this same period appear to have been equally ignorant of this particular text. On a black-figured kantharos in Athens, Nearchos portrayed Achilles with his two horses; the names painted beside the horses are not the famous pair Xanthus and Balius mentioned in the Thad but Xaitos and Eutheias, who are not part of the preserved

text.2 A written text does not appear to have existed in Athens when the dispute first erupted between Megara and Athens over the possession of the island of Salamis. Megara claimed that the Athenians had added a line to the Salamis entry in the Catalogue of Ships in order to bolster their claim to Salamis. The Athenians stoutly denied the Megarian accusation and the argument between the two cities continued for years.>} If writ-

ten texts of the Catalogue had existed, then the presence of an alteration would have been made immediately obvious by a comparison of the Athenian text with other existing texts. A written text from some other city lacking the disputed line would have destroved all credibility of the Athenian claim. The Megarian accusation was only possible in an oral society when the discussion eventually resorted to arguments based on what “our bards” say as opposed to what “your bards” say, or what “I had heard as a child” versus what “vou had been told.” The dispute with Megara began in the days of Solon?* and it lasted for the better part of the sixth century, but at no point in the argument was a written text produced to support the claim of either city. When the Spartans were asked to arbitrate, no mention was made of a written text. If the Spartans had had a written text of the Zltad brought to them by Lycurgos in the seventh century B.C., they would have surely produced this text during the dispute in order to determine the authenticity of the Athenian claim.>°

Fig. 139. “\Nestor’s Cup” from Grave Circle A at Mycenae. One of the first indications a written text of some sort Lycurgos referred in one provided that the Songs of

that Athens had managed to obtain comes from a slighty later period.>6 of his speeches to an early law that Homer were to be recited during the

Greater Panathenaic Festival.5’? This law was associated with Hipparchus, who was said to have “compelled the rhapsodes during the Panathenaia to go through them successively and in

order.”5#® Earlier competitors “sang any part they wished but afterwards, when the two poems had been introduced the competitors [sang] parts one after the other, going through

the

complete poetry.”°? The second rhapsodist had to begin from the place where the first left off.6° Such a law clearly implies that there was a fixed text that the rhapsodes followed.6! This fixed text was presumably the one established in some way by Peisistratos that various ancient authors mentioned. Modern philologists have vaguely termed this particular text the “Peisistratean Recension.” According to the ancient tradition, Peisis-

tratos collected the poems of Homer, which had been previously scattered and handed down some in one place and some in another.62 These had formerly been sung in fragments.63 The various books, which had been disordered, were arranged by

Peisistratos in the order in which we now have them.® Having collected the various poems, Peisistratos brought out the /liad and Odyssey.°> These and other ancient references,® some of which are occasionally contradictory,®’ indicate that Peisistratos established some sort of fixed text of the /liad and Odyssey. Although the existence of a Peisistratid text is generally accepted by the modern scholars who have been primarily concerned

with the preservation and spread of the texts, the exact nature of this text and its origin remain uncertain.®9 The date of the Peisistratid text and an increasing awareness of the Homeric poems is reflected in Athenian black-figured vases.’° The terminus post quem of the introduction of the text is ca. 570- 60 B.C., the date of the Francois Vase. The terminus ante quem can possibly be established as ca. 530 B.C., the date of Exekias’ amphora depicting Achilles and Ajax playing a board

100

TALES

OF

HEROES works by these men were naturally incorporated into the library by Hipparchus. After the fall of the tvranny, the Athenians increased the size of the library.”7 They appear to have housed icon the Acropolis, since the Spartan Cleomenes, who seized the oracles collected by Peisistratos, was said to have taken the oracles from the Acropolis.“ Before the time of Peisistratos, Athens had produced only one important literary figure, Solon.” By the end of the sixth century, a youthful Pindar, wishing to receive literary training, chose to go to Athens to be educated. Clearly Athens had been culturally transformed by Peisistratos and his son.8! We might logically assume that the newly received text of Homer and the collection of a library by Peisistratos were part of this translormation."?

hig. 140.

Geometric lyre player (enlarged).

game, fig. 142.71 This is a new subject first introduced by Exckias and afterwards frequently copied by other painters.’? Both warriors are shown seated, and each of them holds two spears. The portrayal of two spears can be understood as a reflection of renewed interest in the Epic Cyele of the Trojan War, which occasionally mentioned two spears as part of a hero's standard equipment’? In the period immediately before this, as on the Francois Vase, and in the period immediately afterwards, only a single spear was portrayed. The two warriors on the Exekias Amphora, although fully armed, are not portrayed fighting or even preparing to fight. They beguile the time with the trivial and unheroic pursuit of playing a board game. The juxtaposition of weapons and board game indicates that the two men were perfecdly capable of fighting, but for some reason they refrained from entering the battle. This is a very curious subject which at first seems totally contradictory to the heroic tradition. It does, however, immediately suggest the Wrath of Achilles, when Achilles, angered by Agamemnon, simply refused to fight. Achilles’ refusal to fight is, of course, central to the plot of the had. The texts of the Jhad and Odyssey created by the Peisistratean Recension were probably part of the library that Peisistratos was said to have established." Presumably the oracles of Musacus collected by Onomacritus as well as the writing of Onomacritus himself were also part of the archives. ° Hipparchus. continuing the cultural policies of his father, was responsible for bringing to Athens Anacreon of Teos. Simonides of Keos, and Lasus of Herminone.’® Any written

The Library of Peisistratos was seized by the Persians in the sack of Athens in +80/79 B.C. and it was not unul ca. 280 B.C. that it was returned to Athens by Seleucus. At the same time the original statues of the Tyrannicides by Antenor, which had also formed part of the Persian loot, were returned.) The Persian seizure of the Peisistraud text of Homer explains the suspension of the musical contests in the Panathenaic Festival. Once the official texts were no longer available, there was no basis on which to settle disputes arising among the bards, and consequently the contests were suspended. In later vears when Pericles reintroduced the musical competitions into the Panathenaic Festival, the claim that he had started musical contests was Justifiable.“! The loss of the original manuscript also explains references to Homeric texts that had been “corrected” by their owners.® Difficult passages or questionable vocabulary were blamed on faulty transmission of the text, and correcting these mistakes became the duty of learned men. Lines quoted by Plato and Aristotle. which are slightly diflerent from our current text! may have resulted from faulty transmission or deliberate changes. During the wo centuries following Aristotle the texts conunued to change. as indicated by the fragmentary papyri found in Egypt. but whatever changes were made, all the papyri rellect an Athenian manuscript tradition as indicated by the Autic diction and the special references made to Athens.’ No single text dominated until the me of the Alexandrian Library." A wide variety of texts were available in the Hellenisuc Period, and the job of establishing a single authoritative text was monumental. Changes had occurred because of faulty copying.“" Other changes were introduced by individuals who had corrected earlier manuscripts to clarify the meaning of uncertain passages." or by various cities that had added their own lines.”! Even though others were known to have made the additions, which are preserved in the Egyptian papyri, allegation of adding lines to the texts was voiced only against Athens. once again indieating the importance of the Atheman texts. The most prominent Alexandrian Librarians to work on the Homeric texts were Zenodotus, Aristophanes, and Aristarchus." but exactly how they altered the text and what criteria they used remain uncertain, The only solid evidence that survives is the allegation by ancient critics that they removed some of the lines, and a comparison of the Hellenistic papyri found in Egypt with the text we have today makes it clear that this allegation was jusified.” Other lines were marked with a horizontal stroke. which idenufied them as being obelized or athetized. These lines are usually understood to have been rejected by the Librarians, but the significance of this mark is not certain." The athetized verses remained in the text 32

Bin

The Ongins of the Written Texts of the Iliad and the Odyssey and they should be distinguished from those lines that were

occupation.

101

Athens established friendly relationships with

actually removed. Additional verses were marked with a variety

Egypt, but during this same period Eratosthenes was chief

of symbols indicating lines thought to be out of place, duplicate

librarian of the Alexandrian Library. His interests were scientific and his major concern was to determine the size and geogra-

verses, or areas where

there was disagreement

among

the

Librarians.?’ They were added as reference marks to commentaries that are no longer preserved and are known only from statements made by the students and followers of the Librarians. These statements are occasionally contradictory,% which

makes the significance of the signs and the intentions of the Librarians difficult to evaluate. Finally, there occur, in the texts

we have today, lines that are missing in some of the Egyptian papyn,” and it is not altogether clear what the source of these additions may have been.

Modern scholars working on this subject have suggested that Zenodotus’ edition included lines that were found in the majority of manuscripts available to him and that he left out those lines that occurred sporadically.! Some of the lines omitted by Zenodotus were later accepted by Aristarchus,!0! whereas others that had been accepted earlier were questioned. Aristarchus was clearly using a different criterion in establishing the authen-

ticity of the lines, but what this criterion was is not clear. It does not appear to be based on numbers of manuscripts containing similar lines, which was the method apparently used earlier by Zenodotus. Nor does Aristarchus appear to have used internal evidence from the text itself to determine whether particular lines were appropriate, or whether they clarified the meaning.!%2 The result, however, is clear. Circa 150 B.C. a text was

established that was universally accepted, and afterwards significant variations or alterations ceased to occur. The text in ques-

tion appears to have been the one established by Aristarchus for the Alexandrian Library, and it was so stable that it remained the same for centuries. Transmitted by way of the medieval

codices and early printed texts, fig. /43, it became the basis of the text we have today.!03

In order to explain how a single text came to dominate all other versions from the Hellenistic Period onward, it is necessary to

postulate the discovery at that time of a new source of impeccable pedigree, not previously available. The Peisistratid text of Homer becomes the obvious source of such a new discovery.!%

Under the patronage of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the scholars of the Alexandrian Library collected vast quantities of manuscripts. Some of their efforts were ruthless, and among their acquisitions were the official Athenian copies of the plays of the great tragedians, which Egypt had obtained by deception.!05 When the Peisistratid Library was returned to Athens, we may be certain that the Alexandnans must have been eager to get copies of those early manuscripts. The Peisistratid collection

was returned ca. 280 B.C. just before Zenodotus ceased to be Librarian,!06 when

Ptolemy

Philadelphus,

who

had been

responsible for deceiving the Athenians, still ruled. In view of their previous experience with Ptolemy Philadelphus, Athens understandably refused to cooperate with Egypt. For the next century political turmoil on the Greek mainland,!% combined

with a lack of interest by some of the Librarians, hindered all attempts to obtain copies of the Peisistratid manuscripts. In the 270’s Athens was drawn into the Chremonidean War, which led to her capture and domination by Macedon, first under Antigonus Gonatas and later by Demetrius Il. Upon the death

phy of the earth. In 221 B.C. Philip V became king of Macedonia, and his determined efforts to dominate Greece once again caused political trouble for Athens which eventually culminated in Philip’s invasion of Attica. In ca. 204 B.C. when the directorship of the Library passed to Aristophanes, the second great Alexandrian interested in Homer, Athens was embroiled with

Philip V, and any possibility of Athenian co-operation with Egypt was excluded as long as Philip V still ruled. Peace did not return to Athens until after the death of Philip V in 179 B.C. Soon afterwards in ca. 175 B.C. Aristarchus, the third Libranan interested in Homer, became the head of the Alexandrian

Library. At that same time Perseus ruled Macedon and the Athenian political difficulties had subsided. For the first time since the return of the Peisistratid Library to Athens, it became

politically possible for Egypt to obtain copies of the old manuscripts. During this period the librarians of different cities were jealously scouring their world for new manuscripts, and Aristarchus’ interest in Homer must surely have led to renewed efforts to obtain copies of the Peisistratid manuscripts as well as

copies of any other early texts that may have existed at that time. If Aristarchus used copies of the Peisistratid texts of Homer as the basis of his edition, and if these copies were thought to represent the oldest surviving texts, then all other

texts were immediately superseded and the Aristarchus edition automatically dominated the book market. Aristarchus’ reliance

on the Peisistratid text of Homer explains why all the so-called Athenian interpolations were included in the Anstarchus text, whereas other later interpolations found in the Hellenistic papyri were absent.!%® It provided him with a new manuscript not available to Zenodotus, and it explains the different approaches used by the two Librarians.'99 It becomes the source of those lines, missing in the Hellenistic papyri, which occur later in our current text. It also clarifies Aristarchus’ peculiar statement that Homer was an Athenian.!!0 He must have known

that Chios, Samos,

and even Smyrna

claimed

Homer as one of their own,!!! a claim never made by Athens. But just as Aristarchus, though a native of Samothrace, became known as an Alexandrian because of his work in that city, Aristarchus came to think of Homer as an Athenian because of the association of Athens with an early text of the /liad and Odyssey.

This reconstruction places great emphasis on the Peisistratid texts of Homer.

Although most scholars who have been con-

cerned with the preservation and history of the Homeric manuscripts now agree that there were such texts, there has been litde agreement concerning their nature and no discussion con-

cerning Peisistratos’ motivation for establishing such documents. Peisistratos’ political career provides ample reason for his desire to obtain a written text of the /kad. In the sixth centu-

ry Athens and Megara quarreled over the possession of Salamis. Peisistratos was said to have “won great fame” in the war with

Megara,!!? which helped pave the way to his first tyranny. The reference to Salamis in the Homeric Catalogue of Ships became part of the argument with Megara. The Megarians

of Demetrius I] in 229 B.C., the Macedonian domination of

asserted that the Athenians had altered a line of the Catalogue. This charge was hotly denied by the Athenians, who used the

Athens ended and for a brief time Athens was freed of foreign

line to prove their close association with the island from very

102

TALES OF HEROES have been in his possession, The circumstances, however, were vastly more complicated if the Homeridae did not have a written text. They had relied on the oral tradition to preserve the stories and the Mycenaean reminiscences for four hundred years when writing was not possible. Their attitude did not necessarily change overnight when the alphabet was first introduced into Greece and after four hundred years they may not have felt the need of using this new innovation that made possible a written text. In the absence of a written text, the most obvious procedure was to send one of the Homeridae to Athens, a Homer who was a son, or possibly the grandson, of Homer and a descendent of the Homer who had founded the

clan ten generations earhier.!! Tt was his responsibility to dic-

Fig. I41. The Frangois Vase. carly times. In later years when Peisistratos was once again firmly established in Athens, his desire to refute the Megarıan accusation for all time might well have led him to desire a written text of the Catalogue of Ships and the songs that came to be associated with it.!!3 This reconstruction suggests that it was political aims, and not cultural ones, that led to his request for a written manuscript of Homer's words.!!* ‘The scholia reported that the scattered songs of Homer were brought together by Peisistratos, and he was said to have been willing to pay an obol for each line, even when the lines were repetitive.!!> This is a rather curious statement since the songs must have been wellknown, as indicated by vase paintings, and payment for duplicate verses greatly increased the cost. Even without payment for duplicate lines, the cost was great, so great in fact that possibly only someone with the resources of a tyrant was able to pay for the expense.!!® The papyrus alone needed for the transcripuon was expensive. In addition payment had to be made to the scribes for their work and to the bards for their contribution. If the poems of Homer, which had been scattered and handed down by tradition, had been collected, some from one place and some from another, as Pausanias reported.!!’ then the ensuing confusion and the job of the editors would have been enormous. There was in this same period a well-known clan called the Homeridae, the sons of Homer, who were considered especially knowledgeable of Homer's songs. There was no necessity to collect. one part from here and another part from there. The Homeridae retained the traditions, they were available for consultation, and they had the information desired. IWthe Homeridae had a written text!!! then Peisistratos had simply to commission a copy of that text. The Homeridae, being Tonians, would have produced a text written in the lonian seript, and all traces of the Ate dialect would have been absent. With minimal effort Peisistratos would have achieved his political aims and a written text for future reference would

tate the epic to scribes who were to write it down. An oral dictated text being transcribed by Athenian scribes explains the peculiarities in the spelling and in the orthographic conventions of the text we have today.!?0 The Attic seribes, listening to the Jonian bard, understandably transformed the oral words into a written form that reflected their own dialect and customary way of spelling individual words. The bard, for example, included the digamma in his oral recitation, since that was part of his accustomed pattern of speech, but the Athenian scribes, not used to writing down words including the digamma, simply left it out when they transcribed the text.!?! They inadvertently changed the spelling of some of the words, replacing the Tonic vowels with ones they were accustomed to using.!=? Although it Fig. 142. The Exekias Amphora.

er

+% St

1

RT, Se RN oh ae

The Ongins of the Written Texts of the Iliad and the Odyssey

103

is universally accepted that the texts we have today reflect the Attic dialect, no other reasonable explanation has been suggest-

ed.!23 If other cities had their own manuscripts that were independent of the Athenian one, it is curious that not one of these is reflected in the preserved manuscripts or amid the hundreds of papyri found in Egypt. An eighth-century Ionian Homer whose work was written down either in his lifetime!2* or soon after!2> should have left traces of a manuscript tradition without

YMOGECIC THE x OMHROYOAYCCELACya alors ya -w Bi rei, for! et Taree in

repe.yirite

rear Fe

LG

r or

rrfisoni wie Tes

dcmre axis sip

the imprint of the Attic dialect. An eighth-century Homer whose work was entirely oral, on the other hand, must have

passed down the stories and the tradition orally to his descendents, the Homeridae, who, in turn, preserved the oral technique, the information, and the early epic language until the time came when one of them dictated a text that was written

down. At the time the text was orginally dictated, the written manuscript was unconsciously influenced by the scribe or scribes who wrote it down, and signs of this influence remain recognizable in the written tradition of the text.

Athens in the sixth century had neither the political power nor the cultural influence to impose her edition of the epics on the rest of the Greek world.!26 In later periods political rivalry between Athens and the other Greek cities would almost automatically have guaranteed the preservation of rival manu-

scripts, had they existed. The independent spirit of the various city states, which constantly hampered efforts to unite the Greek world against foreign threats, also worked against the

possibility of a single edition suppressing all others. Athens became a mighty sea power, but Corinth, Delos, and Rhodes remained important centers of trade. The outstanding achievements of the Athenians in the fields of sculpture and architec-

de idan» EDC y te -eapeye iver ays Poy Ke nive lei par: feel Ria bmpoy aap rre, peep -werdAauyec- CatnerB ica qreyy

Anl

ture are still visible today, but Athenians never dominated these

fields to the exclusion of all other local styles. It is unthinkable that she was able to do this with her Homeric

manuscnpts, if

other cities had similar documents. The dependency of all other manuscripts on the Athenian editions!?? must mean that Athens alone had such documents and that all other copies depended on the manuscripts held by Athens. Athens in the eighth century was not the place where such a transcription can have taken place.!28 Athens in the sixth century under Peisistratos had become a different city. Oral dictated texts explain the great length of the /uad and the

Odyssey.!29 The process of oral dictation and transcription of texts takes many days and requires frequent periods of rest for both the bard and the scribes.! It frees the bard of the obligation of singing the entire song within a single sitting. The

ancient bard of the dictated text had the opportunity never before available to create a tale whose length was limited only by his imagination. The extended time, and hence more

leisurely pace of the narrative, made possible by the dictation process, allowed him to include a greater richness of description, a more elaborate characterization of the heroes, a greater

number of episodes and personalities, and numerous references to other related tales. Although other cities may have had their own songs relating the Wrath of Achilles or the Return of

Odysseus, these were shorter and hence less comprehensive than the extended edition produced by the dictated process. It was the unusual quality and richness of the Zltad and Odyssey that eventually led to their popularity and hence to their preservation,!3! and not the domination of a single city on the book trade or cultural life of the ancient world.!? The great length of

Fig. 143. An early edition of Homer, printed in Florence, 1488. the Iliad has often been noted,!?3 but no other realistic explana-

tion for such a length has been suggested.!3* Aristotle, while admitting to admiration for the Homeric epics, made it obvious that he thought they were too long, since he made the assertion that the ideal epic was sung within a single day.!?5 In ancient

literature, apart from the somewhat shorter Odyssey, no other poem can compare to the /liad in length.!36 Virgil’s denerd is 6,000 lines shorter; Pindar’s longest lyric poem, Pytua 4, is 299 verses; the Oedipus at Colonus, the longest single drama, has 1,780 lines;!37 whereas the Jliad has 15,683 lines of verse and the

Odyssey has 12,108 lines. In order to understand the consequences of the oral dictation of the epics, it is important to comprehend the attitude of the bard and the reaction of the city to the particular bard who had arrived from Ionia. One of the sixth-century Homeridae, a man called Homer,

having been summoned

to Athens and being

questioned about his knowledge, would have told the Athenians: “I would sing his whole song. ... I would give every word and not make a mistake.”!3* Asked if this was the same song he had learned from his father, he would no doubt have stated “I would sing it just as I heard it. ... It isn’t good to change or to

add."'*" to which he might append: “The same song, word for word and line for line.”!' After being told that the whole song

104

TALES OF HEROES accusations by the

writing down a long dictated text and a bard who was able to

Megarians that lines had been added, he might have been

meet the challenge of producing a lengthy epic of incredibly

asked if he could be sure not to “leave anything out,” and his answer would have been “I wouldn’t.”'4! Faced with these assurances, the ancient listener would undoubtedly have been somewhat confused as to what was actually taking place. He

high quality, dictated at an unusually slow pace. There needed to be an audience that was willing day after day to sit with the bard and to encourage his efforts. Once the text had been dic-

was wanted

so there could be no more

would have believed that he was hearing the song just as it had been sung by the original Homer.!42 He probably did not know “that two singers won't sing the song alike”!+! and that when a bard claimed that “I would sing it just as I heard it,” he usually also added “whatever is worthwhile.”!44 The addition of “whatever is worthwhile” indicates that the bard did distinguish between what was to be included and what was to be excluded. No matter what disclaimer he had made before, the bard was

not really singing it just as he had heard it.'*5 A sixth-century Homer called to Athens needed to be instructed to sing slowly enough so that the scribes had time to write down the verses.!#6 He was to take as long as he wished!*’ and was to be remunerated for each line of verse; later when lines were

tated, it was necessary that it be preserved and that there existed a cultural atmosphere that assured its spread. Such events can perhaps be visualized taking place in Peisistratos’ own house in a building designated by the excavator as

Building F along the west side of the agora of Athens, fig. 144.'% Possibly here in the large columnar courtyard, the bard and the scribes worked together to establish a written text. Each

day another episode in the extended epic was recited before an audience composed of aristocratic Athenians. The daily recitations made the whole city aware of the great task being undertaken, and they seem to have inspired a cultural revolution in the life of the city. In this building were generated the begin-

nings of a renewed interest in the oral tradition, which led in later years to the use of the /ltad and

Odyssey as the basis of

repeated, he was also paid for the duplicate lines. Each day he

Athenian education.!#’ A special relationship between Homer

was to mect with the scribes and anyone who might wish to listen.'48 When he or the scribes were tired,'* the day's dictation

and Athens was reflected by Thucydides and was still evident in the days of Isocrates.!6# The interest aroused by the dictation of the epics led to the singing of these particular tales in the musical contests of the Panathenaia, thereby assuring the preservation and spread of the texts. The repeated performances at the Panathenaic Festivals convinced the city of the superiority of

stopped at the end of the current episode, to be picked up the next day or later in the same day.!" Because he was allowed as much time as he needed, incidents that usually covered only a few lines could be considerably lengthened;!5! new information

was added that gave greater meaning to the action;!*? cata-

her particular renditions and eventually led to the spread of the

logues were extended

same editions to other citics.

to emphasize

the importance

of the

episode that was to follow;!*3 and new characters were included to embroider the story with more detail.!*+ All bards did not

have the skill to take advantage of the possibilities offered by the longer tale. An experienced bard, however, is able to sing a wide variety of songs!» and he can lengthen or shorten a tale as

time and circumstances permit.!5 The story of Achilles’ Wrath must have been widely known in the sixth century, but what was new and different about the Peisistratid version was the

way the story was told in its expanded form.!3’ This expansion gave richer personalities to the gods,'>" added incidents not normally included in the tale,'™ extended speeches to include references to other songs,'™ lengthened the battle scenes to include more pace.!©2 All were hearing ence, having

action,!®! and added numerous similes to vary the who listened must have realized that what they was a new rendition of the old stories. The audibeen assured that the bard sang the epic “word for

word, line for line” as he had Icarned it from his father, who had learned it from

his father, who

had learned it from his

father, was naturally somewhat perplexed concerning the nature of the song they were hearing. Nonetheless all realized that never before had they heard the epic sung at such length

and with so much rich detail.!%? Hence the tradition developed that in the time of Peisistratos there was compiled a text that “arranged the previously disordered books of Homer in the order in which we have them”!®! and that the text “collected the poems of Homer which were scattered and handed down by tradition.19° An extraordinary combination of circumstances had ed to make the dictation of the Zltad possible. There patron to conceive of the project and then to be able to pay for the expenses involved. Money was pay for the scribes and the bard as well as for the writing material. There had to be scribes who were

been needhad to be a willing and needed to cost of the capable of

After the /liad had been dictated with great success, it is understandable that an enthusiastic audience called for a second epic

to be dictated. The circumstances that made possible the dictation and preservation of the /liad were equally propitious for the dictation and preservation of the Odyssey. It was suggested above that the /liad had been the choice of Peisistratos, who was determined that Athens would never again be accused by the Megarians or anyone else of inserting lines into the Catalogue of

Ships. Once his political purposes had been achieved, the subject matter of a new epic was a matter of indifference to Peisistratos. If the selection of the second epic had been left to the bard, his clear preference for Odysseus made the Odyssey an obvious choice. There are many statements about Homer in ancient literature

which, taken at face value, support a sixth-century date for the bard, but these have been consistently and willfully ignored. These statements occasionally appear to be contradictory when no distinction is made between the oral tradition and the /lad and Odyssey, and between the Homeridae and the individual bard who was responsible for the written texts we have today. An understanding of this necessary distinction, made possible by recent work on oral poetry as it is preserved in other cul-

tures, influences the interpretation of the early references to Homer. The earliest undisputed citation of the [had and Odyssey as specific works is to be found in Herodotus.!#9 Other references to an early Homer mention ta Ern of Homer.!?° These can be understood to mean the stories of the oral tradition sung by an early Homer or by one of the Homeridae. They do not necessarily refer to the written texts of the dliad or the Odyssey

preserved today.!"! Pindar spoke of a bard called Homer, and in several of these references he seemed to have had in mind a sixth-century

Fig. 144. Restored model of Building F ın the Agora of Athens, the probable home of Peisistratos in the sixth century.

Homer as distinct from the Homeridae, whom he also mentioned. In two of his references he may have been referring to written texts of the Zhad and Odyssey. but here again his references do not place the written form of the Ihad and Odyssey in a period earlier than the late sixth century./? The much-discussed scholia on Pindar!’* state that a certain Cynaethus was first to introduce the epics of Homer to the peo-

ple of Syracuse during the 69th Olympiad (504/1

B.C.).

Cynacthus, they say, made up many verses, which he added to the Homeric poems. If the texts has been fixed into a monumental composition as early as the eighth century B.C. and had been written down or maintained in memorized form because of their superior quality, it seems hardly possible that Cynae-

thus dared to change the text as late as the 69th Olympiad. This dilemma was originally solved by claiming that the date was incorrect, but no evidence for such an assumption has been

given and more recent scholarship has accepted the scholiast’s date.!7! The Homeridae were well-known in antiquity and some of them must have traveled for their fame to spread. Cynaethus probably belonged to this group of traveling bards, and during his travels he could have gone to Svracuse at the end of the sixth century as the scholia claim. If he had gone directly from lonia, Cynaethus would not have known that there existed a written text transcribed in Peisistratid Athens. Working in the traditional manner in which he had been

trained, he naturally composed his songs orally, and these differed from the songs of Homer, since “two singers won't sing the same song alike.” Later, when the Syracusans became aware of the Athenian text, they must have realized that the words they had heard from Cynaethus differed from those of the Athenian text. Having been told that the song they had heard was “word for word, line for line” the song the bard had received from his father, the Svracusans naturally felt that Cynaethus had been inadequate in his claims. They must have thought that the new verses had been added because Cynacthus did not remember the original lines, hence the basis of their accusation, It is not necessary to alter the information received

from the scholia in order to understand the sequence, if the written texts dated to the sixth century. If the texts were of great anuquity, however, then the actions of Cynaethus were at best unaccountable and at worst not worth remembering. Heraclitus, the late sixth-century Ionian philosopher, said that Homer deserved to be flung out of the musical contests and to be beaten up.!? ‘This is an extraordinary statement to make if he was referring to a Homer who had lived in the eighth century but itis understandable if the reference was to a sixth-century Homer. Heraclitus. similar to the later philosophers, probably had lite regard for an epic bard who used poetic embellishments and lacked deep “philosophical concepts.” Xenophanes, according to Diogenes Laertius quoting ‘Timon, trod Homer under foot and tried to improve the verses of Homer.!’® As a near contemporary and nval of a sixth-century Homer, the bellicose Xenophanes might well have made such an attempt. If his attack had been made against an cighth-century Homer, whose epics were considered so superior that they had been remembered for two centuries, such an attempt was meaningless and lacking in interest. Diogenes Laertius, quoting the third book of Aristode’s Poetics, reported that Homer had been attacked in his lifetime by Syagrus and alter his death by Nenophanes of Colophon.!”” Once again the reference to Homer places him more comfortably in the sixth century than in the eighth.

Simonides, who had been brought to Athens by Hipparchus, spoke of Stesichorus and Homer singing to the people, as if the two were contemporaries whom he had seen and with whom he

had been acquainted.!’# A sixth-century Homer singing in hexameters, and existing at the same ume as lyric poctry matured may seem at first surprising.!“" It is known, however, that Sappho wrote at least one song in hexameters and Pho-

eylides wrote epics as well as elegiac verses." Unlike Homer. Phocylides poctry.|!

was said always

to have

named

himself in his

106

TALES OF HEROES having survived many vicissitudes, finally retired to bed. At the

beginning of the Odyssey, the aim of the epic was made clear by the bard. Odysseus was the only Achaean still alive of those who had fought at Troy who had not returned to his native land. He was on the island of Calypso filled with longing for his

own return and for his wife, Penelope.!#5 With line 23.296 the desires of Odysseus as set forth at the beginning of the epic had

been finally achieved and from the viewpoint of the bard there was no need to continue.'86 The next day Odysseus, Telemachus, Eumaeus, and Philoetius armed themselves and left the city.!87 Their departure marked the beginning of a series of events leading to the confrontation between the rela-

tives of the suitors and Odysseus accompanied by his followers.'#8 The vengeance of the relatives and the settlement of the

blood feud are the only new important additions to the epic after 23.296189 and it may be that a very reluctant bard had

been forced by the Athenians to add a new ending to solve these problems.! One of writing already sidered

the important issues in archaic Athens had been the down of the laws.!9! Drakon’s Law on Homicide, established by the end of the seventh century, was conto be one of the most important of the old laws, and it

was the only one from the old code to be incorporated into the new canon established by Solon.!°? The importance placed on this law must surely reflect the concern of archaic Athens that homicide be judged by law and that blood feuds between indi-

vidual families or clans be considered unacceptable.!93 A society that accorded such importance to appropriate legal redress for the crime of homicide might well have forced a reluctant bard

to compose a new ending that solved the blood feud left unresolved at Odyssey 23.297.'"4 The bard’s apparent disinclination to concern himself with this aspect of the epic can be seen in the various unnecessary

repetitions he first narrated.!"> He also

added three separate speeches which justified Odysseus’ actions Fig. 145. Late sixth-century statue of scribe from the Acropolis in Athens.

Perhaps the strangest reference to Homer is in Diogenes Laertius’ quotation from Heracleides, which said that the Athenians had fined Homer fifty drachmae for being a madman, wg patvöpevov.!#2 It is difficult to understand how Athens managed to fine an eighth-century Homer, least of all to fine him fifty drachmae. In the eight century coinage had not yet started in the Greek world. In the sixth century, after the beginning of Athenian coinage,!#? Athens could not have fined Homer fifty drachmae if he had lived two centuries earlier, but she was able to fine a sixth-century Homer brought to Athens by Peisistratos. The concept of a sixth-century Homer

fined fifty drachmae

solves several problems. It explains why Homer left Athens and dictated no further epics after the conclusion of the Odyssey. It also accounts for the fact that the sixth-century bard was not mentioned for most of the fifth century whereas he had been mentioned earlier in Athens under the Peisistratids. A sixth-century Homer can be understood to have ended his career in the

city with the completion of the Odyssey, and possibly the reason for the fine can be found in the conclusion of the Odyssey. The scholiasts stated that the Alexandrian Librarians Aristophanes and Aristarchus identified line 23.296 as the original end of the Odyssey.!#! At line 23.296, Odysseus had rid the palace of the suitors and was once more united with Penelope. The couple,

(and incidentally his own) even before the final with the relatives took place.!™ When he was no avoid the confrontation, the bard made matters traying Laertes slaying Eupeithes, the only person

confrontation longer able to worse by porto be killed in

the encounter. The concept of the blood feud between families was being here illustrated. Before it had been the sons, Antinous

and Odysseus, who quarreled. After Antinous had been slain, the parents, Eupeithes and Laertes, came into direct confrontation on account of their children and Eupeithes was killed.!”” A second death in the family of Antinous, in terms of early society, served to intensify the blood feud instead of resolving it. Odysseus, encouraged by the death of Eupeithes, was ready to kill the remaining relatives, thereby further intensifying the

quarrel, when Zeus cast his thunderbolt,'* causing the feuding to cease and bringing the epic to an end. Earlier Zeus had stated that the most fitting conclusion to the events was for all to forget and to live in peace, but he allowed Athena her choice to do as she wished. This is a rather peculiar negation of his own authority, which set the scene for the final confrontation. Although he had given Athena authorization to do as she wished, afterwards he cast his thunderbolt in front of her, forcing her to follow his own desires. In view of Odysseus’ eagerness to pursue the relatives and of the earlier angry accusations voiced by the relatives themselves, the final ending by divine intervention would have seemed very flat, had it been related in any but the most elegant language characteristic of the bard of the Odyssey. The final lines portray Odysseus glad at heart,

The Origins of the Written Texts of the Iliad and the Odyssey

107

Fig. 146. The megaron of Pylos being excavated.

bound to Athena in solemn covenant, free to live a life of peace without further penitence.!” The sudden ending must surely have scandalized the legalistic mind concerned with justice for homicide,?™ and perhaps in light of this concern it is possible to understand why an outraged Athens felt it necessary to fine Homer fifty drachmae. This fine naturally caused an abrupt end to the association between Homer and Athens and as a result no additional songs of Homer were committed to writing.2°! As the fame of Homer spread, it became a source of embarrassment that Athens had levied a fine against the famous bard. Consequently Athenians emphasized not the sixth-century Homer whom they had known and fined, but his much earlier ancestor of the same name who had founded the clan and who had been considered the originator of the tradition. In later years when attempts were made to fabricate a biography for Homer, the subject of these efforts was Homer the founder, the man who had lived “not more than four hundred years before” the time of Herodotus. The sixth-century Homer, receiver of centuries of the clan's oral lore, who had been responsible for its permanent preservation in the /liad and Odyssey we have today, was ignored. The sixth-century scribes who had worked so valiantly with the sixth-century bard were all but forgotten. although originally they must have been honored and possibly their statues once stood on the Athenian Acropolis, fig. 145.2”: The argument against the existence of a sixth-century Attic text perhaps most frequently and vehemently made is the minor role played by Athens in the epics and the absence of Athenian

propaganda.293 In antiquity it was recognized that there existed Athenian additions, the so-called Athenian interpolations, but

these for the most part have been considered by modern scholars to be fairly minor.2™ The existence of these additions has

not been denied, even by scholars who reject the idea of a Peisistratid text. These scholars, however, fail to explain why any Athenian additions were made or why, once they were added, they survived in the text as it is preserved today. Their argument has been based solely on the insignificance of the additions and not the validity of their existence. Their discussions fail to note that the degree and desirability of propagandistic additions were influenced by the patron whose evaluation of these issues may have differed from that of modern opinion. It was argued above that Peisistratos desired a written text of the /liad so that neither Megara nor any other city might ever again accuse Athens of altering the ancient tradition in order to claim precedence in position or territory. Under such circumstances, it is understandable that any important alterations that included blatant Athenian propaganda were not considered acceptable. ‘The bard must have been told before he began his dictation that the “true” story was wanted and that alternations were not to be made. The Peisistratid concern for accuracy is reflected in a story told by Herodotus.2°> Onomacritus, Herodotus reported, had been responsible for arranging and editing the oracles of Musaeus when Lasus caught him in the act of forging one of the oracles. The tyrant was so angered by this attempt that he expelled Onomacritus from Athens even though he had been a close friend of his son. This concern for

108

TALES OF HEROES

authenticity may be surprising at such an carly period, but it is indicative of an attitude that may have resulted in the omission of conspicuous Athenian propaganda.

It is true that Athens does not hold an important position in the epics, but this may be a reflection of her position in the Mycenaean world. Unlike Mycenae, Sparta, and Pylos, Athens did not play an important role in the carly legends and she had only one early figure of outstanding importance. This figure was Theseus, but he was not associated with the Trojan War, nor

did he become important in Athens itself until after the fall of the Peisistratid tyranny.? In later years Athens did pride her-

self that she alone of all the early cities had not been conquered. She received the inhabitants of the other cities, especially those of Pylos, fig. 146, and the surrounding area, when they had been overrun during the turmoil that ended the Bronze Age.

Athens became the heir as well as the preserver of their greatness and fame. Her citizens, she claimed, were the descendents of those who had lived in the Mycenaean Period. Their glory became part of the Athenian tradition and formed a part of her history.2°7 The Alcmaeonidac and the Paeonidae were said to

of the dedication of the peplos to Athena in her temple on top

of the hill was massive, not just a line or two. If these sections were dropped, the text of the /liad lacked continuity, but if they

were to be kept, it might have seemed pointless to omit the other, additional although minor Athenian allusions. This Athenian “addition” of the dedication was noted almost from the beginning of modern Homeric scholarship, yet in recent years its importance has been largely ignored.?!! The episode began with the Trojans being hard pressed by the Achaeans.?!> Helenus, “by far the best of the augurs,” advised Hector to go into the city and urge his mother to dedicate a robe to Athena and to vow a sacrifice of twelve heifers if Athena

would have compassion on the city and would curb the might of Diomedes.?!© Since Helenus was “the best of the augurs.” he ought to have known that Athena had favored the Achaean side from the outset and that she would not be moved to help the Trojans no matter how many sacrifices were promised. The obvious conclusion is that this is one more of those Athenian

additions. The patron goddess of Athens became the recipient of the Trojan sacrifice and her temple was placed prominently

be related to the Neleids whereas the Philaidae and possibly the Salaminioi claimed to be related to Ajax of Salamis, the

on the top of the citadel of Troy. In the Zliad Hector, before leaving the battlefield, informed his men that he was returning

Achaean hero who was identified by Homer as second only to

to the city to seek counsel from the elders; at the same time he said he would urge the women to pray to the gods and to promise sacrifices.2!? Hector’s intentions, as stated in this

Achilles in prowess.?8 This may well be the merest sophistry on the part of the Athenians, but it does tend to obscure the fact that, in the Mycenaean Period, Athens had not been important and that she had not held a forceful position at Troy. Peisistratos’ attitude concerning the importance of Mycenacan forebears is made clear by his claim that he was related to the family of Nestor and that he himself had been named Peisistratos after the son of the Pylian monarch.*™ Nestor and his sons are prominent, especially in the /liad, and any possible role of Menestheus as advisor and strategist is completely overshadowed by the more influential king of Pylos.?!0 It may be that the bard, more subtle than modern commentators, recognized that by

speech, do not correspond to the instructions given by Helenus. His instinct to include all the gods in the sacrifice and to seek advice from the elders is an appropriate response to the situa-

tion on the battlefield, and it seems probable that his speech represents the original motivation for Hector’s return to the city.218 When he entered the city, he met his mother and requested that she dedicate a peplos to Athena and that she

honoring Nestor and his sons he was in fact complimenting the

promise a sacrifice of twelve heifers in the hope that Athena would take pity on Troy and turn back the might of Diomedes.?!" Hecuba performed the actions requested,??P but the dedication was said not to be acceptable to Athena.??! In

tyrant Peisistratos and his sons in a way that was far more personally flattering than open compliments to the city and her ancient inhabitants would have been.?!!

the next book when attention was once more focused on the battlefield, Apollo, with the consent of Athena, influenced Hector to challenge one of the Achaeans to single combat.??? The

Nevertheless the bard's inclination to honor the city of his host

was not completely suppressed?! and single-line references to Athena, to Athenians, or to Athens were occasionally added,

the so-called Athenian interpolations. ‘These were noted by the Librarians at Alexandria, various scholiasts, and other early

authorities,?!9 but they were not dropped from the text, even though other lines deemed to be later accretions were omitted. This discrepancy in editing should have some reasonable explanation. In the reconstruction suggested here, the oldest written text was the Peisistratid text and it was at the time of the original dictation, that the so-called Athenian interpolations were added. All subsequent written texts were derived from the Peisistratid text and thus the Athenian “additions” were included in all the later texts. When Aristarchus made his final edition.

challenge caused the fighting to stop and created a situation whereby Diomedes was no longer a menace to the Trojans.?"*

Athena may not have accepted the sacrifice but the wishes of the Trojans

were

apparently

granted

by the gods.

This

sequence, shorn of minor incidents included in the original text,?"4 is obviously full of discrepancies that can scarcely have been missed by the Alexandrian Librarians.*"> The Attic origin of these passages is indicated by the location of

Athena's temple and the events associated with the dedication. The offering of the peplos has been said to reflect the peplos dedicated to Athena in the Greater Panathenaic Festival of Athens, although it can possibly be argued that other goddesses such as Hera at Olympia??® were also given dedications of

clothing and that such dedications may go back to the prehis-

he found these lines in all the preserved texts. including the newly retrieved Peisistraud originals. Since the Athenian additions had Jong been idenufied, they could have been omitted in a manner similar to the lines added to the carly Hellenistic citytexts. This did not happen since the “additions” still exist today. The omission of a line here or there was not difficult and hardly altered the text, except for one major problem. "The “addition”

the peplos was placed, has also been questioned.2*8 The location of Athena's temple, however, on top of the hill, ev nödeı axpn.?2" is very clear. This location is contrary to the location of

Mycenaean temples thus far identified within fortified citadels, but it is duplicated by the location of Athena's temple in sixthcentury

Athens. In the /had Priam’s palace. the nearby houses

The Ongins of the Written Texts of the Iliad and the Odyssey of Hector and Paris, and presumably the agora adjacent to the palace of Priam were also said to be Ev noAet axpy,2*? where

their archaeological parallels are to be found, fig. /47, nos.

109

plateau, and the sanctuary at Delphi was built on the side of a mountain.?#4 The temple on the top of the hill, this temple ded-

15-16. If Athena’s temple were reflecting the Mycenaean Peri-

icated to Athena, has only one group of important parallels, and these are Athenian. The most famous of her temples are, of

od, it would have been located near the other temples in the city below the highest point of the citadel,fg. /47, nos. 8 9,

course, on the Athenian Acropolis, Ev node. axpn.?*? Since no other important, early temples lie in this position,’ the para-

and it would not have in the area of the palaces.

digm for the /liad appears to have been Athens itself.

The only other temple at Troy mentioned in the /kad was the

Although it may be argued that isolated details do not necessar-

Temple of Apollo, which was said to stand in Pergamus.??!

iy reflect an Athenian addition, when all the peculiarities of this

Pergamus has been variously defined as the acropolis or highest

passage are considered together their Athenian origin becomes clear. The text clearly shows that there existed an alternate and more appropriate variant that called for sacrifices to all the

point of Troy,2?? or as simply another name for the city.233 The name Pergamus is said to have been derived from the word mupyos or tower,23t which suggests a fortified or enclosed area

gods. Athena should not have been the recipient of a Trojan

of some sort. Troy was also called Ilium. The use of double names for people and places does occur occasionally in the epics,235 but the existence of three different names for one city

petition, no matter how many difficulties they faced. She was said to have denied their request, but subsequent actions of the gods honored the appeal made by the Trojans. Athena’s temple

is unusual. The name Troy was used fifty times in the /liad and

was not in Pergamus alongside the Temple of Apollo but placed on the top of the hill, reminiscent of the location of her temple

Ilium occurred 106 times.236 Pergamus appeared only six times, four times in association with Apollo and once with Cassandra, the priestess of Apollo.23? This usage suggests that Pergamus was different from Ilium and Troy and that it relationship with Apollo. Since Apollo took Aeneas to Pergamus, where he was nursed within ton by Leto and Artemis,23® Pergamus appears to

had a special the wounded the god’s adyhave been the

location of Apollo’s temple. From Pergamus Apollo watched the fighting between the Trojans and the Achaeans and his priestess Cassandra went there to view the plain below the city

in the hope of seeing her father returning from the hut of Achilles.239 Elsewhere in the /liad when anyone wanted to view the battlefield they went to the city walls.2# Although Apollo as

a god may be understood to have special abilities, Cassandra as a mortal should have followed the normal practice of the other inhabitants of Troy. She should have gone to the city wall. Cas-

sandra’s actions correspond with those of the other Trojans, however, if Pergamus were understood to be a special enclosed area containing Apollo’s temple that lay next to the fortification walls. The location of Pergamus is usually said to have been

high up.?*! This places it high up next to the city wall, but not necessarily at the highest point of the city itself, Ev noAe. axpn,

where the palaces were situated.?42 Such a setting can be paralleled in the Mycenaean remains where groups of religious buildings were confined within an enclosed area located next to the city wall somewhere below the highest point of the citadel." If this definition of Pergamus is correct, then Athena’s temple should have been in Pergamus near the other

religious buildings.

in Athens. A peplos, one of the finest in Hecuba’s collection,

was dedicated to her, reflecting the dedication of the specially woven peplos of the Panathenaic Festival. Her seated cult statue cannot have been eight century but must date to a later period.

The Trojan dedication to Athena would not have been acceptable to any audience outside of Athens, and this addition must have been made for an Athenian audience in order to honor

their goddess and her festival. Athens before the fifth century, however, was not important, her religious rituals were not noteworthy outside the city, and the location of her temples were

not widely known. Only someone who had gone to Athens, seen her temples, and witnessed her religious celebrations would have been aware of this information.?*’ In the Hellenistic Period, this situation had changed. The buildings on the Acropolis in Athens had become famous and the

events of the great celebration of the Panathenaic Festival were widely known. The Alexandrian Librarians cannot have failed to notice the similarities between the Trojan dedication to Athena in the /liad and the great celebration in Athens with its

dedication of a peplos centered on the Acropolis and its Temple to Athena. They must have realized that Athena, having firmly associated herself with the Achaeans, would have found any Trojan dedication unacceptable. Many so-called Athenian interpolations had been identified, and this inappropriate dedi-

cation to Athena at Troy must have been perceived as another one of those additions. Once this is recognized, it is difficult to understand why this section of the /liad was preserved in all the

manuscript traditions and why the Alexandrians did not

This position of Athena’s temple on the top of the hill is not

remove it just as they omitted lines added by other cities. If the

only contrary to Mycenaean custom but it is also comparatively

Thad had been written down soon after the eighth century, when

rare even for later temples of the post-Mycenaean Period. All the major Ionian temples were built on low- lying terrains or in

the alphabet was first introduced, copies of the original text somewhere in the Greek world should have been preserved that

valleys. This is the location of the important Ionian sanctuaries

would have enabled the Alexandrian editors to purify the text

of Artemis at Ephesos and at Sardis, of Hera on Samos, and of

thus contaminated by the “Athenian additions.” This was not done. The logical conclusion must be that no such early manuscript existed. There simply were no other early texts that could

Apollo at Didyma. The Telesterion at Eleusis and the Marmaria at Delphi, which lie over Mycenaean

shrines, the early

temple at Thermon, the Temple of Apollo Daphnephoros at Eretria, and the shrine of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, to mention

have been used to provide the editors with alternate lines. If

only the not and

ment, the sequence of action would have been hopelessly interrupted. The lines were allowed to remain even though they

some Greek on top Nemea

of the more important early temples and shrines on mainland, are also to be found at lower levels and of hills. The great mainland sanctuaries at Olympia are in valleys, the sanctuary at Isthmia lies on a low

these lines had been dropped from the text without any replace-

were recognized as “Athenian additions” because there was no alternate text.

110

TALES OF HEROES

Fig. 147. Citadel at Mycenae. 1: Laon Gate (fig. 36): 2: Addition to citadel made in the second half of LH III B; 3: Granary: 4: Grave Circle A (for objects found un grave ctrcle of. figs. 44-45, 55, 57, 62, 65, 67, 73. 99, 124, 127, 139); 5: The Great Ramp leading from Lion Gate to top of citadel: 6: Ramp House; 7: House of Warner vase (for vase from house cf. fig. 125); 8: Cult Area; 9: The Tsountas House (fie. 5): 10: Southeast restdential quarter: 11: Deep ravine protecting south side of citadel ust below palace: 12: Grand staircase leading to palace (fig. 10, no. 6); 13: Northwest Propylon, earlier entrance to palace (fig. 10, no. 4 and fig. 12): 14: Courtyard of palace (fg. 10, no. 7 and fig. 17): 15: Lower better preserved megaron of palace (fig. 10, no. 10 and fig. 11 ): 16: Top of citadel, location of earlier megaron (fig. 10, no. 15): 17: House of Columns and adjacent workshop (fies. 7. 28, 34); 16: Northeast extension of cıtadel, location of sally ports and underground cistern (figs. 38-39): 19: Postern Gate (fie. 373: 20. Storage area; 21: Area of fortifications containing casements butlt into wall; 22: M House; 23: Barracks. In both the /liad and the Odyssey the goddess Athena enjoyed unusual prominence,’ and any attempt to change her role required substantial alterations. In the Odyssey she was portrayed as the supporter of Odysseus, the comforter of Penclope, and the advisor of Telemachus. In Book | and again in Book 5, Athena urged Zeus to allow Odysseus to return home, and the blame for his long-awaited homecoming was attributed to Poseidon," yet elsewhere in the Odyssey casual statements made by the bard Phemius at Ithaca, Nestor at Pylos, and Hermes on the island of Calypso attributed the many difliculties of the returning Achaeans to the wrath of Athena.’ Athena’s support of Odysseus after years of delay was completely lacking in mouvation??! and her sudden change of atutude was acceptable only in an Athenocentric society. In Athens alone it was

acceptable for the hero of the epic, Odysseus, to be supported by the patron goddess of the city, Athena, thereby implying greater support and [ame to all who especially honored the goddess. Poseidon, the acknowledged rival of Athena in the fifthcentury Athenian tradition,?”? was blamed for the delay and Athena was given the credit for Odysseus’ return even though she had done litde to aid him.??° The concept of orally composed, dictated texts, written down for the first time in sixth-century Athens under Peisistratos, solves many of the apparent contradictions and dificulues existing in the Homeric texts we have today. Oral dictated texts need many days for transcription, hence length was not a problem and the texts of the epics could be as long as the bard desired. With this greater freedom, the bard was able to create

The Ongins of the Written Texts of the Niad and the Odyssey epics of hitherto unknown magnitude. He included more episodes, created richer personal characterizations for his

heroes, and gave deeper intellectual meaning to the events narrated. The oral method caused certain dislocations and discontinuities to occur in the final written text, discussed below. The bard, responding to the audience’s reaction, shortened or

When

111

Athens was sacked by the Persians under Xerxes, the

original texts housed on the Acropolis were taken as booty. The recitations at the Panathenaic Festival stopped because the official texts were no longer available. Musical contests were not to

reappear until Pericles re-introduced them into the festival many years later. Since the original texts of Homer were no

lengthened different passages, causing abrupt changes that

longer available, the contests were no longer tied to the /liad

become noticeable only when the text is studied at leisure. The

and Odyssey. The popularity of the epics, however, remained, and copies of the original texts spread, sometimes in “corrected” form. Athenian writers and philosophers frequently quoted from both the /liad and Odyssey, often in slighdy changed dic-

greater length encouraged the bard to experiment with the old formulae and to create more complicated sequences, which were not always successful. Casual mistakes occurred possibly

because of fatigue or because the bard had not been trained to compose on such a scale. The dictation took place in Athens and Athenian scnbes inadvertently introduced Attic spelling to

the Ionian diction. Special references to Athens and her patron goddess Athena were added in order to honor the audience, and the importance of Nestor and his family was emphasized to

honor the tyrant Peisistratos and his family. The text was originally desired because of political purposes but

the daily sessions of dictation became so popular that the tion of the epics became part of the Athenian festival, great revival in epic song took place.?54 A great cultural tion occurred in the city, which in time turned Athens

recitaand a revoluinto a

school for all of Greece. Athens had been fortunate in her choice of a bard, a man called Homer, named like many of his forebears after the founder of the clan, the clan called the Homeridae. This sixth-century Homer had been so well trained that he had mastered the early epic language. He remembered

tion, but other songs known to have been sung by Homer were

not quoted since they had not been transcribed into written texts. Even though the sixth-century Homer had been criticized

by his contemporaries and rivals, Heraclitus and Xenophanes, his work continued to be honored and his epics became the basis of Athenian education. His texts became widely known and eagerly sought because of their excellence, and copies of them spread throughout

the Greek world, but always they

retained reflections of the Attic dialect in which they had been originally transcribed and the special references to Athens added by Homer to honor his hosts. Other cities added their own emendations and a wide variation in the texts gradually

developed during the fourth and third centuries B.C. These variations led the Alexandrian Librarians to undertake the enormous job of trying to establish a single authoritative text. They succeeded only when the Peisistratid Library was finally returned to Athens by Seleucus and copies of the original texts

hundreds of names, retained the purity of the tradition that

were obtained by Aristarchus. Hereafter the text remained sta-

reached back into the Mycenaean Period, and wove a such renown that its magic still lives.

ble and the words of the great bard, dictated in sixth-century Athens, were preserved for later generations.

tale of

VU DISCONTINUITY AND DISLOCATIONS IN THE TEXTS

Sat SCHOLARS HAVE FOUND IT DIFFICULT to accept the possibility that a bard who could not write was responsible for epic songs of such a high Odyssey. There has been an groups of scholars to claim responsible for the two epics

quality as those of the /liad and increasing tendency among certain that the creative genius who was must have been literate.! In antiq-

uity there seems to have been no hesitation in accepting an illiterate bard, since obviously a blind Homer, fg. /48, could not have used writing in his creative process. Each generation of scholars, reflecting their own society, will have different views on the importance of writing,? and only the epics themselves

can produce any real evidence. Although the oral nature of the Iliad and Odyssey has frequently been discussed,’ there has been little effort in recent scholarship to use the results of these stud-

ies as a means of establishing how the texts came into existence. A close examination of the texts combined with the knowledge

now gained from other oral cultures makes it clear, in my opinion, that the epics must have been oral dictated texts. If the texts were originally transcribed from an oral dictation,

the great length of the epics automatically required breaks in the dictation. Neither the scribes nor the bard had for this kind of procedure. The bard had to sing than was his custom, so that the scribes writing in had time to transcribe the oral words into written

difficulties of sessions to be length. If the of the sessions

been trained more slowly capital letters symbols. The

the transcription probably caused the individual fairly short, although they undoubtedly varied in composition was being newly created, the length was also influenced by the reception of the audi-

ence, the availability of the scribes, and the creativity of the

bard. If the process merely consisted of the dictation of a memorized composition, the length of each session was inconsequential. The

individual segments of dictation would have left no

imprint on the final form, since the process of dictation would not have affected the original memorized composition. A bard writing down his own text, during a later rewriting or re-editing

of the text, would have automatically smoothed over any irregularities. In a situation where a text was being dictated and there was no reworking of the text, any irregularity caused by a

break in the dictation remained thereafter in the written text. M. Parry and other scholars who transcribed songs of modern bards observed that breaks in the dictation frequently occurred

at the end of an episode or a speech. Occasionally a bard did

not remember exactly where he had stopped at the end of the last session. Since the concept of writing was completely foreign to their way of thinking, it did not occur to the bards to ask that the dictated lines be read, which is the natural reaction of a bard repeating a memorized text. A bard writing down his own

epic automatically referred to the earlier text. The true oral bard, having forgotten where he stopped before, sometimes began the next session of dictation with a few introductory lines which occasionally introduced dislocations in the text. Such dislocations in the /had and Odyssey are very few because of the great ability of the bard, but some do exist. In addition to the dislocations caused by breaks in the dictation, there are occa-

sional awkward transitions or discontinuities when the subject of the day’s session was suddenly changed in response to the audience's reaction. Finally, there are a variety of small mistakes, which is almost inevitable in a dictated text of great length. Generations of bards, handing down a memorized monumental composition, can be expected to have unconsciously altered the text in order to eliminate mistakes and to smooth

over awkward transitions. The possibility that text fixation was not an event but a process resulting from constant repetition by the bards gradually evolving a fixed text,? also fails to account for the mistakes and awkward transitions. Generations of bards

gradually altering the text should have avoided awkward transitions, and by the very process of fixing the text they would have

eliminated mistakes and difficulties introduced by earlier bards. A newly created dictated text, however, allowed for no such

revisions. Once something had been said and was written down, it remained. Identification of these dislocations, discontinuities, and mistakes constitutes the clearest evidence that the

text we have today was an oral dictated text that once presented was never changed, either by editors or memorizers at some later time. One of the dislocations caused by a break in the dictation can be identified near the beginning of Book 2 of the /had. In the

earliest days of Homeric scholarship,® it was noted that at the conclusion of the council meeting of the Achaean leaders following Agamemnon’s false dream,’ the last person who spoke at the meeting was Nestor.’ The meeting then ended with the line: “thus he spoke, and he led the way forth from the council.”? The text, as it now reads, tells us that Nestor led the way out, but Agamemnon was the chief leader and it was his

114

TALES OF HEROES

role to led the exodus. Such an apparent confusion in rank should not have occurred. A break in the dictation between

lines 83 and 84 provides an explanation for the peculiar sequence. If one session ended with Nestor’s speech and the next began with the formulaic line with which such meetings frequently ended,!® then it becomes clear how this confusion entered the text. The bard intended the “he” in his opening line to refer to Agamemnon, the leader of the conference. When this opening line was juxtaposed to the last line of the previous session in the written text, the “he” changed to Nestor, the last

person who had spoken. In the oral context, this dislocation passed unnoticed because of the passage of time between the two sessions. When the text is read with no break between /liad 2.83 and

2.84, the dislocation becomes

noticeable and

it

becomes immediately apparent that the text implies that Nestor led the way out. A bard having the ability to compose epics of the complexity and richness evident in the current text, faced with the problem of writing down his own words, cannot have failed to realize that Nestor was the last person to have spoken. An editor or a memorizer would have assumed a mistake had been made in the recollection of the memorized text. The normal reaction of a memorizer is to change the text. An editor, after careful thought, can be expected to have altered the three words at the beginning of the line that caused the difficulty, and we might suspect that many of the “corrected” texts of the fifth century did in fact make such changes. If generations of bards had evolved a fixed text, as sometimes suggested, then the constant reworking of the text would have automatically eliminated the mistake. This type of dislocation can only have happened in an oral dictated text that allows for no later revision or reworking. It appears to have been caused by an interruption in the original dictation that resulted in a mistake being made by the bard, who had confused the sequence. A second example of this type of dislocation can be identified in Book 9 of the /liad. At the beginning of a sequence that has long puzzled scholars,'! Nestor suggested that Phoenix, Odysseus, and Ajax serve as ambassadors for Agamemnon.!2 The suggestion was said “to be pleasing to all,”!3 but later when they set out, the dual form was used!‘ and the presence of a third person appears to have been forgotten. The substitution by ancient editors of the plural form for the dual easily rectifies the situation,'5 but no such emendation was made in our written text,

and again some sort of explanation is desirable. Another break in the dictation between the speech of Nestor and the departure of the delegation provides the solution. If the bard had been embroidering the traditional text as he dictated, so as to add length and detail, a third person can be understood to have been suggested by Nestor to increase the size of the delegation

thereby enhancing its importance.!6 When the next dictation began, the bard inadvertently reverted to the more concise

form of the traditional story, which included only two people. The lapse of time caused him momentarily to forget his intention to include a third person. But this same lapse of time

ments, an audience listening to the oral rendition probably forgot that the dual had been used earlier.!? A memorizer knowing three people, Phoenix, Ajax, and Odysseus, were to speak must have inevitably assumed that his recollection of the dual was a mistake. A similar assumption should have been made by generations of bards fixing the text. An editor looking at the written text before him can hardly have failed to note the discrepancy. Neither memorizers nor editor can have allowed the dual to remain, but in true oral composition, with frequent breaks in

the dictation, the dual form finds an easy explanation.!® A break in the dictation just before {lad 9.182, where the dual was first introduced, also separates the feasting of the Achaean leaders with Agamemnon and the feasting in Achilles’ hut. If a second break occurred at /lad 9.432, just before Phoenix’s speech, the session containing the dual becomes separated from the end of the book and the speeches made by Phoenix and Ajax. This divides Book 9 into three fairly short sessions, the first 181 lines

in length, the second 249 lines, and the third 279 lines.!9 It also serves to place the repeated phrase, “Qc €oa0’, oi 5 apa navtec axnv EyEvovto o1wny, used three times in Book 9,20 in each of

the three sessions without causing the line to be repeated within a single session.?! These suggested sessions are admittedly short, but it should be remembered

that a sixth-century audience had no reason to

wish for the proceedings to progress rapidly.22 As long as the bard was receiving pay and the audience was being entertained, there was no reason for the bard to hasten the transcription. The scribes, being educated men for their day since they were able to write, must have had other duties to perform and were

not necessarily able to devote entire days or long periods of time to this one task alone. These circumstances are very different from the conditions faced by scholars doing field work

today. Modern scholars are hampered by limited budgets and the need to return to their academic positions when the summer is over or their sabbaticals have finished. They are aided by recording machines and assistants trained to take dictation at

high speeds. In order to gain additional grants they need to collect as much matenal as possible within the available ume away from their universities. In contrast to the work of the modern

scholar doing research, the original transcription of the /liad and Odyssey had no apparent limitation of ume and was recorded by scribes who had not been trained for this kind of work.

The ancient sessions can be viewed as a serial with a small portion revealed each day, resembling the modern experience of watching a serial on television. Some days, these sessions appear to have been fairly short, whereas on other days they were considerably longer, possibly because the bard felt more inspired, the audience was more enthusiastic, or the scribes had

greater leisure to devote to this task alone. The slowness of the procedure meant that the entire process took many days. As a result of this long process,

a great number of people became

aware of the dictation. They helped to spread the fame of the epics and to ensure the preservation of the finished manuscripts.

the audience, who were

In the Odyssey a similar type of dislocation caused by a break in

concentrating on the immediate events, unaware of the dislocation that had occurred. The bard, having begun the session with the dual, used the dual again in Achilles’ greeting, but his

the dictation can be identified near the end of Book 3, where a sacrifice at Pylos was described. In the middle of the sacnifice there suddenly occur six lines that describe the bathing of Telemachus by Polycaste.?3 Since Telemachus was a visitor, it might have been deemed appropriate for him to have been bathed by the daughter of the houschold,?+ but Telemachus

between

the two sessions also made

intention to include a third person was not entirely forgotten. After the long exchange of speeches between Odysseus and Achilles, when Phoenix began his plea and Ajax added his com-

Discontinuity and Dislocations in the Texts had arrived the day before and had already spent one night in the palace.25 This sequence of events suggests that the bathing scene was out of place. Just before the bathing scene the meat from the sacrifice had been put over the fire to cook. Immediately afterwards the meat, having been cooked, was taken off

the fire and eaten. Earlier in the proceedings hands had been washed and barley sprinkled,?6 following the prescribed ritual, so it seems odd that Telemachus,

and Telemachus

alone,

should be bathed.2’ This peculiarity, however, can once again be explained as a break in the dictation. The preparations for the feast had been described and a break might have been thought appropriate at the point the meat was being cooked. At the beginning of the next session, the bard, momentarily forgetting that hands had been washed and barley already sprinkled, introduced the bathing scene in order to establish the mood for the next session.28 He then continued with the feasting, the departure from Pylos, and the arrival at Pherae, at which point the dictation stopped for another break.29 Breaks in the dictation, where the dislocation is so minor as to be scarcely noticeable even in the written text, can also be identified. One of these is to be found in Book 16 of the Jhad. At the

beginning of the book Patroclus went to Achilles to tell him how badly the Achaeans were faring. After some discussion Achilles agreed to allow Patroclus to wear his armor and to lead the Myrmidons into battle. In the midst of this discussion the scene

abruptly shifted to the battlefield and to Ajax, who was worn down with fighting.*? Ajax was so exhausted, he was no longer able to fight off the Trojans, and with Hector leading them, the Trojans finally succeeded in casting fire upon the Achaean ships. After this short episode the narrative abruptly returns to Achilles.?! He encouraged Patroclus, who afterwards armed himself and led the Myrmidons into battle. The one session appears to have stopped with the agreement between Patroclus and Achilles; the decision had been made and the future action

was anticipated. The next started with the battlefield, the fatigue of Ajax, and the casting of fire upon the ships; this short passage served to remind the audience of the seriousness of the Achaean plight and the reason for the participation by Patro-

clus. The mood having been set by the bard for his new session, he then proceeded with the arming of Patroclus and the continuation of the actions anticipated in the last session. Similar to the scene in the Odyssey, the action continued from one session

to the next with a few lines introduced amid the action to set the mood for the session.

Introductory remarks that interrupt the action and seem to indicate a shift from one session to another occur again in Jliad Book

17, the fight over the body of Patroclus. Suddenly in the

midst of the fighting, there appear twelve lines that tell of Achilles’ ignorance of the events on the battlefield.32 These lines distract from the fighting and seem to have no apparent significance in the written text. As the beginning of a new dictated session, however, their presence gives added meaning to the

action and sets the mood for the session. The emphasis placed on Achilles’ ignorance of Patroclus’ death increases the horror of the fighting and foretells of his future grief. This grief is verbalized in the same session by the description of his horses and their sorrow. The end of this day’s session probably occurred at

the end of Book 17 when Antilochus was sent to Achilles to inform him of Patroclus’ death. This division isolates one session that began and ended with the same theme of Achilles’

115

ignorance, and it makes the initial twelve lines an integral part of the day’s dictation.

Many of the identifiable breaks in the dictation have no obvious or serious dislocation, but a recognition that such sessions often started with a few introductory remarks introducing the theme of the day’s session helps to identify additional examples. Some of these can be identified in Jéad Books 6 and 7, when Hector

left the batdefield to urge a sacrifice to the gods in the hope that the might of Diomedes would be curbed and the Trojans be given respite from fighting. After Hector left the battlefield, an isolated incident consisting of the duel between Diomedes and Glaucus was introduced.?3 The scene then abruptly changed, with Hector arriving at the Scaean Gate where he was met and questioned by the wives and daughters of the Trojans.?* The abrupt change of scene immediately suggests a break in the dictation. The shift is followed by five lines describing the arrival of Hector to the city. These five lines form the introduction to the scenes within the citadel. The dictation continued with the dedication of the peplos to Athena and the scene of Hector and Andromache. The next transition between the city and the bat-

tlefield occurred at the beginning of Book 7, which forms another natural starting point for a session of dictation. The new session started with a seven-line introduction that described Hector and Alexander leaving the city and entering the battle. These actions set the mood for the day’s session and

the scenes of fighting that immediately followed.35 Once it is realized that the text was affected by breaks in the

dictation, then it follows that the text might occasionally have been lengthened in order to fill out the current session before beginning a new series of events to be related in the next session. This appears to have happened in Odyssey Book 9, when Odysseus was reciting his adventures to the Phaeacians. Having left the Land of the Lotus Eaters, Odysseus with his comrades landed on an island close to the Land of the Cyclopes. Odysseus then briefly described the Cyclopes and their land.

As soon as the Cyclopes had been introduced, the encounter with Polyphemus should have followed as a natural sequence. This did not happen; instead, there is a description of the wooded island with wild goats where Odysseus and his comrades paused to feast. Another fifty-five lines of verse were added describing the island, the feasting, and two sunrises. After dawn appeared for the second time,?” Odysseus set out for the Land of the Cyclopes, and the rest of Book 9 relates the events occurring there. The adventure with Polyphemus forms a separate unit described in 397 lines of verse. If the Polyphemus episode was dictated in a single session, then the whole description of the island with the wild goats emerges as an addition?® that embroidered the traditional tale and lengthened the day’s dictated session.

The deliberate expansion of an episode to fill out the day’s session before the introduction of an entirely new sequence may also help to explain the lengthy duel between Glaucus and Diomedes

in Book 6 of the had. Immediately after the duel,

Hector returned to Troy and it was suggested above that the scenes taking place within the citadel were part of a single dictated session consisting of 293 verses. The obvious break before the duel comes at the end of Book 5 and the beginning of Book 6, when the scene shifts from the gods to the battlefield of men. Hector left the batdefield at line 118, which creates a very short

116

TALES OF HEROES

session. The elaboration of the duel, with its lengthy conversations reciting the genealogies of the two warriors and the

A similar type of discontinuity where a subject was introduced and then suddenly dropped occurred in the Odyssey. When

Bellerophon story, consists of an additional 118 verses. The

Telemachus and Peisistratos first arrived at Sparta a wedding feast was under way, a wedding that was afterwards totally ignored.4* Once again the bard appears to have begun describ-

addition of this material, described in such detail, doubled the

length of the session, and its climax created a natural break in the dictation.*? The breaks discussed above are only one of the indications that

the text was an oral dictation. Other types of evidence for this process can be isolated. One of these reflects the bard’s awareness of his audience. Unlike the written text or the memorized

form, where the composer is separated from his audience, the oral bard presents his songs directly to his listeners, and a good bard reacts to their response, changing his text as he compos-

es. The bard's desire to recognize and compliment the Athenians as his hosts caused him to include the so-called Athenian interpolations.*! By honoring the patron goddess of the city and

emphasizing her importance in the epics, the bard indirectly emphasized and complimented this particular audience, who had a special relationship with the goddess. Both the bard and his audience must have realized that these were additions that did not belong, but not being accustomed to the concept of

written literature, they failed to realize that these compliments. once added, were to remain thereafter in the text. A good oral bard conscious of his audience also reacts when his listeners begin to lose interest. He may abruptly change the sequence in response to his audience, and occasionally he introduces a discontinuity that becomes evident in the written text.

One of the clearest examples of this kind of discontinuity occurrs in the Catalogue of Ships near the end of /liad, Book 2. The Catalogue had been introduced by calling on the Muses,*2 followed by a brief introduction that set the mood for the lines to follow. At the end of the Catalogue of the Achaeans, a line was added as a conclusion.*? Then the Muse was called upon once again as an introduction to the Catalogue of the Horses. With great gusto the bard sang about the horses raised by the son of Pheres, which Eumelus drove.!! He then mentioned Ajax, who was by far the best warrior, while Achilles and his

horses remained apart from the fighting. After this eager beginning the reader naturally expects to hear of some of the other horses used on the battlefield,4> but suddenly the tone changes.

ing an event, a wedding banquet, possibly as a counterpart to the sacrifice that had just taken place in Pylos. The audience, at this point, was apparently not interested in yet another feast. The bard, realizing that he had lost their interest, simply dropped the wedding by making Telemachus and Peisistratos

arrive a second time. Here again the text preserves traces of the oral method that was used to produce the texts of the epics we have today.” Two other examples of the bard reacting to his listeners, although much more speculative than those already discussed, may be seen as an indication of the type of audience before whom the bard was dictating. At the end of /liad Book 13, the fighting between Ajax and Hector suddenly broke off and was not resumed again until /liad 14.402, where the duel continued just as if the intervening 401 lines had not existed.*! The abrupt shifts in the narrative immediately suggest breaks in the dictation, with the intervening 401 lines representing a single session independent of those immediately before or after it. During these lines at the beginning of /liad Book 14, a council of the wounded Achaean lcaders was held, the Seduction of Zeus took place, and the intervention of Poseidon was related, but no actual fighting was described except for a few generalized statements. The situation on the battlefield remained unchanged and in terms of the battle, this interlude need not have existed.

If this section is correctly identified as an independent session of dictation, then the possibility arises that someone of importance, who took a keen interest in the fighting, was not able to attend that particular session because of duties elsewhere. In order to satisfy the important listener, no fighting was described. The bard and the audience, however, had gathered as usual and the bard, not wanting to disappoint them, contin-

ued with his epic by narrating scenes independent of the fighting. This reconstruction, although

highly speculative, implies

that the sessions of dictation had become popular events attracting some of the most important people of the city.

The horses appear to have been forgotten. The bard continued

At the beginning of Odyssey Book 8, during Odysseus" stay in the

with the image of marching troops overwhelming the land as if

Land of the Phacacians, a rather curious scene was described, which may possibly be the result of the bard’s interaction with his audience. In good heroic tradition, Odysseus was graciously received. As a boat was being made ready to ferry him back to

it had been swept by fire. After a few more descriptive lines, attention focused on the Trojans, and the horses were not mentioned again. An audience hearing the epic for the first ume was probably distracted by the images of marching feet, Zeus and his thunderbolt, and the earth groaning,‘® but the absence of horses after the enthusiastic beginning is a peculiarity that memorizers or a later editor cannot fail to have recognized and changed." Had the text been dictated, however, this type of change was not possible. Having eagerly begun the Catalogue of Horses and then realizing that he had lost the interest of his audience, the bard naturally tried to change the subject as quickly as possible. Once the words had been spoken he was unable to change them in an oral dictated text, but he was able to shift the emphasis of his narrative in an attempt to recapture his listeners’ interest. By introducing numerous similes depicting marching troops. he distracted the attention of his audience away from the horses and focused it on the men themselves who were fighting the war.

Ithaca, a great feast was prepared and entertainment, consisting of music and games of skill, was organized. Into this scene of heroic hospitality there intruded a sour note. First Laodamas, a son of Alcinous, and afterwards Euryalus challenged the stranger in a way that seemed to have mocked and belittled him.’? Odysseus, the hero, showed them that their comments

had been unwarranted?’ and later, in recompense for his impudence, Euryalus presented Odysseus with a sword.°+ This display of rudeness by the privileged Phaeacian youths, notwithstanding the gift given by Euryalus, was simply not appropriate to the graciousness shown to Odysseus by others of that country. Tts presence in the epic is somewhat baflling. An incident that occurred during an actual performance of an oral song, however. may provide an answer. Ata symposium on Homer held at Princeton University, the commentator of the first ses-

Discontinutty and Dislocations in the Texts

117

sion, Richard P. Martin, related a scene he had witnessed in

reveals the fleeting instant of true oral composition, but which

Egypt during an oral performance.» In the audience were a group of young men who were causing a disturbance. In response the Egyptian bard introduced an entirely new scene into his song. Both the audience and the bard were fully aware that the episode did not belong to the tale being narrated. The newly introduced scene portrayed the hero meeting an old man

further reflection might have altered. In the scenes describing the dedications to Athena at Troy, Hector’s speech made pu: before he left the battlefield differed from the instructions given

who proceeded to give a lecture about young people showing

to him by Helenus and from the request he later made to his mother

Hecuba.°!

The differences in the speeches appear to

have been caused by the decision to make Athena the recipient of the sacrifices. Further reflection upon this impulse makes it

proper respect to their elders. When the episode in the song ended the modern youths left in shame, the audience was satisfied, and the bard continued his tale, ignoring the newly invent-

obvious that Athena, the sworn enemy of Troy, was not likely

ed lines. Hearing of this episode I wondered whether the scene

sacrifice.

in the Land of the Phaeacians had had its origin in a similar event. Did some youthful citizens, hearing the acclaim given the bard, attend one of the sessions, which they found not to their

appeared in the text when she saved Odysseus from a fatal wound.®? Here again the presence of Athena appears to have

liking? Did they cause a commotion that inspired the bard to create a new episode as a means of chastising them? Such an incident explains the odd lapse in the hospitality of the Pharacians. It can only have occurred in an oral presentation, however, where the bard is able to alter his song in order to reflect the

to aid the Trojan cause, and any rewriting or reconsideration of the text would have made some other deity the recipient of the In Zliad Book

11, Athena

once

again

suddenly

resulted from the bard’s momentary impulse to magnify the role of the goddess. The gods had been banned from the battlefield by Zeus at this point in the narrative’? and after further

consideration the bard can be expected to have remembered that Athena’s presence in Book 11 was not acceptable. The repetitions in the Dream Sequence®! are so obviously a failure that

behavior of the audience. Although the scene may have been added in response to a single event, similar to the “Athenian

a rewriting or editing of the epic could hardly have failed to

interpolations,” the episode remained in the text because neither the bard nor the scribes afterwards thought to change the

ties, which an editor can be expected to have changed but which were not immediately evident during the onginal recitation, can be identified. ‘The decision to include the events of

written lines. The process of oral dictation allowed new material and ideas to

be added and standard scenes to be more fully developed. Such elaboration also meant that information from other epics could be included. This type of transference of material from other

epics is most clearly seen in the many long speeches of Nestor. The addition of new material’? and the fuller presentation of old traditional sequences make these two epics unique and may in part explain their overwhelming popularity in comparison to the other parts of the Trojan Cycle in antiquity. It also created problems for the bard giving an oral presentation. As the bard dictated, changing and lengthening his story to fit the new circumstances, occasionally an instant decision was made which further reflection reveals to have been unsuitable. One of these seems to have occurred in the Seduction of Zeus. Hera first conceived the idea, and many verses of preparations followed

before Hera finally approached Zeus.’ Important people appearing for the first time in a sequence, in the oral tradition, were frequently introduced by catalogue of some sort.* Since of Zeus’ loves was included.” first have seemed appropriate,

a description, a gencalogy, or a this is a love scene, a catalogue In the oral context this might at but upon further reflection it is

an outrageous response to Hera’s amorous approach to her husband.

Any author of written literature after additional

consideration would have found another method of emphasizing Zeus’ importance. Such an oddity can be identified as an a momentary decision by the bard that was not entirely successful. This happened very rarely in the epics, but once again it is indicative of the method used. This section of the Jiad, which

falls between the two parts of the duel between Hector and Ajax, seems to have been dictated during a single session. Although the bard continued his dictation, there was no discus-

sion of the heroes fighting. If this represents a change of plan, as suggested above, then itis not surprising that this section lacked the usual careful planning observable elsewhere in the epics. Other examples can be cited of this type of odd inclusion that

make some adjustment. Other improvisations causing difficul-

[had Books 9 and 10 in the space of one night is indicative of oral composition, which adds episode after episode within the frame of a single song. The juxtaposition of these two books is

not appropriate in a written text composed at leisure.®® The activities of the previous night in the narrative, when the forutication wall was built around the ships following the cremation of the dead, creates a situation that is not acceptable to an author of a written work.” The duel of Hector and Ajax®’ did create a welcomed break in the general scenes of fighting, but for it to occur on the same day as the earlier duel between Menelaus and Paris is somewhat odd. The earlier truce had been broken by Pandarus, a Trojan ally, who had succeeded in wounding Menelaus." Afterwards the Trojans had been so hard pressed by Diomedes that Hector returned to the city to offer sacrifices to the gods. Under these circumstances the Achaeans cannot be expected to have willingly accepted a second truce, but in the oral tradition many lines of fighting intervened between the two ducls and the momentum of the action

glossed over the lack of motivation on the part of the Achaeans. Occasionally discrepancies in the text seem to have been introduced because of a conflation of material from two diflerent

sources or two different epics, sometimes resulting in a confused, inaccurate description of an object or location unknown to the bard.“ This may have been the case with the much-dis-

cussed description of Ithaca.’! The description of that island appears to have been conflated with the description of nearby Leukos, neither of which the bard himself had seen. The use of different sources may also account for the existence of one hun-

dred cities on Crete in the /liad as opposed to the ninety cities found in the Odyssey? for Aphrodite as the wife of Hephaestus in the Song of Demodocus in contrast to Charis in the /liad,’' for the removal of weapons from the megaron in the Odyssey where earlier conversation between Odysseus and Telemachus was inconsistent with later action,’? and for some of the pecu-

harities of Odysseus’ visit to the underworld in Odyssey Book 11.

Original from Digitized by Go.

gle

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

118

TALES OF HEROES

Finally there are a few passages where the bard simply made a mistake. The best known of these is Pylaemenes who had been killed in Book 5 of the /liad, but reappeared alive in Book 13.76 In epics of this length it is not altogether surprising that a few mistakes did occur during the course of the dictation, especially

ples a change of a few words or the omission of a single line can have rectified the apparent error. Alterations that change or alter the text once the words had been uttered are impossible only in the case of true oral composition being transcribed during dictation. The inappropriate references to Athena remain.

if the extended length had been a new departure in the presen-

Dislocations can be found caused by breaks in the dictation

tation of such songs.’’ It is surprising, however, that mistakes and obscure references in the epics were allowed to remain if

when the bard forgot where the previous session had ended. Scenes lengthened or added to the text to extend the session

the text had been reworked by an editor,

can be isolated. Discontinuities caused by changes made during the course of the dictation by the bard in response to his audience’s reaction are identifiable. The momentary impulses to

a memonzer, or gen-

erations of bards evolving a fixed text over years of repeated recitations.’® An editor collecting various written manuscripts

should have noted and eliminated the discrepancies.

A memo-

rizer, assuming that he had been mistaken in his recollection of the text, would have altered the references. Generations of

bards singing the same songs automatically corrected mistakes inadvertently introduced by earlier bards. In most of the exam-

alter a sequence or to add a new personality to an old scene created problems. Conflation of different stories or traditions into a single long epic caused contradictions. These oddities remain in the texts we have today as a testimony of the process by which the oral epics were transformed into written words.

Vil THE REPEATED LINES AND THE PERSONAL EPITHETS

Rew

LINES AND FORMULAIG PHRASES! are to be found

in both the Zliad and

Odyssey,? and a certain number

of

these repetitions occurred in both epics.? The realization that these texts were oral compositions, dictated in segments over

the course of many days, puts a new perspective on the use of repeated lines. The patterns formed by these repetitions reinforce the conclusion that the dictated sessions were frequently fairly short, and they often suggest places where one session

ended and the next one began. The changing pattern and more sophisticated use of repetitions within the later parts of the /liad and in the Odyssey reflect an experimentation and development indicative of the vastly increased length made possible by the

innovative method of transcription. At the same time the visible development of their use helps to confirm the concept that the Iliad and Odyssey were the compositions of a single bard. An understanding of the use of repetitions in the /liad and Odyssey helps us to appreciate the great genius of the bard who created

these two great epics and to understand why these epics were so popular in antiquity that they came to be portrayed as idealized

statues, figs. 149-50.

only once or twice within each song or, as in the case of the /itad and Odyssey, once or twice in close association during each dictated session.

The repetitions in the arming scenes indicate a third type of formulaic usage of repeated lines (Diagram A). In those scenes the

bard used formulaic verses to remind the audience of the other similar scenes, but at the same time he varied the sequences in order to individualize them and to make them appropriate to the hero described.!! This type of variation, however, is frequently much more complicated and varied than the arming scenes at first indicate. The diverse possibilities can be seen in

the repetitions used in the sacrificial scenes, which were never identical one to another. In the /liad (Diagram B) the first such scene began with a line mentioning the prayer just made and then continued with the beginning of the sacrifice, described in four lines that were repeated in the second sacrifice. There then

occurred two lines, which were not repeated in the second sacrifice, followed by six lines that were repeated in the second scene, and then it continued with two more lines that were not

repeated in the second scene but were duplicated elsewhere in

A study of the repetitions immediately reveals that their pattern

both the /itad and Odyssey.'2 This same sequence, slightly abbre-

in the Catalogue of Ships is different from the rest of the /had. When the number of ships was mentioned in the Catalogue, the verse repeated another line from the Catalogue itself if one was

viated, occurred in the Odyssey, Book 12, during the sacrificial

available, with few exceptions.* Thirty ships were always toig 5€

scene on the Island of the Sun; it started with two of the four beginning repeated lines, continued with two new lines followed by two of the eight repeated lines from the sacrificial scene in

zpınkovia yAadupai veec Eon zOwvto® and forty ships, with only

the /had.!3 This seems at first to be similar to the pattern of the

one exception, were always t@ 5 Gua

tecoapaxKovta péeAaivar

arming scenes, except for the fact that the two nonrecurring

vies Enovto.5 This type of mechanical repetition is quite different from the repeated lines used elsewhere in the epics. This

line before and two lines after in Odyssey, Book 3, during the

can be illustrated by the use of the phrase tov 8 nneißer éne.ta,’ which is usually translated to mean the same as the

sacrificial scene at Pylos. In addition the opening line of the first sacrifice in the liad was repeated in the Pylos scene but not in

lines of the first scene in the /liad were repeated along with one

phrase tov 5 avrte xpooéeine.® In Book | of the Odyssey, the first

the later sacrifice on the Island of the Sun.!* The last line of the

phrase with Bea yAauKamic A@nvn was used twice, then it was replaced by the second phrase, and finally in the last response

repeat used in all four sacrificial scenes recurred when Eumaeus and Odysseus were preparing a meal in the swineherd’s hut,!°

the first phrase was used once again.” The alteration of the two phrases in Book | appears to be a deliberate substitution of one

and it was followed by a verse used in the two sacrificial scenes of the /iad and in the scene where Agamemnon served a meal to the Achaean leaders, and when Achilles served Pnam.'® The

line for another equivalent line developed to create variety within the same scene.!® This usage is different from that seen in the Catalogue of Ships and it suggests that some groups of bards repeated a formulaic line whenever it was useful, whereas others tried to use such formulaic lines more sparingly, possibly

description of the meal provided by Agamemnon continued with the three additional lines (separated by two lines) used in the sacrificial scenes of the Zltad.” The last two Imes of this part of the repeat frequently recurerd in other cating scenes in both

120

TALES OF HEROES

the /ltad and Odyssey.'® ‘The final scene of the /ltad recurred once Odyssey,'9 while the first line of where once in the Odyssey.2° The

DIAGRAM A Arming Scenes in the /liad (Underlined lines are the Same) Paris

Agamemnon

Patroclus

3.330

11.17

16.131

19.369 _

3.331 3.332 3.333 3.334 3.335

11.18 11.19

16.132 16.133 16.134 16.135 16.136

19.370 _ 19.371

3.336

epics also varied greatly in the number of repeated lines. In the

Achilles

Odyssey the sacrificial scene at the departure of Odysseus and his men from the Land of the Cyclops, for example, had no repeti-

tions from the other sacrificial scenes except for one line from a sacrificial scene in the Land of the Phaeacians.?! The interplay between the sacrificial occasions and the banqueting scenes and the differing use or absence of repeated lines seem to indicate that the bard did not feel bound to follow a set pattern. The

19.372 _ 19.373 _

many variations and the interplay in these lines, furthermore.

16.137

3.337 3.338

11.42 11.43

seem to indicate that the bard of the Zliad and Odyssey enjoyed altering carlier sequences in order to create new patterns,?"

16.138 16.139

which he was able to lengthen or shorten by the addition of lines from other scenes of feasting or by the addition of totally new lines. In the traditional shorter songs, which inevitably had

16.140

IG.

._....19.388

16.182

It 4. 41. 11.

3.334 3.336 3.337 3.338

also also also also

= = = =

couplet of the first sacrificial in the Ihad and twice in the the couplet reappeared elscother sacrificial scenes in the

19.389

ACH

19:390 |

16.144

19.391 _

fewer sacrifices and banquets, a wide variety of lines were not necessary. In the extended versions that became our /liad and Odyssey, there were a great many of these scenes and they required a greater variety of lines in order to avoid constant repetition of the same verses.

2.45. IL VAAL also = 5.743 15.480; Od, 22.123 fh 11.42 also = Od. 22.124 15.481; Od. 22.124 ff 11.43 also = Od. 22.125 Od. 17.4: almost = /. 16.139

‘The variations are more complicated in the Odyssey than in the Ihad. If both epics were the work of a single bard, as I believe to be the case, then the differences in the repetitions can be seen DIAGRAM B Sacrifices

(Underlined lines are the same} Iliad

Odyssey

Sacrifices First

Second

2.119 2.420 2.421 2.422

1.457 1.458 1.159 1.460

1.462 1.463 1.4643

1465

12.360

2424| 12361 2.427

12.365

2.429 2.430 2.431 2.132

1.470 La

_

3.458

._3.159 3.460 12.364 3.461

QB,

1.466 1.467 1.468 1.469

had Scenes of Eating

|

Scenes of Eating

3.47

2.123

1.461

Odyssey

Sacrifices Island Pylos ofSun

3.462

14.130 14431.

7.318 . 7.319 16.47 _ 19.425 | _7.320 See below 7323

.

19

LI4B

3.380 3300

|

_

nl 1.602 9.229229

24.624 23.56 23.57

TS 9176

24.682

21.271 21.272

IN. 160 and 2.132 also = 0d.1.150=3.67=3.173=4.68=8.72=8.185=12.308= 1 4.154=15.143=15.303= 15.501 = 16.95=10.480=17.19.

WAV 20.102

Zens.

AST EL AS= 16.527: same phrase with diferent divinity in 7. 5.121=223.771=0d. 3.385=0.328 (Athena and 71. 16.249=21.314= Od.

The Repeated Lines and the Personal Epithets

121

as an indication of the bard's growing awareness of the various

DIAGRAM C

possibilities as well as the difficulties of using repeated lines

Dream Sequence in the [had (Underlined lines are the same)

within a single epic. This can be illustrated by his handling of lengthy repeated passages within the had. The first lengthy repeated sequence in the /had occurred almost immediately. Zliad 1.13--16 and 1.22-25 were repeated in [had

1.372-79, with the five lines in the middle of the first sequence left out of the second. This repeat did not include a ritual or

Zeus to Dream

Dream to Agamemnon

Agamemnon to Council

2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33a 2.34

2.56 2.57 2.58 2.59 2.60 2.61 2.62 2.63 2.64 2.65 2.66 2.67 2.68 2.69 2.702 2.71 2.72 2.73 2.74 2.75

some complicated actions that always followed the same general pattern. If the bard had been trying to avoid close repetitions of

lines, as suggested above, then this juxtaposition, at first, seems somewhat surprising. A closer look at the text, however, suggests that the repeated verses were divided by a break in the dictation between lines 317 and 318.23 Just before line 317 the ship had sailed off, carrying the daughter of Chryses back to her

father. The plague had been averted, the Achaeans had sacrificed, and harmony

was restored throughout

the Achaean

camp. A pause in the narrative had been reached at this point. Immediately after line 318 the harmony that had just been established was abruptly shattered and the pace changed. Agamemnon rather peremptorily ordered Talthybius and

Eurybates to seize Briseis, thereby further angering Achilles. So momentary was the harmony that it scarcely seems to have existed, and it is difficult to understand why the bard introduced the idea unless it was to create a momentary stopping

2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15

point in the dictation. After Briseis had been seized by the heralds, Achilles called upon his mother, bemoaning the actions of Agamemnon and seeking her help. The earlier verses were con-

densed and repeated by Achilles to Thetis. ‘These lines appear

2.27 also = 24.174

to have been repeated just as if the bard had borrowed lines from one song for later use in a different song in his repertory.

The bard must of course have realized that he was in fact

thing appears to have happened that caused the bard to change his tempo. Possibly this change in the cadence was caused by

singing only one extended song divided by breaks in the dictation, but a break in the dictation between lines 317 and 318

yet another break in the oral dictation. Such a break logically

automatically caused the repetition to be widely spaced in the

came at the end of Hera’s speech. The session stopped with

oral rendition even though only a hundred lines separated them in the written text.24

future actions and later sessions. The

The bard, having succeeded in this first repetition, seems next to have experimented with repeating himself within a single session. This appears to have happened in /ltad, Book 2 with the

Dream Sequence (Diagram C). First Zeus called the Dream and gave him instructions.?? The Dream, following the instructions, began with a new series of lines, then repeated the five lines from Zeus’ directions and ended with two new lines.2® The

bard then proceeded to repeat himself a third time when Agamemnon

called together the council and reported

his

dream (including all the lines repeated from the speech by Zeus as well as most of the new lines added by the Dream). Once again he added a new introduction and a new conclusion.??

The addition of lines before and after the repeated verses, however, was not enough to distract attention from the repeated lines and the resulting passage was boring and repetitive, possibly causing the bard to cut short the session at /ltad 2.83.7" When the bard resumed, a distinct change in the pattern of

repeated lines occurred. Except for occasional scattered lines.?” the bard appears to have deliberately avoided the use of standard formulaic lines for the next seventy-five verses. until Hera’s speech to Athena began at Ztad 2.157. With the beginning of this speech the pattern once again changed and multiple, closely spaced, repeated formulaic lines occurred. Some-

Hera telling Athena what was to be done, thus preparing for next dictation then

resumes with Athena setting into motion the action suggested by Hera, and to clarify the proceedings, the bard repeated himself lest the audience fail to remember what had been said at

the end of the last session. This is the kind of repetitive transition we might expect to find in an oral text dictated in small segments. It is a kind of repetition, however, that is not tolerat-

ed in a written or memorized text where the two speeches occur one directly after the other without a break. The lines following the speeches, like the ones immediately before them, contained few repetitions except for scattered verses. This pattern contin-

ued until the sacrifice was reached: at Iliad 2.421, where the repetition of thirteen lines appears to represent a formulaic scene

containing many traditional phrases.3!

,

Such a reconstruction may seem fanciful at first, but a compari-

son of the speeches in the Dream Sequence and the words of Hera and Athena, in /liad Book 2, with the speeches concerning

the dedication of the peplos to Athena, in /liad Book 6, indicates a calculated manipulation in the use of repeated verses. When the subject of dedicating the peplos was discussed first by Helenus, certain lines were used that were later to be repeated in 4he speech of Hector to Hecuba (Diagram D).*? Between the two repetutions, however, the subject was mentioned by Hector in his speech to the Trojans in nonrecurring lines and after-

122

TALES OF HEROES DIAGRAM D

DIAGRAM E

Dedication of Peplos in the /liad

Speeches about Duel between Paris and Menelaus in the Iliad (Underlined Lines are the same)

(Underlined lines are the same)

Speech of Helenus to Hector

6.86 6.87 6.88 6.89 6.90 6.91 6.92 6.93 6.94 6.95 6.96 6.97 6.98 6.99 6.100 6.101

Speech of Hector to Trojans

6.111 6.112 6.113 6.114 6.115

Speech of Hector to Hecuba 6.264 6.265 6.266 6.267 6.268 6.269 6.270 6.271 6.272 6.273 6.274 6.275 6.276 6.277 6.278 6.279 6.280 6.281 6.282 6.283 6.284 6.285

Prayer of Theano to Athena

Paris to Hector 3.59 3.60 3.61 3.62 3.63 3.64 3.65 3.66 3.67 3.68 3.69b 3.70 3.71 3.72 3.73 3.74 3.75

6.305 6.306 6.307 6.308b 6.309 6.310

significance, and it is most easily understood as an indication

that the bard was evolving new ideas about the use of repetitions. He appears to be developing new skills concerning the possibilities of varying the lines within the unfamiliar format, both longer and slower paced, of the dictated text. The first repetition in Book | was separated by a break in the dictation. The second time in the Dream Sequence the bard tried placing the repetitions close to each other and the result was unsatisfac-

tory. The failure of his experiment appears to have been recognized by the bard, for never again were lengthy repetitions used closely together unless separated by a break in the dictation, and even this type of repetition became rare in the later part of

the epic. The third repetition, the speeches of Hera and Athena, were again apparently separated by a break in the dictation, whereas in the speeches concerning the dedication of the peplos a completely new dialogue was introduced between the in order to avoid

3.86 3.87 3.88 3.89 3.90b 3.91 3.92 3.93 3.94

3.59=6.333 3.86=3.304=7.67 3.68=7.49 3.87=7.374=7.388 3.71 also = Od. 18.46

wards, when the dedication finally took place, the bard composed a different set of verses for the prayer spoken by Theano with only two and a half lines repeated from the carlier speeches.?? This change in the use of repeated lines must have some

two repeated speeches repeated lines.

Hector to Armies

the monotony

of

The bard's recognition that frequent repetitions were someumes monotonous when closely juxtaposed is indicated by the narrative of Book 3, where the duel between Menelaus and Paris was first suggested, then the ducl was discussed. and later

Iris to Helen

Herald to Priam

3.130 3.131 3.132 3.133 3.134 3.135 3.136 3.137 3.138a

3.250 3.251

3.252 3.253 3.254 3.255a 3.256 3.257 3.258

3.131 also=3.127=8.71

it was described (Diagram E). Although this sequence is similar to that of the Dream Sequence, the monotonous repetitions used in Book 2 were avoided. Paris first mentioned the idea in a long speech to Hector.?! Hector then stopped the fighting and

purposed a truce in a speech that repeated only four and a half lines from Paris’ speech.25 When next the duel was mentioned by Iris to Helen,** Iris used none of the lines from the earlier discussion. Finally over a hundred lines later, the herald Idaeus

spoke briefly of the duel and in his speech he used repeated lines. His use of repeated lines appears to have occurred in order to remind the audience of the earlier speeches, but to avoid monotony the repetitions were kept brief and were taken

in part from Paris’ original speech and in part from the speech of Iris to Helen.?” This type of repetition is far more imaginative than the repetitions in the Dream Sequence and less formulaic than those in the Catalogue of Ships. The bard’s developing skill in the effective use of repetitions can be seen in the contrast between the repetitions in the Odyssey and those of the /liad. Although a greater percentage of the

Odyssey was composed of recurring lines, usually such verses were widely separated and subtle variations were introduced.3# In the four major arming scenes of the Iliad, the same sequence of verses was used, and variation was created by the addition of new lines. Since armor was presumably always put on in more

or less the same sequence." a certain degree of repetition was inevitable. The launching of a ship also presumably followed the same repetitive sequence, but the way this perfectly routine

The Repeated Lines and the Personal Epıthets

123

action was described in the Odyssey, with the use of repeated

DIAGRAM F

verses, reveals a subtle skill not fully developed in the arming scenes (Diagram F). In Book 2 of the Odyssey, when Telemachus

Sailing Sequence (Underlined lines are the same)

set sail from Ithaca, the actions described were similar to those

describing the setting forth of a ship in Book | of the /liad. In the Odyssey Athena sent a favorable wind, just as Apollo did in

the /liad.49 The ship’s crew in the /liad set up the mast and spread the sail, an action described more fully in the Odyssey.*! These lines were followed by identical verses describing the wind blowing out the sail and the ship sailing over the waves.!?

Returning to Troy (lad)

Telemachus setting sail from Ithaca (Odyssey;

Telemachus retuming to Ithaca (Odysser)

1.479a

2.420 2.421 2.122 2.423a

15.287 15.288a

Later in the Odyssey Book 15 when another ship was launched, the one that carried Telemachus back to Ithaca, it was the new

lines used earlier in Book 2 that were copied and not the repeated lines from the /lad, although once again Athena sent a favorable wind.*? Having repeated earlier lines from the Odyssey at

1.480

2.425 2.426

the time the ship set sail, when the same ship landed in Ithaca,

the bard used verses from the /liad to create greater variety.’* When the ship set sail once again, the bard avoided lines from the [had and copied a different sequence that had already been used several times earlier in the Odyssey.45 Clearly the bard commanded a wide range of verses which he was able to use to create variety in similar actions, and he seems to have been able to manipulate them freely, altering the sequences into new

arrangements. The repetitions discussed thus far were widely separated, and

2.424

1.481b

2.427b

1.482

2.428

1.183

2.429

15.217 N

x

\___

15.289

A

15.290 15.291

\ 15.292

Arrival at Home of Chryse

Arrival in Ithaca

(Iliad) 1.435 1.436 1.437

‘Odyssev) 15.497 15.498 15.409

when the written text reveals a close juxtaposition of repetitions,

a break in the dictation seems to be indicated. The skill of the bard who composed these epics was so subtle that this classifica-

At the beginning of /liad Book 24, Zeus gave two sets of instruc-

tion applies to only one category of repeated lines. There appears to have been a second category of repetitions which

tions, one to Thetis and one to Iris, concerning the ransom of Hector’s body. When Thetis went to Achilles she repeated

were used quite differently; these were repetitions deliberately placed close together to create a specific effect or to indicate specific characteristics about the people concerned. This second

type of repetitions can be illustrated by /liad Book 24 when

Zeus’ instructions but changed almost all his words, whereas Iris going to Priam repeated Zeus’ instructions almost verbatim.>! This contrast in the actions of Thetis and Iris appears to have been deliberate. It differentiated the messen-

In the first

gers and at the same time emphasized the contrasting natures

exchange after Hermes’ initial speech at 24.361, each time either Priam or Hermes was said to speak, the same formulaic line introduced the words of each character,’ a device that sug-

dealing with recalcitrant adult offspring. Iris, the impartial mes-

Priam left the citadel to ransom

Hector’s body.

gests the weariness of the old man and the sadness of the occa-

sion. At 24.423 the pattern began to break down when Priam took heart after Hermes had spoken; at this point in the narrative a nonrecurring line introduced Priam’s reply in order to

of the recipients. Thetis, the mother, softened Zeus’ words and used persuasion rather than direct orders, as mothers will when senger, simply repeated what she had been told to the older and more mature Priam, who could be counted on to follow Zeus’

will.52 In Odyssey Book 9, a similar pattern of repeated lines used to

mark his change of mood. Hermes answered him once again, however, in the same formulaic line,‘? but afterwards three

create a specific effect can be isolated. In contrast to the other

additional speeches were framed in nonrecurring lines before

repeated several times, emphasizing that once again Odysseus

Hermes left the scene.*? When Priam first spoke to Achilles in 24.485, concluding at 24.507, nonrepetitive verses framed his

and his comrades were setting out for home (Diagram G). The

speech, but afterwards the mood of despair returned. Three more times Priam spoke, each time introducing his words in a

repeated formulaic verse.*” In contrast to the repetitions found when Priam spoke, Achilles was said to speak many times, and although formulae again introduced his speeches, none of them occurred in identical form elsewhere in iad Book 24." The

contrast in the lines used to express speaking between Priam and Achilles is striking. The bard seems to have chosen these lines to suggest the age, sadness, and repetitive phraseology of the old in contrast to the innovative and youthful vigor of the young. This may at first be thought to be the merest coincidence, but earlier in /liad Book 24 a similar deliberate selection

of repetitions scems also to have occurred.

sailing scenes of the Odyssey, in Book 9 two sets of verses were

first set, a two-line passage, was used for the first time after the failure of the battle against the Cicones.>3 The first line of this

set was repeated when they left the Land of the Lotus Eaters,** at which point a second set of repeated lines was introduced.*° The second set, increased by a third line, was repeated first when Odysseus left the Island of the Goats to go to the

Cyclops, it was reduced to two lines when Odysseus left the Cyclops, and then increased to three lines once again when he

left the Island of the Goats a second time.*”? Upon the second departure from the Island of the Goats the first repeated cou-

plet was reintroduced,’# possibly for the purpose of tying together the first and last episodes of Book 9. The first couplet from Book 9 was later repeated in Book 10, first as a single linc, when the ships left the Island of Acolus, and then as two lines

124

TALES OF HEROES

DIAGRAM G Depatures and Sailing in Odysser (Underlined lines are the same) Menelaus

Cicones

4.579 4.580

Lotus Eaters

9.103 9.104 9.105

9.62 9.63 sailing after leaving Calypso sailing 3.293b 9.68 3.294 9.69 on shore 9.75 3.390 9.76 departure 9.77 9.78 arrival at Lotus Eaters 9.85 9.86 9.87 exploring 9.88 9.89 9.90

Island of Goats 9.177 9.178 9.179 9.180

Cyclops

9.471 9.472

_.

Island of Goats

9.562 9.563 9564 9563 9.566

nr.

when they left the Land of the Laestrygonians; whereas the sec-

11, in Book

Laestrygonians

-_

10.77

End of Earth

Circe

11.637 11.638

12.145 12.146 12.147

Pylos

15.547 13.548 15.549

10.133 10.134

sailing 12.314 12.315

ond couplet had been used in Book 4 and was repeated later in Book 12; and the third couplet was repeated as a couplet in Book

Acolus

12 it formed part of a three-line repeat using

a line from the first couplet, and in Book 15 it also included the line preceding the couplet.?” These groups of repeated lines were so balanced that they must be the result of a conscious manipulation. In order to keep the narrative from becoming too rigid other repeated lines were included. When the refrain first started after departure from the Land of the Cicones, there was a storm caused by Zeus and the ships were driven headlong, a refrain later repeated after Odysseus and his comrades

on Island of Circe 10.143 10.144 departure from Island of Sun 12.402 false tale 14.256 arrival at Island of Acolus 10.56 10.57 10.58 exploring 10.100 10.101 10.102

men during the course of their repeated efforts to return home. This manipulation of repeated lines has become much more complex than the repeated refrains of the arming scenes in the

Thad, but it can be skill shown by the the application of emotions and ideas

understood as another example of the great bard. He experimented and then mastered the repeated lines, using them to suggest within the framework of the extended epic

made possible by the dictated form.

Many other examples of this type of conscious manipulation can be cited, for example the use of the phrase nyog & npıyevera davn pododaxtvdos Hac, which occurred twenty

escaped from Scylla. Their hearts were full of sorrow for com-

times in the Odyssey. In Menelaus’ tale of his return voyage from Troy, he used the phrase twice in fairly close juxtaposition to

rades slain just as later they were sorrowful when they landed on the Island of Circe,®! but still they hoisted their sail and set

emphasize the passage of time.®> Later Odysseus used this phrase, again as an indication of the length of his adventures,

forth, just as they did later when they left the Island of the Sun.® Upon their arrival in the Land of the Lotus Eaters they landed on shore, secured supplies of water, and ate a meal: similar actions were later repeated on the Island of Acolus." Alterwards men were sent out to explore as they were to be sent out in the Land of the Laestrygonians." This complicated interwining of repeated lines, which began with the Cicones, tied together the various episodes of Odysseus’ travels, and the repeated use of the same lines emphasized the weariness of the

but after this phrase had been used for the sixth time the bard appears to have felt some new line was needed for variation. He inserted a new phrase. “Q¢ Egat avtixa dE xypvad8povos nAvOev Hoc. which had not been used before.*? This new

phrase was used again a second time between the repeated standard phrase used earlier."

The use of repeated lines is said to be a special characteristie of spontaneous oral composition, and it might be expected that verbal similarities would be found among the works of different

The Repeated Lines and the Personal Epithets bards sharing the same tradition. Repetition of lines from the Iliad and Odyssey in other early poems, however, are so few that many of the lines seem to have been verses of the bard’s own creation. The memorable line kai piv $wvnoag Exea ntepoevta

npoonvda occurred many times in both the /liad and Odyssey. It occurred in identical form or almost identical form only three times in the Homenc Hymns, and the last three words occurred an additional five times in the Hymns and three times in the

Shield of Heracles.’® The most repeated phrase in the Odyssey is tov 5 axaperPopévoc npoceen noAüunng Oduoceüc.’! Perhaps not surprisingly, the complete line including the name of

Odysseus does not reoccur in the Hymns nor in Hesiod, but more unexpected is that the beginning of the line, which occurred so frequently in both the /lad and Odyssey, was used only once, in the Hymn to Apollo.72 Among the most frequently

repeated lines to be found in the /liad and Odyssey, apart from the verse of winged words, only one complete line, "Ns Eoa® , oi 8 Gpa tov pada pev xAvov nd Enidovio, was repeated in one of the Hymas,’3 and frequently repeated phrases such as tov 8 nneißer' Enerta,’t tov & avte npogeeıne,’ yAavxdnic 'AOnvn,’" vedeAnyepeta Zeve,’? wo tote pEV npönav nuap’® occurred only occasionally.??

In direct contrast to Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns, there are many

repetitions between the /liad and Odyssey. In addition to

the verse including winged words quoted above, seven other lines found in the /liad were used ten or more times in the Odyssey® and fifteen verses were used between ten and six times in either the Jliad or the Odyssey.8' An overwhelming proportion of these lines are phrases that introduce a character speaking or responding; only two represent dawn or the time of day,®2 two

others consist of a name plus epithet,®3 and the last two refer to eating.?* In addition to the twenty-three frequently repeated lines, there are an additional fifty-five verses that occurred more than three times but less often than the frequently repeated lines. Finally there is a third, much larger group of lines that occurred once in the Odyssey and once in the /had. These consist of eighty-eight single lines, five sets of two lines and six sets of three lines, making a total of 116 verses. Lines that occur twice

in one epic and once in the other form a group of fifty-two single lines plus one set of two lines, making a total of fifty-four lines. This group of 170 lines plus the 23 frequendy repeated verses and the 55 lines used less often make up a total of 248 verses that occurred in both epics. Although the frequency of

repetition varies from book to book, each book of both the /had and the Odyssey has at least one line that is repeated only in the other epic and not within the same epic. The number of repetitions in the /iad and Odyssey, which contrasts so strikingly to those found in Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns, supports the view that a single bard was responsible for both of the great epics.#5 The use of formulaic language in the epics is frequently associated with the concept that the bard always said the same thing in the same way. Although this might have been true of lesser bards,8’ the variations found in the manipulation of repeated lines suggest that the bard of the liad and Odyssey was not so

restrictive in his style. An example of this can be seen in his use of epithets for

Odysseus.

In the Odyssey,

Odysseus was named

600 times; 279 umes he was mentioned with an epithet of some sort.88 One of the most memorable phrases used is moAvTAGS Siog OdSvacevc, which was sometimes shortened to &to¢ "Oödvocevs, the most Irequendy used combination for

125

Odysseus,8° but he was also called roAüunnıg Odvecetc,™ d10yevng Odvoeuc,! "O&voonog Beio1o0,9? Heiov ‘Odvarjioc,?! "Odvoonog tadacidpovoc,?* “Odvanos apvpovoc,?’ Odvana noAvopova,”® Yaldın “OdSvaced,” dtoyeves Aaeptiady rnoAunyav ‘Odvocet,™ Aaepnadew 'Odvonos,” Aaepriadnv Odvonja,'™ and ‘OdSvucetc Aaepnıadng.!0! There are an addi-

tional ten epithets that occur less frequently in a variety of different cases.!02 These epithets do have different meanings and different metric values, but the total number of combinations is

in striking contrast to the epithets for Penelope. Penelope was named eighty-three times in the Odyssey, fifty-eight times with an epithet. She was called xovpn Ixapioıo neplopov IMnvedonera or Kovpn Ixapioro nepidpovi Mnvedonein, a com-

bination that was used eleven times. This phrase was sometimes shortened to nepid¢pwv Mnveddnera / nepigpovi Ilnvelonein (thirty-nine times) or Kovpn Ixapioto / Kovpy 'Ixapioıo (three times, without mentioning Penelope by name). She was also called €yéopwv TInveAoneıa (seven times in three different cases)

and ayuvpovi TInveAorein (once). Without being mentioned by name she was also called once each the mother of Telemachus, the wife of Odysseus, and Baoikeıa nepigpwv. These formulae,

disregarding the endings, make up three different noun-adjective

combinations

in contrast

to

the

sixteen

used

for

Odysseus.!03 This difference suggests that metric value and case endings were not the only consideration in establishing name-

epithet formulae.!% Odysseus was the hero of the Odyssey, but he was also an obvious favorite of the bard and it seems reason-

able to suppose that he was given a wide range of epithets to reflect the complex

personality the bard wished to portray.

Penelope, on the other hand, had no significant personality of her own beyond her position as Odysseus’ wife who was being sought in marriage by the suitors. It was not for her beauty or for her wisdom that she was considered desirable, but for the wealth she held as Odysseus’ wife and the power the position

gave her. She had been wise in safeguarding that wealth for her son, but apart from that role she was portrayed with meager

characterization, and the paucity of epithets reflects the role attributed to her by the bard. This paucity of both epithets and characterization is a clear indication that the bard of the epic

was male.!©5 He was reflecting the male concept of the ideal wife who remained pure during her husband’s absence, safeguarding his possessions and nurturing his child, but she found life so burdensome, because of her husband’s absence, even after twenty years, that she continually burst into tears. No female bard would have created such a spiritless and sallow

heroine as the wife of the dynamic Odysseus. If the epithets in the /itad and the Odyssey had been controlled

by the bard who was able consciously to repeat or to avoid repetition to create different effects, then the achievement of the bard called Homer can be scen to have been even greater than has usually been assumed. He no longer remains one of the many epic singers who simply sang what he had heard and learned, preserving an earlier tradition. On the contrary, he took the earlier tales, enriched the personalities of the heroes,

created new formulae to suit his concepts, and wove the different elements into tales that have challenged the imagination of later generations. An example of his careful yet imaginative use of the language can perhaps be seen in the epithet avti@eos. In the Mad the epithet avtideog wis used for the first me with the name of

126

TALES OF HEROES and later, during the fighting, when he was sought by Aeneas. Athena was seeking Pandarus to urge him to shoot an arrow at Menelaus in order to break the truce. Even though the action had been initiated by one of the gods, the breaking of the truce cannot be considered proper heroic behavior and the result was

a resumption of battle. Aencas also sought Pandarus, urging him to shoot his arrow at Diomedes. Although “no man could vie with” Pandarus in the use of the bow,'!3 he did not succeed in his attack against Diomedes. As a result of the conversation

with Aencas, Pandarus put aside his bow and joined Acneas in the chariot, whereupon he met his death almost immediately. Both these incidents involving Pandarus ended in misfortune. Both had started with the hero being named avti@eog, possibly as a foreshadowing of the anticipated results. The

epithet seems to have been

used in the same way with

Sarpedon. Tlepolemus was prompted by fate to attack avrideog Sarpedon,!'!' and the result of the attack was the wounding of avtideog Sarpedon, who had to be carried off the batuefield.! > In a manner similar to the sequence with Pandarus, the avtieog hero was sought out by someone

else with dire results.

Later in the fighting, Hector’s spirit moved him to seek out avti8e0¢ Sarpedon,!'! which once again led to disaster. The messenger Glaucus

was killed, as were

many

of the avtideoı

Lycians who followed Sarpedon.!!’ The unfortunate avtideor Lycians!!# led by Sarpedon, in a later episode, were beaten by Patroclus, and Sarpedon himself was killed. Many warriors then fought over the body of avtideog Sarpedon.!!9 Sarpedon does not appear to have done anything to warrant the use of this epithet in either of these two incidents.'?° It appears that the bard had deliberately used the epithet to alert his audience that some misfortune was about to descend upon the hero.!?! In the Odyssey, Odysseus was often called diog “Odvoce tc, Ircquently extended to noAvtiag diog ‘Odvucoetc, so when he was

called avtideog nine times!?? the epithet seems a little odd, if avtideog is properly understood of the references to Odysseus some way to his long delay in by Poseidon, whom Odysseus

to be the opposite of d10¢. Most as avtideog, however, refer in returning home, a delay caused had angered by the blinding of

his son Polyphemus.!?3 Examination of the events leading up to Figs. 149. Roman statue of the iad.

Polyphemus, and in the Odyssey it was used first for Odysseus and then for the Cyclops.!"" Since Polyphemus the Cyclops was Poseidon’s son, it has been suggested that avti®eos be translated as “god-like.”'!"§ The word avti, however, normally means against or opposed,! and thus the meaning of avrideog might be more accurately interpreted as “opposed to the gods” or “ungodly.” Since some of the epic figures who were called avtiBe0¢ were also called d5i0g,!!" the possibility might be considered that it was not the individual himself who was avtideog, but rather it was his behavior that caused him to be given the epithet. Certainly the behavior of the Cyclops can aptly be described as “ungodly.” His behavior can be said to have been contrary to civilization and thus it became behavior that was opposed to the gods, although by birth he might have been considered to be &t0g since he was the son of Poseidon." In the had Pandarus was called avti8eog.!1? first when he was sought by Athena, after the duel between Menelaus and Paris,

the Polyphemus episode makes it clear that Odysseus showed a distinct lack of forethought. After the fall of Troy, Odysseus and his comrades departed, mecting disaster almost immediately.

They stopped to loot the Cicones, even though it can be assumed that they were already carrying a vast quantity of loot taken from Troy. At first succeeding in their attack against the Cicones, they lingered unwisely, allowing the Cicones time to launch a counterattack, which ended in defeat for Odysseus and his men.!*4 They then met with bad weather and were blown to the Land of the Lotus-Eaters. After narrowly escaping with all their men,!2> they sailed toward the Land of the

Cyclopes. For the first time they met good fortune when they landed on an uninhabited island containing many goats and a plentiful supply of water. Instead of departing and sailing for home, they were led astray by the curiosity of Odysseus, who wished to explore the neighboring land.!?* When his own comrades urged him to seize what he could from Polyphemus’ cave and to depart, Odysseus did not listen.!?? The results were disastrous. Some of his comrades were lost and Polyphemus was blinded in order that Odysseus and the rest of his men could

escape. Odysseus’ encounter with the Cyclops had been a disas-

The Repeated Lines and the Personal Epithets

127

ter brought about by Odysseus’ lack of judgment and uncivilized behavior, motivated by curiosity and greed. He had been avti®eog, acting contrary to civilized and reasoned behavior and thus acting contrary to the will of the gods. Others in both the /had and the Odyssey were called avrideog, and frequently it is obvious why the epithet was used. ‘The suit-

ors in the Odyssey were avtiBeoı,!?® which is easily understood in view of their behavior. The companions of Menelaus were avti@eot, when they were stranded in Egypt because they had

failed to offer hecatombs to the gods.!*" In the fad Ajax was twice called avtiBeog.

On the first occasion, Ajax together with

Odysseus was a member of the Embassy to Achilles!3° and although the scenes in Achilles’ hut are memorable, the Embassy was in fact a failure. The second occasion occurred during the preparation for the Dolon mission.!?! Diomedes, given his choice of companion, passed over Ajax in favor of Odysseus, just as later Ajax was to be passed over in favor of Odysseus when the armor of Achilles was to be awarded.'** The rivalry between Ajax and Odysseus seems always to have ended with Odysseus winning and Ajax losing. More obvious are those warriors, often mentioned only once, who were called avtideor and were killed in battle.!33 These warriors did not necessarily behave badly, but they may have been called avtideor because they were unlucky or inellectual,! just as later

Phoenix was called avtideog!”> when he was made umpire in the chariot race in the Funeral Games of Patroclus. The bard

appears to have deliberately called Phoenix avti®eos as an indication that he did not in fact “mark and remember the running and bring back a true story,”!"© but he remained ineffectual once the race had started. During the race there was obvious underhanded behavior, which a good umpire should not have allowed. This was first indicated by the interference of Apollo and Athena and then by Äntilochus’ maneuvers which enabled him to overtake Menelaus, even though Menelaus’ horses were faster. Finally Eumelus, who had come in last, was given a prize. Once the race began and during the controversy afterwards, Phoenix was not mentioned. Various other well-known heroes were occasionally called avtideog in conversations when

someone recalled an event in the past that had clearly been unsuccessful or had ended in disaster.1”

When Neleus was called avti@eog,'* apparently because of his offensive behavior which led to disaster.'™ the verse seems to refer to a series of events that were not part of the Trojan Cycle but belonged to another epic cycle now lost. Clytonetis, the son of Alcinous, was introduced as avtideog and was said to be the best by far in running.!" but the epithet seems unwarranted unless there existed other stories not related in the Odyssey in which this young man meet with some misfortune. Such a conclusion leads to rather intriguing ramifications. Thrasymedes, the son of Nestor, was called avtideog in both the /liad and Odyssey for no apparent reason,'” and even Nestor himself was on one occasion called avti®eog.'44 This same Thrasymedes was said to have used his father’s famous golden shield on the plains at Troy,! which might led us to conclude that he was the eldest son. As the eldest son he should have inherited the kingdom, a kingdom which was about to fall involving events that provided ample drama for yet another epic. The concept of avti®eos, suggesting the meaning of ill-fortuned, may be illustrated by its use for Ajax and Menelaus.! Ajax was consistently portrayed in the /ltad as a mighty warrior,

Fig.

150. Roman statue of the Odyssey.

always fighting with courage and skill, but his efforts seem never to have been appreciated or rewarded, whereas Diomedes was continually favored by Athena. Even after he was wounded, she instilled strength and courage into him and thus enabled him to continue fighting so effectively that he was still able to wound one of the gods.!"© Menelaus was also portrayed as a mighty warrior, but he was thwarted of victory in his duel with Paris because of the gods, and because of the gods he was unfairly wounded by Pandarus. Having won Helen as a bride, he Jost her because of Aphrodite, and even when once more united with her in Sparta, a feeling of sadness and uneasiness pervaded their reunion.!!” In the epics, especially in the Jad, the gods often interfered in a way that seems biased, bringing disaster to some and good fortune to others. Although this may appear to be unfair, it does nonetheless seem to reflect an actual phenomenon of life observable even to this day. Some people always appear to be “lucky” or to have everything turn out well,

128

TALES OF HEROES

whereas another people appear to be continually “unlucky” or “accident prone” and to become involved in the most extraordinarily difficult situations through no apparent fault of their own. The adjective avrideog seems to be an attempt to identify this phenomenon even though it does not always explain it. If avrideog is defined as ungodly or ill-fortuned and its use is seen as a deliberate indication given by the bard that some unfortunate event is about to occur, then the epithet ötog can be understood to mean godly and to be associated with actions that were considered heroic and noteworthy. Since most of the people portrayed in the epics were heroes and they were expected to perform heroic deeds, the frequent use of 5io¢ as an epithet might not be considered particularly significant, except for the fact that the swineherd in the Odyssey was also called Si0g. On twenty-two different occasions he was referred to as Siog or as Siog veopfdc.'48 Telemachus, Odysseus, and Pene-

lope, showing their respect to an aged and honored servant, addressed Eumaeus as 5i0¢ on four separate occasions.!*9 This same feeling of special regard was evident the first time the phrase di0¢ veopfdc was used for Eumaeus in the Odyssey. Among all who had worked for Odysseus, Eumaeus, the diog veopfidc, was said to have cared the most to preserve the substance of his master.!5° Six references to 8iog veophdc portray

Eumaeus providing food, five times for the disguised Odysseus and once for Telemachus.!5! The entertainment of visitors in

the epics, especially if they were strangers, was considered a heroic activity,!52 and thus the use of diog in these passages is justifiable even if it is somewhat unexpected. Twice when Eumaeus was called 5t0¢ veopfdc, he was taking part in the

slaughter of the suitors, once again a heroic action where his deeds justify the use of the epithet.!53 Eumaeus, in his position as the dtog beopfidc, served as a foil to the unfaithful Melanthius, whom he met as he accompanied the disguised Odysseus to the city.!5* Melanthius insulted both beggar and swincherd, calling Eumaeus

an auéyaptog oußarng.!35 This derogatory

phrase was later used by the suitors!56 just after Eumaeus had once again been identified by the bard as 5to0g thophidg.'!5”? The juxtaposition between ayéyaptog außerng and dtog vgopfidc in

these two passages seems to have been deliberate. The two conflicting descriptions emphasized the special qualities of the aged and venerated retainer. Although Eumaeus had been noble by birth,!58 as a child he had been seized and sold into slavery.!59 Eumaeus, the slave but of noble family, was thus qualified to be Siog by birth and he became Sio¢ by his actions. This is in contrast to Philoetius, who had also been loyal to Odysseus and who had helped in the slaughter, but who was never identified as being dtog. Eumaeus combined the two elements of fate and behavior that justified the use of the epithet for someone even so lowly as a swincherd, just as avtideog seems to imply a combination of fate and behavior to signify the exact opposite.

IX CONCLUSIONS

HROUGHOLUT THE CENTURIES the tales of the Homeric heroes have been repeated and the deeds of the ancient warriors have been extolled. These heroes lived in Mycenaean houses and they fought with Mycenaean weapons. The women wore Mycenaean dresses and the sailors lived in a world of adventure that seems to reflect, at least in part, the earliest days of maritime exploration. The action was set in places known to have been inhabited by the Mycenaean people, and the political-geographical divisions seem to conform to that period. The epics reflect a time of war, plunder, and upheaval with mass movements of people. This time of trouble occurred near the end of the Mycenaean Age when the “Sea Peoples” disrupted the trade routes and the power of the Mycenaean rulers was beginning to collapse. These events were viewed through a roseate glow by later generations when men were heroes no longer and the great deeds of the past ceased to be accomplished. So many are the parallels to the Mycenaean world that the beginnings of the tradition must lie in the prehistoric period, but the written texts we read today obviously cannot be Mycenaean. These texts written in the Greek alphabet must have been transcribed later, after the middle of the eighth century B.C. when the alphabet was first introduced into Greece. During the Dark Age people living amid the ruins of the Mycenaean buildings must inevitably have marveled at the great structures of the past. They must have remembered with envy the days when the tholos tombs were filled with treasures and

golden goblets graced the tables of the mighty. During those later days of economic depression and agricultural drudgery, remembrance of the past brought welcome escape from the present. The people of that period must have eagerly related the deeds of the great heroes to their children, and they shared in the glory of the earlier period by claiming that their own ancestors had fought at Troy. The information about the earlier period passed from one generation to the next in a variety of ways.

Bards traveling from one settlement to the next sang

songs set in hexameter lines, filled with epithets and repeated formulae. Parents and grandparents reminisced to their children and grandchildren, often repeating the stories they themselves had heard as children. Friends from neighboring settlements swapped stories told to them by their elders. The oral tradition was the only type of history known at that time and the preservation of its tradition, no matter how inaccurate it

may have become with the passing of time, was considered important. After many generations the spread of the tradition was probably as wide as the spread of the Greek language itself. Early Greek vase painting and other objects of decorative art from a wide area of the Greek world preserve traces of this tradition and attest to its popularity. But just as the language developed regional differences, the oral tradition reflected in the vase paintings and later literary references gradually began to vary from one area to another until the day came when someone wrote it down. Since all parts of the oral tradition existed simultaneously in the Dark Age, the writing down of any portion of it did not necessarily depend on the writing down of any other segment, but eventually those sections associated with the Trojan War were written down, since the written texts were known in later antiquity. The greatest of these written texts were what we call the Ihad and Odyssey, and these two parts of the tradition are fully preserved, whereas the rest of the Trojan Cycle is preserved only in scattered lines. Obviously nothing could be written until the introduction of the alphabet in the eighth century, but it does not necessarily follow, as is often assumed,

that the

moment the alphabet was introduced, or very soon afterwards, the epics were committed to writing. The tradition had already lasted for nearly five centuries before the alphabet was introduced and there is no necessary reason to suppose it did not continue to be passed on in the customary fashion for another century or two. There exists the problem, usually overlooked, of isolating the written texts of the /dad and Odyssey as distinct from the oral tradition of the Trojan War. Events recorded in the oral tradition were depicted on the vases and other works of art from the Orientalizing Period and possibly on some of the vases from the Geometric Period. These show with certainty that the tradition was widespread and well-known in the eighth and seventh centuries when the alphabet was first introduced, but they do not date the written text we have today. They merely inform us that the tradition was known. Any attempt to determine the date of the written texts most logically starts with the texts themselves. The latest elements in the texts should date the period of its transcription, since an oral tradition by its nature constantly changes as long as it remains oral, but once it is committed to writing, the text becomes fixed.

130

TALES OF HEROES

From the earliest days of Homeric scholarship the latest elements have consistently been identified as the so-called Athenian interpolations, which have been associated in some way with the tyrant Peisistratos and sixth-century Athens. Traces of the Attic dialect help to strengthen the association between the written texts and Athens of the sixth century, but this date for the original text has been considered too late by modern scholars. It has been argued that there were other, earlier written texts and indeed there is no reason to suppose that individual parts of the tradition were not written down at different times in a variety of diverse places. An investigation of the manuscript tradition, however, reveals no alternate texts for the /liad and

Odyssey. All the preserved manuscripts contain the “Athenian additions” and all the manuscripts reflect the Attic dialect. The Ionic alphabet may have been better suited for the writing down of the Ionian words, as has been argued, but no trace of a manuscript in pure Ionic dialect has been found and it may be that the Greeks in the early days of literacy did not realize the special quality of the Ionic alphabet. The Spartan Lycurgos is said to have compiled the words of Homer and to have taken them back to Lacedaemonia, but if he had a written text in

either the Ionian or Dorian dialect, no trace of it is preserved today. Attempts have been made to attribute the all-pervasive Attic text to Athenian domination of the book trade, but no one

has been able to explain satisfactorily how such a feat was accomplished. In the Classical Period the domination of one City’s text over all others became impossible because of the civil strife and the independent spirit of the ancient Greek city states. The fierce competition of the various later libraries would have virtually guaranteed the discovery of any alternate text that may have existed in the Hellenistic Period when Greece was

being scoured for new manuscripts and new information unknown to the other libraries. There is ample evidence for the existence of a Peisistratid text of some sort. This was first recognized by Wolf, and although most scholars accept the existence of such a document, no serious effort has been made to determine either its origin or its nature. The obvious source for the text was the Homeridae, the

acknowledged experts of the Homeric tradition. This clan for generations had preserved the tales of the Trojan War. They remembered the names of the warriors, their genealogies, and their achievements. They preserved the knowledge of the homes and weapons of the heroes, the names of their wives and children, and countless other details that form the rich fabric of

the written text. Growing knowledge of the Mycenaean Period has made it increasingly clear that the epics are full of information derived from the prehistoric past. Many things, such as the cremation of the dead and the use of a pair of spears, which were once thought to indicate a post-Mycenaean date, can now be shown to have prehistoric parallels. As the list of Mycenaean objects has grown, the list of post-Mycenaean reflections has shrunk until almost nothing is left of the later list. All that remains are a few vague, possible references to phratries and to four-horse chariots, the unidentified tholos, and the altar in the

courtyard of Odysseus’ palace. One misplaced allusion to the Ionians completes the list. These uncertain references and the so-called Athenian interpolations constitute the only identifiable late elements in the epics. Others may exist, but they are so

vague, that they have not yet been identified with any certainty. This purity of Mycenaean tradition is a remarkable feat achieved by the Homeridae and one which is entirely unexpect-

ed in view of the many centuries that intervened between the

fall of the Mycenaean civilization and the writing down of the text. The clan deserved the high regard in which they were held by Pindar and Plato. Their founder was presumably a man called Homer after whom the clan was named. As was the custom of such clans, various descendents of the founder appear to have been given his name, hence references to a ninth-century Homer named by Herodotus, an eight-century Homer who was supposed to have been the teacher of Arctinos, a seventh-century Homer known to Lycurgos, and later a sixth-century Homer known to Xenophanes and Pindar. It was argued above that Peisistratos wanted a written text of the Catalogue of Ships for political purposes. When the oral tradition was canonized into specific songs, the Catalogue became attached to the story of the Wrath of Achilles, probably as an indication of the many people who were to be affected by the argument between Agamemnon and Achilles. In order to achieve his political aims Peisistratos went to the Homeridae, the acknowledged experts of the Homeric tales, and from them he sought a written text of the Wrath of Achilles and the accompanying Catalogue of Ships. But the Homeridae were bards, not scribes. Lacking a written text, they could do no more than send one of their clan to Athens to sing the tale, which was written down by scribes as he sang. The sixth-century bard obviously sang in his own Ionian dialect but the Athenian scribes unconsciously transformed the spoken words into written Attic forms. They created a manuscript that reflects the Attic dialect, by dropping the spoken digamma and changing some of the words into their accustomed Attic spelling. The process of transcription was very slow and many days were required to complete the task. Once it was realized that the tale could not be sung at a single sitting and that many days were necessary, the only limit to the length of the epic was the bard’s own imagination and the patience of the scribes. The bard enlarged the tale by adding information from other stories, giving richer characterization and fuller genealogies of his heroes, recounting a more detailed description of their possessions, and adding isolated episodes not normally included. Because he was in Athens, he honored his hosts by an occasion-

al mention of their city, their goddess, their temples and festivals, the so-called Athenian interpolations. He subtly complemented his patron, the tyrant Peisistratos, by emphasizing the Mycenaean family whom the tyrant claimed as his ancestors, the Neleids of Pylos. He appears to have enhanced the role and stature of Ajax of Salamis, and in this way he honored the descendents of Ajax’s sons who had settled in Attica, and he accentuated the importance of Salamis, which Athens claimed as her own. These alterations must have been recognized by the audience as special additions of the moment, and they were accepted as the compliments they were intended to be. Being used to the oral method, the bard and the scribes failed to realize that in a dictated text, once these additions were written

down, they were to remain henceforth incorporated into the text for all ume. All other details of the epics were drawn from the oral tradition and every attempt was made to keep the tradition pure. Events that occurred after the fall of the Mycenaean civilization were simply ignored. The great migrations to the Ionian coast and the establishment of new cities, the poverty of the Dark Age, the introduction of iron swords, the changing style and mores of clothing, the beginnings of literacy, the new

Conclustons

tactics in warfare, ships with rams directed with two steering oars, the rise of the polis and the political developments that gave birth to democracy;

these and many other events that

mark the beginning of the historic period in Greece were not included. The daily dictation of the epics referred only to the distant past, and in Athens they created a renewed interest in the Trojan tales, which resulted in a sudden increase in the

number of vase paintings depicting those events. The dictations inspired an interest in literature and helped to initiate a cultural revolution that was to make Athens famous throughout the world.

131

Alexandrian Library. Aristarchus standardized the texts, which had previously been so varied, and he assured their preservation. The phenomenal accomplishment of the Homeridae who preserved the purity of the tradition and the achievement of the sixth-century bard whose genius made the ancient heroes live in our imagination were not fully recognized by the ancient world, but the evidence of their achievement remains in the written texts for those who seek it.

So great was the excitement generated by the first epic that a second epic, the Odyssey, was dictated once the /liad had been completed. The /liad, for political reasons, had been Peisis-

Both the Jad and the Odyssey are much longer than any of the other oral epics or written poetic works of ancient Greece or Rome. At some point a bard organized the mass of material into its present shape, lengthening the tale and enriching the personalities. It is sometimes said that the monumental composition was made by a bard whose great achievement was

tratos’ choice but the bard, who favored the hero Odysseus,

instantly recognized, his words were memorized, and thereafter

chose the Odyssey. Having become skilled in the process of the oral dictation, he developed a more sophisticated format for his second epic and avoided some of his earlier mistakes. The ending of the second epic, which resolved the blood feud by the intervention of the Zeus, was not compatible with emerging Athenian notions concerning the proper administration of justice and the appropriate punishment for homicide. The Athenians quarreled with the bard and fined him fifty drachmas. Consequently the bard left the city and no additional epics were dictated. The written texts of the /lad and Odyssey that had been transcribed, however, remained in Athens. They became

the

basis of the musical competitions during the Greater Panathenaic Festivals. The recitations that took place every four years helped to spread the fame of the new texts. Copies were made which gradually spread throughout the Greek world. Sixth-century Syracuse was angered to learn that her bard had not known “the true words of Homer” as represented by the Attic text. It became the duty of learned men to correct the texts as they spread from one area to another, but all the copies retained the Attic diction and the “Athenian additions,” since

the original source of all the copies had been the Peisistratid texts themselves. The ancient literary references support a sixth-century bard called Homer who was known to Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Simonides, Stesichorus, and Pindar. This bard became known

for the richness of his characterization and the scandalous behavior of his gods. For a time he was honored, but his fame was short-lived after his quarrel with Athens. No one wished to be associated with him and the disgrace of his quarrel. The sixth-century bard was ignored in the following century and gradually he was forgotten. His dictated texts, however, remained in Athens, where they were highly valued and eventually copied. In time the superiority of these texts came to be attributed to the Homeridae, who had so carefully preserved the tradition, and to the founder of the clan, a man

called

Homer, whose origins were unknown and who later became the subject of fictionalized biographies. When Athens was sacked by the Persians in the fifth century, the original written texts were taken as booty and for several centuries there were no authoritative texts. This led to a suspension of the musical contests during the Panathenaic Festivals, to a proliferation of “corrected texts,” and to a wide variety of early Hellenistic papyri, each with its own peculiarities and additions. Much later the original Peisistratid texts were returned to Athens and they became the basis of the texts edited by Aristarchus in the

the epics were passed down in memorized form. Other scholars have tried to make the monumental composer literate, claiming that the bard himself was the person who wrote down the epics. Finally it has been proposed that each generation of bards built upon the songs of the previous generation, enlarging and enriching the tradition. The preserved texts do not support any of these suggestions. There are too many mistakes. A memorizer, capable of reciting the entire /liad, cannot have failed to remember that Pylaemenes had died early in the epic and was not able to reappear to mourn his son in the later part. A memorizer must have known that the Embassy to Achilles consisted of three people and the use of the dual was not appropriate in Jlad Book 9. A literate monumental composer automatically evaded dislocations caused by breaks in the dictation. He cannot have avoided realizing that the written words of the [had Book 2 said that Nestor led the way out of the assembly when the honor belonged to Agamemnon. He certainly would not have portrayed Telemachus being bathed by Polycaste in the middle of the sacrificial scene at Pylos, after the hands had been washed and the barley sprinkled in accordance to the prescribed ritual at the beginning of the sacrifice. Bards who gradually enlarged the tale and fixed the text by constant repetition would have realized that the triple repetition of Agamemnon’s dream had not been a good idea. During the process of fixing the text, they can be expected to have either extended the Catalogue of Horses or to have left it out. The description of Telemachus’ double arrival at Sparta and the fleeting mention of the marriage of Menelaus’ son in the Odyssey do not fit comfortably within any of these scholarly constructs. They fail to account for the plans made by Odysseus and Telemachus which they later ignored. They do not explain why Hector said that he was returning to Troy to arrange sacrifices to the gods when he had been instructed by Helenus to sacrifice to Athena. They cannot account for the improbability of the Embassy to Achilles and the Dolon mission taking place the same night. A careful planning of the events does not allow the duel between Ajax and Hector to occur on the same day as the earlier duel between Menelaus and Paris. These dislocations, discontinu-

ities, and discrepancies should not have remained in the texts, if they had been reworked by memorizers, written composers, or generations of bards. The nature of a written text is that it is reread and it can be reworked. A memorized text is unconsciously altered by later bards, who smooth over the awkward transitions and avoid discrepancies. The supposition of generations of bards enlarging the earlier tales automatically entails an awareness of the sequences that does not allow those additions

132

TALES OF HEROES

that crowded too many events into too short a time. These oddities are the hallmarks of an oral dictated text, a text that was

being created as it was sung, little by little, day after day, with the bard experimenting in a new style that was not always successful. He sometimes introduced ideas that were not to the liking of the audience and had to be dropped, causing dislocations in the text. At other times he did not remember exactly what he had said at the end of the last day’s dictation and thus created a

discontinuity that should not have occurred. After dictating hundreds of lines he can be forgiven a mistaken sequence and the reappearance of someone who had died earlier in the epic. In the excitement of the oral presentation with its new possibilities created by the dictated method, he added events upon events, creating epics that could not possibly be sung in their entirety during one sitting. He conflated material from different epics, causing contradictions that a reworking of the text would have removed or changed. Many of the breaks in the dictation can be found. Occasionally they are indicated by a discontinuity in the narrative. A few introductory remarks setting the tone for the day’s dictation or repeating the results of the previous dictation indicate additional breaks. At other times they are indicated by a sudden change of pace, a change of mood, or a close juxtaposition of repeated verses. These seams in the poetry are to be found in the texts themselves and they give ample evidence for the process by which the epics were created. Embedded in the texts are the references to Athena, her temple, her city, and her festival. These do not belong and were

the Anatolian Pandarus had the only iron weapon at Troy. Warriors wore body armor consisting of numerous bronze plates. They carried large body shields and pairs of spears. Some of their helmets were decorated with boar’s tusks or added bronze attachments. Fighting occurred on foot or from chariots drawn by two horses, but the horses themselves were never ridden into battle. The Achaeans alone wore greaves; they were not used by the Trojans or the Trojan allies. Miletus was a city of divided population that spoke different languages. Ships were steered with a single steering oar. Broaches could be worm in sets of twelve. Women wore a variety of different head-

dresses and held positions of power within their society. Nudity was to be avoided in social contexts and the wearing of animal

skins as cloaks was permissible in the higher ranks of society. The main room of the house was a large megaron with central hearth and chimney pot. Sleeping chambers, storage areas, corridors, columned porches, and enclosed courtyards were arranged around the megaron. These and many other

details were carefully preserved, but no trace of the intervening centuries was allowed to intrude except for a few vague references. The Homeridae preserved the tradition but a single bard, a sixth-century Homer, created the final epics. He created

a style of his own and his own special formulae, which he repeated in both epics. He used a variety of epithets for his heroes, which sometimes

forewarned of events to come or

recognized as intrusions from the earliest days of Homeric scholarship. They are the additions made to honor the hosts, the latest elements that must place the writing of the texts in the

emphasized a particular characteristic of the individual that was important in the immediate circumstances. He created his individual stamp, calling on the Muses for inspiration, unlike his clansmen the Homeridae who called on Zeus. The difference

sixth century and in Athens. They were consciously added by

between the characterization of the men and the women

the bard for the particular recitation in order to honor his hosts, but all other later elements were carefully excluded in a fantastic preservation of an earlier culture. It was remembered that

give

clear indication that the bard was male and the many strong visual images that frequendy gleamed or shone are clearly the creation of an individual who could see.

ENDNOTES

ENDNOTE

1

THE TROJAN CYCLE

Proponents for an eighth-century date for Homer often state that the Zliad and Odyssey were first composed and that afterwards the other parts of the Trojan Cycle were organized around these two great epics, Wade-Gery, The Poet of the Iliad; Lattimore, Introduction to his translation of the /lad, 24-28; Allen, Ongins and Transmission, 51-77; and more recently Powell,

Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet, 218; G. Nagy, Pindar’s Homer, 414-15; Kannicht, CA 1 (1982): 70-72. Various articles

have been written challenging this view, but they have been largely ignored; Notopoulos, HSCP 68 (1964): 27; Page, CR 13 (1963): 21-24; Whitman, Homer and the Herow Tradition, 79; and

especially Kullmann, Die Quellen der Ilias, who forcefully argued that the entire Cycle was based on the oral tradition and that one part could not be dated before or after another part; and Schadewaldt,

Von Homers

Welt und Werk, 155-202, who argued

that the Aittopis by Arktinos existed in written form before the Iliad was composed. If a convincing argument is to be made that Homer was actually later than the traditional eighth-century date, it becomes important to try to determine what is known about the rest of the Cycle. The preserved fragments of the other parts of the Trojan Cycle were published by Evelyn-White, Hestod, the Homerc Hymns, and Homenca, T.W. Allen, ed., Hymns, Epic Cycle, Homen Opera, vol. 5

(Oxford, 1912), 93-143. Griffen, JHS 97 (1977): 39-53, made a careful study of the 120 lines from the rest of the Cycle that are preserved. He noted that modern scholarship tends to suggest that all the Trojan epics were similar, but that the preserved lines from the other epics indicate that this assumption is not correct. He observed that the Jliad and Odyssey, in contrast to the rest of the Cycle, have a different view concerning women and children; they exclude low human types and motives (with the single exception of Thersites); their attitude to sex, eating and drinking is much more circumspect; they contain many fewer elements of the fantastic and magical. J.A. Scott, The Unity of Homer, 32-34, noting that the rest of the Cycle in antiquity was held in low esteem in contrast to the great respect shown towards the /liad and Odyssey, suggested that the other parts of the Cycle were preserved not for their poetic merit but for the traditions and information which they contain. For addi-

tional bibliography and evaluation of the Cycle see Slatkin, The Power of Thetis, 9-12. The organization of the material of the Cycle, as we have it preserved today, was not the work of the early bards but the work of a man called Proclus who lived in the fifth century A.D. He recorded the different parts of the tradition arranging them around the /liad and Odyssey. His work was preserved in a synopsis written by Photius. Since the other parts of the Cycle were arranged around the /liad and Odyssey, it has been argued that the /lad and Odyssey must have been written before the other parts of the Cycle were composed. For the work of Photius and its interpretation cf. M. Davies, Glotta 67 (1989): 89-100; J.A. Scott, The Unity of Homer, 33; Lattimore, Introduction to his translation of the Iliad, 25 n. 1. The work of Proclus and Photius, however, reflects the attitude of late antiquity which is

not necessarily indicative of earlier periods. Surveys of seventh and sixth-century vase paintings (cf. Chapter VI note 34) suggest that the great popularity of the /kad and Odyssey first began in the second half of the sixth century B.C. when a change seems to have taken place in the presentation of oral epic songs (cf. Chapter VI note 254). The subjects portrayed in early vase paintings indicate that the attitudes of the early bards differed from the evaluation of the epic tradition reflected by Proclus. If Proclus’ organization of the Trojan Cycle around the /lad and Odyssey is understood to reflect his own personal opinion of the different merits of the various parts of the Cycle, then it becomes evident that his work has no necessary bearing on the date or origin of the different parts of the tradition. Other attempts to date the /kad and Odyssey to an early period compared these two epics with the work of Hesiod. M. Finkelberg, CQ 38 (1988): 31-41, argued that Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women represents a tradition that differed from the tradition reflected in Ajax’s entry in the Catalogue of Ships. Hesiod appears to have been aware of the tradition preserved in the Ikad and thus Finkelberg concluded that Hesiod must be later than the written Jliad. The

Catalogue

of Ships, however,

appears to have originally been an independent text that had been preserved in memorized form by generations of bards. Hesiod’s knowledge of this particular text can have come from an independent source. It does not prove that Hesiod’s written text must be later than the written monumental composition

134

TALES OF HEROES: ENDNOTE 2

that included the Catalogue into the epic we call the /had. In Chapter VI it was argued that Peisistratos desired a written text of the Catalogue of Ships for political purposes. His procuring of this written text does not automatically imply that he altered the existing, memorized tt. His political purposes were better served if he used a well-known, accepted, memorized edition of

the Catalogue of Ships. It was argued above that the origins of the Trojan Cycle go back to the Mycenaean Period and that all parts of the Cycle existed at the same time. The artists of the Chest of Cypselus, the Francois Vase, and other vases of that period (cited in

Chapters V and VI) used information that was not preserved in the two great epics; they must have relied on information that was preserved independently in the other parts of the Cycle. Kirk,

Commentary,

7.44- 45, pointed out that Cassandra’s

prophetic powers were not mentioned in either the /liad or Odyssey although reference to them occurred as early as Pindar. The seventh-century Spartan poet Alcman also mentioned information not found in the /lad (cf. Endnote

11). Later works

such as Polygnotus’ paintings in the Lesche of the Cnidians at Delphi relied on this broader spectrum of the entire oral tradition. This tradition must have included a Theban Cycle, a Cycle about the House of Neleus at Pylos (reflected in the long reminiscences of Nestor in the Jliad) and many other stories that form the basis of many of the fifth-century Athenian tragedies, and the subject matter of both black and red figured pottery. Homer’s awareness of the other parts of the oral tradition can be seen in his brief mention of the Judgment of Paris, M. Davies, JHS

101 (1981): 56, and his many scattered references

to Heracles (Chapter V note 34). Once it is recognized that the Iliad and Odyssey constitute only one segment of the oral tradition, then it becomes clear that the writing down of one segment did not depend on the writing down of any other part of it. The date of the written texts from the other parts of the Trojan Cycle does not date the transcription of the /liad and Odyssey we have today. Similarities which exist between the /liad and the Aithiopis can be understood to be the result of a common tradition and they do not necessarily date the writing down of

one as earlier than the writing down of the other (cf. note 20 in Introduction).

ENDNOTE 2 THE DATE OF PRIAM’S TROY AND THE HISTORICITY OF THE EPICS

The Trojan War, according to the Cypna, was brought about by Zeus in order to reduce the number of people, since he viewed the world as being over-populated; Schol. on Jl. 1.5; Janko, Commentary, 15.87-88; Evelyn-White, Hestod, the Homeric Hymns, and Homenca, p. xxxii, lines 496-97. If the cause of the war was

over-population, then its date must be put near the end of the Mycenaean Period sometime late in LH HI. Increased population can be deduced from the greater number of sites inhabited in the later part of this period compared to those of earlier times; Iakovidis, The Antiquanes Journal 58 (1978): 21-22. The pattern of habitation around the citadel of Mycenae indicates an increase in her population during the LH III B Period; Panagta Houses, 156. Sanders. Sea Peoples, 77, noting a similar increase

in population in the area around Pylos, discussed the consequences of over-population. A sudden increase in population is

dangerous in an agricultural community whose wealth, based

on land, has to be divided and subdivided as the number of members in the families increases. The frequent subdivision of the land in an over-populated agricultural community often creates friction among siblings and results in attempts to depose other members of the family in order to seize their land. A similar type of friction is reflected in some of the false tales told by Odysseus; Od. 13.259-72, 14.202-10. The placing of these events at the end of the Bronze Age is contrary to the date purposed by Vermeule in Troy and the Trojan War, ed. MJ. Mellink, 77-92. She suggested that the war took place at an earlier time when the Mycenaeans were expanding their influence in the Aegean world. Many of Vermeule’s conclusions were based on her concept that weapons such as boar’s tusk helmets and body shields were not in use at the end of the Bronze Age; this concept was challenged in Chapter II. If the date of the Trojan War is correctly placed at the end of the Bronze Age, then it is possible to theorize that the actual cause of the war was the desire for booty. Supporting evidence for this suggestion can be found in the repeated references to booty and to the looting of cities; ZI. 1.124-26, 9.128-30,

9.328-32; Od. 9.40-42. Possibly the most important booty of that period was bronze, which appears to have been in short supply at the end of the Mycenaean Age when the trade routes were disrupted by the coming of the Sea Peoples (cf. Endnote 3). The raids on Egypt, Od. 4.350-66, 14.248-84,

17.427-38,

and the references to looting can be interpreted as the poetic expression of the disruptions caused by the Sea Peoples. Over the years, various attempts have been made to identify the level at Troy which can be equated with Priam’s city. Blegen and his group of archaeologists originally identified Priam’s Troy as the level called Troy Vila which used the reconstructed fortifications of Troy VIh as its defensive system; for fortifications of Troy VI cf. Troy II, 81-113; for settlement of Troy Vila cf. Troy IV, 1-135. For general, brief discussion of the identification of Troy VIla as Priam’s Troy cf. Mylonas, L444. 215. This identification has come under increasing criticism; Kirk, Commentary, vol. II, pp. 36 50; I.. Foxhall and J.K. Davies, eds., The Trojan War. Its Historicity and Context, Papers of the First Greenbank Colloquium, Liverpool, 1981 (Bristol, 1984); debate by M.I. Finley, J.L. Caskey, G.S. Kirk, and D.L. Page published in JHS 84 (1964): 1-20; popular book by M. Wood, Jn Search of the Trojan

War (New

York and Oxford,

1985); and

review of

Wood’s book by D. Easton, Antiquity 59 (1985): 188-95. The critics of the identification of Troy VIIa as Priam’s Troy claim that it was too small, too crowded, and too deficient in substan-

tial buildings and large open spaces. In the /had, Priam’s Troy was portrayed as having lost her wealth of former years; Jl. 18.285. Her walls had been substantially damaged and had been rebuilt with the aid of Poseidon and Apollo; //. 7.452-.53. She had been under siege for ten years, /l. 2.134, and the

women were no longer free to go to the springs outside the city to do their laundry, J/. 22.153-56. Finally, legends indicate that after the city was destroyed her inhabitants were enslaved or

killed and those who escaped fled from the area. The city known to archaeologists as Troy VIla was less wealthy than the

former level. The and were used by area of this later level. The major

walls of the earlier period had been repaired the later inhabitants. The original, excavated city was no smaller in size than the previous buildings of both Troy Vih and Troy Vila

appear to have been situated near the top of the hill and these

Endnote: The date of Pram’s Troy and the Historicity of the Epics are no longer preserved due to later disturbances. The recent excavations at ‘Troy suggest that a lower city, whose full extent is still unknown, existed in both the Troy VIh and VIla levels; M. Korfmann, Studta Trotca 2 (1992): 123-46; 3 (1993): 1-2, 14-21; 4 (1994): 1-50; P. Jablonka, H. König, and S. Riehl, Studia Trowca 4 (1994): 51-73; Jablonka, Studia Troica 5 (1995):

39-79; 6 (1996): 65-96. The excavated buildings of Troy VIIa had been hastily built, they were crowded in next to the fortification walls, and they had an unusual capacity for storage. This type of building can be seen to be the result of a sudden increase in the number of people who desired to live within the fortified area and who were uncertain of future supplies. A similar situation was described by Thucydides, 2.16-17, at the ime Athens was under siege by the Spartans when many people {from the countryside sought protection within the fortifications of the city. After the destruction of Troy VIIa by fire, her inhabitants fled and the next level was occupied by people of a different culture. During the final destruction of Troy VIIa, various individuals who had been killed were left within the ruins of the city without benefit of formal burial. The untended skeletons bespeak of the terrible calamity which fell upon the city. Od. 11.51-78 gives clear indication that proper burial was considered important and in the archaeological record unburied skeletons are rarely found. I myself know of only two other examples, apart from ones found in Crete and at Pompeii; these

are the ones from Mycenae following the major earthquake of LH

III B and a second lot from Morgantina after the destruc-

tion of the city by the Romans in 211 B.C.; R. Stillwell, 47.4 67 (1963): 169-70. So rare is the discovery of skeletons outside of graves, that their presence in Crete is often associated with human sacrifice; cf. for example P.M. Warren, Archaeology 37 (1984, July/August): 48. The archaeological evidence closely parallels the evidence of the epic tradition and it suggests that if

Priam’s city is to be identified with the excavated remains, it should be identified with the remains of Troy Vila. These similarities between Troy Vila and Priam’s Troy were originally recognized by the excavators; Troy IV, 10--12. The only new question which has been raised since Blegen’s original identification of Priam’s city is the date of the destruction of Troy VIla and whether it occurred after the destruction of the Mycenaean centers on the Greek mainland; S. Manning

135

that Troy VIIa, which immediately preceded it, must also be

dated to the LH III C Period. This sequence is based on the interpretation of the phrase “similar to the granary style.” Granary style pottery was decorated with sloppily drawn motifs of

the LH III B Period. Since all the cited examples from Troy were identified as local imitations of Mycenaean pottery, it is not known how quickly the local LH III B style at Troy degenerated into the later style identified as “similar to the granary

style” and therefore it becomes impossible to date Troy VIIb with any degree of accuracy. The most significant, datable, published piece from Troy VIIb is similar to a close style kylix found in a tomb near Pylos; Bloedow, fig. I no. 12 = Troy IV:2,

fig. 277 no. 27, to be compared to Pylos III, fig. 190 no. 1. This similarity suggests that Troy VIIb was inhabited at the same time as the area around Pylos. The date of the destruction of

Pylos has sometimes been placed in the LH III B Period, but this date is not secure. Very lite painted pottery was found in the palace and much of the unpainted pottery found does not have close parallels to the pottery from the Argolid. The few pieces of painted pottery found in the palace have parallels with the LH III C Period and these must indicate that the palace was destroyed after the end of LH III B; Pylos I, 419, 421, figs. 385, 395 no. 457. Some of the mainland citadels were destroyed in LH III B, but the cause of those destructions has

not been firmly established. Sometime within the LH III B period a major earthquake destroyed parts of Mycenae. The clearest, published evidence for this earthquake comes from the Panagia Houses; cf. Panagta Houses,

154-55. This same earth-

quake appears to have destroyed the houses in the area of the West House; the pottery from these houses according to E.W. French (per. coll.) is similar in date to the pottery from the earthquake destruction of the Panagia Houses. Large parts of the citadel at Mycenae were rebuilt after the LH III B earthquake. indicating a continued prosperity in the area. Whether Tiryns suffered from the same or later earthquakes is not clear, but parts of the citadel of Tiryns were clearly inhabited in the LH III C Period and a fairly large settlement lay outside its fortification walls in both LH III B and III C; E. Zangger, AJA 98 (1994): 189-212. These signs of habitation clearly indicate a continuation of the Mycenaean society at Tiryns. Whether the

zeitschrift 63 (1988): 23-53; C. Nylander, Antiquity 37 (1963):

palace at Tiryns was inhabited in the LH III C Period has been questioned, but it is hard to believe that such a large area within the fortifications was allowed to remain empty when the rest of the city was so heavily populated. The palace at Mycenar was definitely occupied at the beginning of the LH III C Peri-

7-10. These conclusions have been questioned; S. Hiller, Studia

od; Mylonas, Hesperia 33 (1964): 352- 80; cf. also Page, JHS 84

in Homer: Readings and Images, cd. Emlyn-Jones (London,

1992),

117 42. Attempts have been made to date the pottery of Troy Vila to the LH

III C Period:

E.F. Bloedow,

Praehistorische

Trowa \ (1991): 153. Pottery motifs from Troy Vlla were cited by Bloedow to prove his LH III C date for Troy Vlla. These motives, however, can be shown to have also been used earlier in the LH III B Period and thus none of this pottery must necessarily be as late as the LH III C Period; cf. Troy IV:2, figs. 242-48, to be compared to Furumark, F.M 57 and 61; comments made by E.W. French, quoted by Bloedow, 32; and the comment made by M. Korfmann that there “is little differentiation” between the finds of late Troy VI and those of Troy VIIa,

(1964): 17 20. The occupation of the palace indicates the continuation of the society at that site. Whether other sites suffered

from the earthquakes which damaged Mycenae and Tiryns remains unclear; for other possible earthquakes on the mainland cf. K. Kilian in Problems in Greek Prehistory, ed. E.W. French and K.A. Wardle,

134 and n. 2. The archaeological evidence

Aegacum 12 (1995), 178. Bloedow also tried to date some of the pottery from the later city of Troy VIIb as late in the LH II] C

does not support the hypothesis that the mainland citadels were no longer functioning at the time Troy VIIa was destroyed. The date of the destruction of the mainland citadels cannot be used with any degree of confidence as evidence for the association of Priam’s Troy with an earlier level. Troy VIh was identified by its excavators as a city which had

Period because the sherds were originally described by the

been destroyed by earthquake because of the condition of her

excavators as being “similar to the granary style.” Since Bloedow dated Troy VIIb late in the LH III C Period, he argued

fortification walls.

“Troia: A Residential and Trading City of the Dardanelles” in

Digitized by Google

Mycenae

A major earthquake also seriously damaged

some time before the end of LH

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

II B; cf. Panagia

136

TALES OF HEROES: ENDNOTE 3

Houses, 154-57. In the Panagia Houses the walls constructed after the earthquake were built at a higher level than the earlier

single mention of the Ionians in one of the catalogues in the Ikad (Chapter V note 149) and a few possible, vague references

walls. During the process of reconstruction, the mud

brick

to four-horse chariots which might have been introduced dur-

debris of the damaged walls was spread over the ground thereby raising its level and it was on this higher level that the new walls were built. This same rise in level was noted in the Ramp House at Mycenae indicating the reconstruction after the earthquake included buildings within the citadel. The houses of Troy VIIa also lay at a significantly higher level than those of Troy

ing the Geometric Period (Endnote 4). Other minor reflections of later periods might be embedded in the texts, but these are so few and so nebulous that they are hard to identify (cf. Chapter

VIh. This rise of level at Troy forms another indication that the

earlier enemy Easton, but the

city had been destroyed by earthquake and not by action, despite the disbelief in the earthquake voiced by Antquity 59 (1985): 190--91. It may be mere coincidence possibility that both areas suffered from the same series

of earthquakes should be considered. Mycenae,

according to

the archaeological record, appears to have recovered from the LH III B earthquake more successfully than Troy VIh. The

III note 188, Chapter V note 161, Chapter VI note 16). Cen-

tures separated the Mycenaean Period and the introduction of alphabet when it became possible to write down the epics. Although the language and the formulae changed during the years following the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization (Endnote 10), it is striking that during the years of oral transmission almost no additions of contemporary events were included within the fabric of the epics. This almost complete exclusion of later historical events suggests that the general outlines of the Trojan Cycle were already established before the final collapse of the Mycenaean civilization.

Lion Gate, the western extension of the fortifications, the Trea-

sury of Atreus, and the Tomb of Clytemnestra at Mycenae were constructed after the earthquake. These signs of strength certainly indicate a strong, powerful society at Mycenae. The reconstructed Troy VIIa, however, appears to have been no larger or grander than the earlier city and signs of a strong, powerful society are absent. It may be that the weakened condi-

tion of the city brought about by the earthquake gave the Mycenaeans their opportunity to capture Troy. The Hittite records have revealed a long association and rivalry among the

ENDNOTE BRONZE AND WEALTH

3

IN MYCENAEAN

GREECE

It is often stated or implied that the wealth of earlier Mycenaean times no longer existed in the LH III B Period and that the country was impoverished long before the end of the Latc Bronze Age; cf. for example Dickinson, G&R, second series, 33

Achaeans, the ancient city of Troy, and the Hittites themselves.

(1986): 24. This view seems to be based largely on the absence

A weakened Troy VIh with her walls hastily reconstructed to form a new level called Troy VIIa might have been a temptation too strong to resist by the Achaeans. For the Hittites and the Mycenaeans in Anatolia cf. Cline, Satling the Wine-Dark Sea, 68-77, 121-25; S.P. Morris, 474 93 (1989): 532-33; Mellart in

of rich grave finds from the later period and it ignores the wealth implied in the enlargement of the fortifications at Mycenae and Tiryns, the construction of some of the later tholos tombs in the area of Mycenae, and the expanding inhabited area outside the fortification walls at Mycenae in the LH III B

Pista Ern eis Tedpyiov E. Mulavav, 1, 74-84; Schachermeyr,

Mykene und das Hethiterreich, H.G. Güterbock, AJA 87 (1983): 133-38; Troy and the Trojan War, ed. M,J. Mellink, 33-44. If the ancient legends originated in the Mycenaean Period, then they should reflect the historical events of that period. One clear example of an event in the epics which has been verified by archaeological research is the destruction of Mycenaean Thebes before the fall of Troy; /l. 4.406-8; Mylonas, MALA,

217-18. Another historical event can be identified in JI. 4.51-54, where Hera suggested to Zeus that he lay waste her beloved citics of Sparta, Argos, and Mycenae in return for the

destruction of Troy. In view of the subsequent collapse of these cities and the fall of the Mycenaean civilization, it is inevitable that ancient audiences viewed her statement as a forecast of coming events, contrary to the opinion of some modern commentators. Reluctance to accept this association appears to stem from a determination to separate the events in the epics from the history of the Mycenaean Period. Hera’s statement, however, is important, because it is almost the only hint in the [tad that the Achaean civilization would soon fall and it may be that it is one of the latest historical elements (apart from the socalled Athenian interpolations) which is preserved within the epics we have today. Another indirect reference to historical events which occurred after the fall of Troy can perhaps be seen in the statement made in the Cypna that Zeus wanted to depopulate the world. Depopulation of areas inhabited during the Alycenacan Age represents one of the most conspicuous characteristics of the beginning of the Dark Age. Finally there is the

Period; Panagia Houses, 4, 6, 156; Mylonas,

MAfA,

12-22,

28-34, 120-.25; E.W. French, BSA 58 (1963): 47-49; Verdelis, Mycenae Tablets Il; Wace, Mycenae Tablets Il. In these discussions

no allowance is made for the fact that the Shaft Graves alone of the rich graves at Mycenae survived intact. The tholos tomb found at Vaphcio by Tsountas in 1888 is well-known for its two famous gold cups but the same cist which contained the gold cups also held bronze and silver vessels, bronze tools and weapons including an inlaid dagger, stone and alabaster vascs, carved gems, a necklace of amethyst beads, and rings of gold, bronze, and iron in addition to clay vessels and discs of bronze

and lead. In the chamber, overlooked by the looters, were more carved gems, a variety of gold beads, additional amethyst

beads, silver pins, gold rings, fragments of inlaid daggers, and remains of ivory; Mylonas, MAfA, 125 27; Tsountas, Ephemens 1889: 130. 72. The Cuirass Tomb at Dendra, by now well-known to Homeric scholars, had partially collapsed; the debris of this collapse covered the bronze panoply, but it also covered assorted weapons, bronze vessels, and silver cups which were overlooked by the later looters of the tomb; Cuirass Tomb. The finds from another tomb at Dendra, the so-called Royal Tomb, were even more

spectacular. With the “king” were found five swords with hilts decorated with gold, ivory and agate, spearheads, bronze

knives, carved gems, gold and silver cups plus additional bronze

Endnote: Bronze and Wealth in Mycenaean Greece vessels and the broken fragments of an ostrich egg decorated with silver, gold, bronze, and glass paste. The “queen” was buried with jewelry and a gold-lined silver cup. The “princess” had an elaborate necklace of gold beads and additional gold was used for her belt and personal adornment. Pieces of gold, faience, ivory, glass paste, and terracotta lay scattered within

the tomb indicating that the tomb had been partially looted yet so rich were the original grave goods that much was left behind; Persson, Royal Tombs at Dendra. Although the tholoi at Mycenae had lain open for centuries, modern scholars studying these monuments still found assorted fragments of gold, amber, bronze, alabaster, seal stones, boar's tucks, and other indications of wealth; so vast were the posses-

sions originally buried in these tholoi, that from the Tomb of Clytemnestra alone, the last one in the series, over 100 fragments of gold were catalogued; A.J.B. Wace, BSd 25 (1921-23):

283-402. Numerous scraps of gold and ivory were found in the palace workshop within the citadel at Mycenae; Mylonas, Hesperia 35 (1966): 419-26. Masses of ivories and numerous carved stone vases were found in the House of Sphinxes and the House of Shields outside the fortification walls; Wace, BSA 50 (1955): 182 87; 49 (1954): 236-41; Tournavitou, The “Jvory Houses” at

Afycenae, 123 206. The great Mycenaean palaces at Pylos, Tiryns, and Mycenae were enlarged and reached their present form during the LH II B Period; Mylonas, A444, 58-73. To this same period belong the extensive fortifications at Tiryns, the Lion Gate with

its adjacent cyclopean walls at Mycenae, the fortification at Gla, and those in Athens;

lakovidis, LHC,

3- 13, 24-37,

76--84,

92 9; Mylonas, Ephemeris 1962: 1-199. The elegantly appointed palace at Pylos bespeaks of a wealth reflected in the Linear B tablets and in some of the nearby chamber tombs; Pylos III, 71-134; Pylos I, 34; Ventris and Chadwick, Documents, 332-47,

nos. 235 47, PY Ta711-Ta716. These remains give ample evidence of continued affluence throughout most of the Mycenaean Period even though this prosperity is rarely reflected in the preserved graves. It has become increasingly clear that the tombs in the later part of the Mycenaean Period must have been systematically reopened and the grave goods removed; Xenaki-Sakellariou, Oi Oarlaumroi

tagot

tov Muxnvov,

119-25,

279 -86; Mylonas,

MMA, 33, 133; Desborough, The Last Mycenacans, 32 40; Alin, Das Ende der mykenischen Fundstatten auf dem griechischen Festland, 22, 38-45, 53, 55-68; Blegen, Prosymna, 338; Wace, BSA 25

137

but larger weapons from this same period were not found. Evidence for the collection of metal scraps for reuse was found in the Bronze Age shipwrecks excavated off the coast of Turkey; G.F. Bass, C. Pulak, D. Collon, and J. Weinstein, 474 93 (1989): 1-29; C. Pulak, A7A 92 (1988): 1-37; G.F. Bass, ‚National Geographic 172 (1987): 692-733; AJA 90 (1986): 269-96; Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck (Philadelphia, 1967). The Linear B tablets from Pylos also tell of the collection of metal and suggest that a shortage of bronze existed; Chadwick, Mycenaean World, 155; Ventris and Chadwick, Documents, 351-59, nos.

253-57,Jn series. A scarcity of bronze is indicated and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the graves were opened in an attempt to find more bronze. The discovery of a single complete bronze cuirass in contrast to assorted, partially complete examples of this type of armor from the Mycenaean burials (cf. Chapter II, note 268) supports this conclusion. The opening of tombs in an attempt to find bronze accounts for the fact that few of the large bronze weapons survived from the later part of the period, but their absence in large numbers from the archaeological record does not necessarily mean that they ceased to be made or that the society had became impoverished long before the end of the Mycenaean Period. As long as the bronze supply lasted, there is no sound archaeological reason to suppose that large, important, bronze weapons and armor were not also made, just as bronze vessels and inlaid

objects continued; cf. fragmentary inlaid bronze and fragment of bronze cup from area of the Panagia Houses at Mycenae, Panagia Houses, 119, 122-23, nos. 170, 202. A LH Ill A sherd found in Tiryns, fig. 42, gives clear evidence that boar’s tusk hel-

mets and large body shields were still in use. Fragments of a bronze cuirass from a LH III B-C tomb excavated at Kallithea (Chapter II, note 268) supply additional evidence for the continuation of substantial bronze weapons. This same tomb contained bronze greaves, fig. 7/, a long sword, fig. 78, a bronze spearhead and fragments of boar’s tusks. Bronze used for weapons and vessels must ultimately be associated with trade since tin is not found on the Greek mainland. At the end of the Mycenaean Period there is ample evidence for the collapse of the trade routes, which must have eventually led to a shortage of bronze. The clearest evidence of this disruption comes from Egypt where the invasion of the Sea Peoples was described and illustrated on the Temple of Medinet Habu built by Ramses III; for representations of the Sea Peoples cf. Wachsmann, [NA

10 (1981): fig. 1-7, 8; for discussion cf. Sanders, Sea

Peoples, H.H. Nelson, The Earliest Historwal Records of Ramses III,

(1921-23): 352; Evans, The Prehistoric Tombs of Anossos, 103. One

Medinet Habu, vols. I-II (Chicago, 1930, 1932).

of the chamber tombs dug by Verdelis at Mycenae, Ergon 1962:

The source of Mycenaean wealth has frequently been debated among archaeologists studying the prehistoric period; Drews, The Coming of the Greeks, O.T.P.K. Dickinson, The Origins of Mycenaean Civilization (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 49, Göteborg, 1977), 53-56. It is generally recognized that trade, especially trade with Egypt and Crete, and the produce

94-103, is a good example of this practice; it contained twenty skeletons and only two vases; clearly these two vases do not represent the total number of objects originally buried. It is not

known when the LH III B graves were opened but the dearth of LH III B vessels from the graves is obvious; cf. Wace, Chamber

Tombs, 164-87. Caches of weapons and bronze tools from late in the Mycenacan Period have been found; these were discovered hidden in the citadels, not buried in graves; Mylonas, MMA, 77, fig. 67; Praktika 1961: 155; Ergon 1959: fig. 104; Tsountas, Ephemeris

1891: 25-26; Kavvadias, Deltion 1888: 83. Catling, Cypriot Bronzework,

135-36,

in his survey of bronze weapons

from

Cyprus observed that many bronze spearheads and daggers were preserved from the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries,

from agriculture were in some way involved; Iakovidis, The Antquaries Journal 58 (1978): 17-19, 22-23, 26; Cline, Sailıng the Wine-Dark Sea, 95-99. Wace, Mycenae, 114, already noted that

ancient copper mines were found north of Mycenae near Nemea and he suggested that the discovery and exploitation of such mines may have been one source of wealth. The silver mines at Laurion in Attica were already being exploited in the prehistoric period; P. Spitaels in Thorikos VIII, 1972/1976 (Gent, 1984), 151-74; C.E. Conophagos, Le Laurium antique et la

138 technique grecque de la production de l’argent (Athens,

TALES OF HEROES: ENDNOTE 4 1980), 60-65;

these must have added to the prosperity of the period. In recent years, study of the Linear B tablets concerned with wool has

indicated that the production and sale of woolen cloth was another probable source of affluence; Barber, Prehistorie Textiles, 330. 57; Sanders, Sea Peoples, 55-58; Killen, BSA 59 (1964): 1-15. Increased wealth through trade in agricultural and

painted pottery is indicated by the excavations of

Akerstrém

(Chapter I note 336) and his Swedish colleagues at Berbati,

Wells, Runnels, and Zangger, Archaeology 46 (1993, January/February): 54-58, 63. There exists another possible source of wealth which has been entirely overlooked. One of the natural resources on the Greek mainland, which is entirely absent in Egypt, is its pine trees. Pine trees produce resin and resin was used extensively for mummification in Egypt. In the earlier part of the Bronze Age, Egypt probably got most of its resin from Lebanon with whom the Egyptians had had a long association. Near the end of the Middle Helladic Period, at the time when Greece appears to have first begun trading with Egypt and to have accumulated a great increase of wealth, Egyptians suddenly began using much more resin for mummification. Resin continued to be used in increasing amounts for most of the remainder of the Bronze Age until the end of the Mycenaean Period, when the use of resin for mummification in Egypt stopped abruptly. Cf. R,J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology (Leiden, second edition, 1965), III, 196-201. The cessation of the use of resin in Egypt

coincided with the collapse of Mycenaean trade and wealth. It is tempting to associate the increase in Mycenaean wealth with the increased use of resin in Egypt and to see trade in resin as another source of this wealth. Disruption of this trade at the end of the period becomes another factor in the collapse of Mycenaean wealth. Resin in solid form was found in the shipwreck excavated at Ulu Burun off the coast of Turkey,J. Mills, and R. White, Archaeometry 31 (1989): 37-44, and although the ship

appears to have been Near Eastern in origin, it does verify trade in resin during the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Trade with Lebanon as well as the possibility that this trade was being usurped by the sea ports of the Aegean may perhaps be reflected in the Egyptian texts. In one of these, cedar from Byblos (Lebanon) was commissioned by an official of Thutmos III; J.B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastem Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, second edition, 1955), 243, cf. also 241; but in a second, slightly later text the lament was made that no one

trades with Byblos anymore and that oil for embalming comes

later when gold was discovered in that area. Control of gold mines by the Greek mainland explains the otherwise rather peculiar observation made by E.N. Davis that gold objects found on the mainland were made of solid gold whereas their counterparts from Crete were only covered with gold foil; E.N. Davis, The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware, 331-33. It might also be the explanation for the unequal classification of prizes in one of the Funeral Games of Patroclus, /l. 23.269, where the second prize was a mare, the third prize was a tripoid, and the fourth was two talents of gold. Cf. Richardson, Commentary, 23.269, for other attempts to explain this prize. Control of gold mines by the city of Mycenae helps to explain the domination of the Argolid by the rulers of Mycenae and it becomes the impetus for the epithet “Mycenae rich in gold” found in ff. 7.180, 11.46; Od. 3.305.

ENDNOTE 4 THE NUMBER OF CHARIOT-HORSES

Although the number of horses used with the chariots has sometimes been questioned, the use of two horses as the standard is implied by the use of the dual form of the word for horse to mean a chariot. This same number is implied by several passages in the Jad

where references to the horses themselves are

mentioned. Agamemnon in JI. 8.290, pleased with Teucer’s actions on the battlefield, offered Teucer, who had been using the bow, a chariot with two horses if the Achaeans succeeded in

taking Troy. This offer of two horses clearly implies that chariots on the battlefield normally had two horses. The chariot used

by Patroclus also had two horses; J. 17.443. These were probably the same two horses, Balius and Xanthus, which were used afterwards by Achilles; //. 19.400. In the Funeral Games of Patroclus, Menelaus competed in the chariot race with two

horses named Podargus and Aethe; /l. 23.293-300. These examples make it clear that chariots in the /liad, whether used on the battlefield or in contests, were driven with two horses

similar to the chariots portrayed in Mycenaean art. For general discussion of chariots and horses cf. Ducrey, Warfare in Ancient Greece; Littauer and Crouwel, Antiquity 57 (1983): 187-92; M.A. Littauer, 474

76 (1972):

145-57; Crouwel,

Chariots, A. Aker-

strom, Opusdth 12 (1978): 19-37; J. Spruyette, Etudes experimentales sur l’attelage (Paris,

1977); J.K. Anderson, 474

79 (1975):

175 -87; Greenhalgh, Early Greek Warfare, J. Wiesner, ArchHom (1968) F: 1- 44; Delebecque, Le cheval dans l’Iliade.

from far away Keftiu; Pritchard, 441. The production of resin

In the pictorial vases painted late in the Mycenaean Period

in Late Bronze Age Greece is indicated by the identification of resin in the Linear B word k-ta-no, ‘T.G. Palaima in Thalassa:

chariots were normally illustrated carrying two people, a driver

L'Egee préhistorique et la mer, ed. R. Laffineur and L. Basch (Liege, 1991), 279. Trade in manufactured or agricultural goods, while undoubted-

ly important, produces a gradual increase of affluence and not the sudden wealth seen in the grave circles at Mycenae. This sudden increase at the end of the MH Period seen in the shaft

and a spearman, Vermeule and Karageorghis, Mycenaean Pictonal Vase Painting, 121-30, 181-87, just as they are portrayed in the /liad. The number of horses represented on these vases is always one (with the second horse hidden behind the first) or two, but never do any of the illustrations depict more than two

horses. Two horses also form the normal complement in Mycenaean terracotta figurines of chariots (Chapter II, note 239) in

graves has the appearance of originating in the discovery of a new and unexpected resource which became a valuable com-

contrast to the figurines of later periods.

modity. The possibility that gold was discovered in the prehistoric period in an area controlled by Mycenae has never been seriously considered, even though the sudden enormous addi-

that four horses were occasionally used to draw the chariots which would make them similar to chariots used after the end

tion of gold objects found in the graves is very similar to the parallel phenomenon which occurred in Macedonia centuries

Kirk, Commentary, vol. I, p. 9 and 8.185, tried to demonstrate of the Mycenaean

Period. This same opinion was also

expressed by Luce. Homer and the Heroic Age,

118. Kirk cited as

evidence 11. 8.185. In that sequence Hector first urged the Tro-

Endnote: Penelope and Political Power through Alarriage

139

jans, Lycians, and Dardanians to attack the Achaeans and then

into battle. Cf. Wiesner, ArchHom (1968) F: 63-72 for Geomet-

he spoke to his horses whom he called by name; four names were mentioned. This could represent an example of a geometric four-horse chariot but there is another possible explanation.

ric chariots and 114-24 for horse back riding; J.K. Anderson. Ancient Greek Horsemanship (Berkeley, 1961). For the riding of horses in the Mycenaean Period cf. note 246 in Chapter Il.

The text did not say that the four horses were attached to a sin-

Snodgrass, Archaic Greece, 97-98, noted that Homer must have

gle chariot. It can be argued that Hector had two sets of warhorses and that he was using one set and his second in command was using the second set. If both chariots were side by side, Hector can be visualized encouraging the horses before beginning his attack, just as earlier he had urged on the Trojans, the Lycians, and the Dardanians. Hector’s speech to the horses can be understood to be poetic embellishment. The chariot forces were being individualized by the use of the horses’ names, just as routs discussed in Chapter II were personified by the actions of a specific hero. The simile beginning at Jl. 15.680, also cited by Kirk in his attempt to establish the use of four horses, referred to the amazement of people seeing four horses harnessed together with the driver leaping from one to another. The reaction of the bystanders suggests that the action was a stunt intended to pro-

known about horse back riding and the status association with owning and riding horses; he observed that the epics make no reference to this bias and he suggested that Homer consciously suppressed all indications of this attitude.

duce amazement; the use of four horses could be understood to

be part of the stunt. This simile has no bearing on the normal behavior of whatever period it may be said to reflect. Whether the four horses in the simile were harnessed to the same chariot,

furthermore, has been questioned by Janko, Commentary, 15.679-84 and 15.680. Four horses were also mentioned in Od. 13.81, but the inference

there was that four horses can go faster than the two horses normally used with chariots. Kirk included Jl. 11.699 in his list of possible references to fourhorse chariots; cf. also Hainsworth,

Commentary,

11.699-700;

Janko, Commentary, 15.679-84. Nestor in one of his long reminiscences mentioned four horses and a chariot which had been

sent to Elis to compete in a race. The word for chariot in Homeric Greek, however, always appears in the plural form whether a single chariot or several chariots were intended; Autenrieth, Homenc Dictionary, s.v. 1. 6xo¢; Cunliffe, Lexicon, s.v. öxea. Thus it can be argued that originally more than one chariot was intended and that two sets of chariots each with two

horses were sent to Elis and not the single chariot with four horses as understood by Kirk.

Janko, Commentary, 15.679-84, cited additional passages which he thought might indicate four-horse chariots, but once again

the references are vague. In /l. 23.171, Achilles sacrificed four horses on the funeral pyre of Patroclus. This could refer to a chariot-team of four horses, but it can also be understood to mean that two teams of two horses were sacrificed. The sacri-

fice of two teams of horses would then be paralleled by the two dogs which were also sacrificed even though there had been a total of nine dogs which accompanied the heroes to Troy; /l. 23.173-74. Janko also cited Jl. 5.271 as an example of a four-horse chariot. In that reference it was stated that Anchises, having six horses, kept four for future breeding (even though two would obviously have served the same purpose) and he gave two to Aeneas. Since Aeneas was using the horses for his chariot, the clear inference is that he was driving a two-horse chariot. In the Dark Age chariots were apparently not used for fighting, which makes references to four-horse chariots in battle also misplaced for that era, and in the later periods horses were ndden

ENDNOTE 5 PENELOPE AND POLITICAL POWER THROUGH

MARRIAGE

In contrast to the bard’s rich characterization of the men, the

women in the epics were portrayed with much greater simplicity. This is perhaps most clearly seen in the epithets used for Odysseus and Telemachus which were so much more varied and vivid than those used for Penelope (cf. Chapter VIII). Penelope was portrayed as the determined head of the household. She had kept the estate intact for twenty years. She neither shared the power with her father-in-law, Laertes, nor sought

aid from her own family. In order to fend off the suitors, she conceived the notion of weaving a shroud for Laertes and succeeded in this ploy for almost four years before she was betrayed by one of her servants; Od. 2.89-95, with 2.91-92 =13.380-81, 2.94-95 =19.139-40, 2.94-110 =24.129-42 and 24.144-46. Yet at the same time, she was portrayed as being so emotionally weak that she burst into tears at the very thought of her husband who had been gone for years; Od. 17.102-3 =19.595-96, 20.58, 20.91-92, 21.55-57. So great was her sorrow, even after twenty years, that she was soothed only by the intervention of Athena;

Od.

1.363-64 =16.450-51=19.603-4

=21.357-58 and 18.187-90. Such contrasting moods and emotional instability combined with materialistic shrewdness and

competence are simply not realistic from the female perspective. The personality of Penelope must have been developed by male bards who saw her as the ideal wife, resolute in maintain-

ing her family’s possessions and position but at the same time, weak and emotional in memory of her long absent husband. A male bard is also suggested by the double standard of morality among the gods and goddesses (cf. note 71, Chapter V) and by the different types of epithets used for the men as opposed to those used for the women (cf. note 105, Chapter VIII). Penelope’s characterization was in deliberate contrast to the personalities of Clytemnestra and Helen; they represented the less than ideal wives, who had succumbed to temptation, thereby destroying the continuity of the family and creating a break in the family’s position and hence a diminution of its wealth. The association of women and wealth in the epics is made clear during the negotiations for the duel between Paris and Menelaus when references to the return of Helen also include the return of all her possessions; /l. 3. 70, 92, 282, 458. This equation of

women with wealth is another male attitude which a female bard would not have tolerated. The position held by Penelope when Odysseus left for Troy was obviously much greater than the position of women in Classical Greece, but whether this reflects a specific period to the exclusion of others has not been considered. (Cf. also Od. 7.53,

6.313-15, for positions held by Clytemnestra, who held the power when Agamemnon left for Troy, and Arete, who was

140

TALES OF HEROES: ENDNOTE 5

honored for her wisdom even though her husband remained by her side.) The notion of a wife holding the power while the men fought far from home is not appropriate for the Dark Age when life was centered on agricultural pursuits. Wars during the Dark Age were local and consequently the outcome was known almost immediately. The concept of Penelope’s continued faithfulness presupposes a time when men were away taking part in

an extended trip for purposes of trade or fighting for long periods of time, far from home. Her attitude presupposes a historical setting which makes it realistic that the fate of a specific individual was not immediately reported and wives often remained ignorant of their husbands’ fates for long periods of time. Such ideas are suitable to the bellicose spint of the Mycenaean Age when trade was widespread and the men were absent for prolonged periods in contrast to the Dark Age when pursuits were more regional.

In Od. 11.174-79, Odysseus questioned his mother, asking her

whether Penelope still lived alone with their son keeping safe his possessions or whether she had wed someone else. Odysseus’ question associates Penelope’s living alone with the preservation of his wealth. The clear implication is that this wealth was no longer safe if she remarried, which must mean that the wealth was no longer controlled solely by Penelope if she remarried and from his viewpoint she was no longer in a position to return it to him should he return. His question makes it clear that wealth could be acquired through marriage and that second marriages were not only possible but were to be expected. Cf.

also /. 9.144-52, where Agamemnon offered of one of his daughters in marriage along Here again the possibility of the acquisition marriage is made clear. Other references to

Achilles the hand with seven cities. of wealth through this type of situa-

tion can be found in Od. 7.312-14, 4.21 1-12.

150, tried to argue that the suitors

The speech of Andromache concerning her son’s position

seeking marriage with Penelope were not interested in the land but only in the position of the king. In a pre-industrial, agricultural society such as the one portrayed in the Odyssey, no matter which period was being reflected, the possession of land meant wealth. In such a society it is almost inconceivable that the suitors were not interested in the land. The suitors may have said that they were only interested in Penelope’s hand in marriage,

should Hector be killed makes clear that children too young to

Finley, Historia 6 (1957):

as Finley pointed out, but they could scarcely admit openly that

they wanted to marry her for Odysseus’ land and possessions. Their claim was shown to be false by the fact that they plotted to kill Telemachus upon his return from Pylos; Od. 4.659-74. When Telemachus stated that Eurymachus was eager to marry

Penelope and to seize the rights and powers of Odysseus, Od. 15.519-22, the clear implication is that marriage to Penelope would confer power and wealth upon her new husband. Penelope’s request for gifts from the suitors, Od. 18.275-80, indicates that she clearly understood the suitors’ aims. She in turn decided to use their greed to bolster the wealth of her family. Odysseus’ reaction, Od. 18.281-83, emphasized her intention

and showed Odysseus’ approval of her maneuver. Penelope's desire to gather wealth for her family must have been for the benefit of Telemachus. If it had not been for her son, then there would have been no reason for her to go to such lengths to avoid remarriage. Telemachus’ antagonism to the suitors was obviously influenced by the fact that they were reducing his inheritance; cf. Od. 1.161- 62, 1.245-50=16.122 -27=19.130-35, 2.55-57=17.534-36, 3.314-16=15.10-12. If Telemachus had not anticipated inheriting the wealth, then he would not have

been concerned that it was being consumed. Along with the wealth, obviously the land was also to be inherited. Od. 18.259-70 repeat the instructions Odysseus gave Penelope twenty years earlier when

he left for Troy. Should he fail to

return, she was to avoid remarriage until Telemachus grew to be a “bearded man.” Once Telemachus was an adult, Penelope was given permission to marry whomever she wished. The implication of these instructions is that both wealth and position were to go to Penelope's husband if Telemachus was deemed too young to rule. Once he was old enough to rule and was firmly established as king, Penelope was told by Odysseus that she could do as she wished. Such instructions are significant only in terms of preserving the wealth as well as the position for Telemachus. At the same time this callous indifference to Penelope’s own desires and possible happiness once again suggests a male bard,

inherit lose their rights; //. 22.490-506. When Clytemnestra married Aegisthus, her children were disinherited and Aegisthus usurped the power; Od. 3.304-8. The history of the scepter held by Agamemnon, which he had received from his uncle Thyestes, who had received it from his brother Atreus, JI. 2.100-7, suggests that there existed a time when Agamemnon

was considered too young to rule and so the power passed to the brother instead of the son. Since Agamemnon eventually became king of Mycenae through hereditary right, his younger brother Menelaus, who became king of Sparta, must have achieved this position through marriage. Helen had two brothers, /l. 3.237-38, but neither became king presumably because they had been considered too young to rule. The same situation forms the basis for the Oedipus Cycle. Oedipus, having rid Thebes of the Sphinx, was proclaimed king by a grateful populace and consequently he married the widowed queen who was, unknown to him, his mother. Obviously the widowed queen was much older than Oedipus and it may be presumed that the marriage took place in order to legiumize the kingship conferred on Oedipus. A similar difference of age occurred between Penelope and her suitors, which suggests that

their motivation was personal gain. In Od. 18.212-13, the suitors’ desire for Penelope was mentioned and great beauty on Penelope’s part is implied, but she remained among the suitors so infrequently and showed so much reluctance to their presence that love as a motivating factor is clearly excluded. It has been said that there are two different types of marriage settlement in the epics; cf. I. Morris,

CA 5 (1986):

105-11;

Snodgrass, JHS 94 (1974): 114-25; Kirk, Songs of Homer, 189; Stanford, Commentary, 1.277. One consisted of goods given to the bride and her family by the groom

in exchange

for the

bride; in the Odyssey the gifts given by the suitors to Penelope are supposed to represent this type of setdement. The second type of settlement represented the dowry or other goods given

by the bride’s family to the groom. When Telemachus referred to his mother returning to her family with all her goods, Od. 2.133 34, these goods are suppose to represent the second type of setllement ef. also Od. 1.277 78=2.196 -97. The possibility that two different types of marriage setdement were mentioned does not necessarily mean that one of these must be post-Mycenacan. They could equally well arise from a pre-Greek or Minoan custom combined with a Mycenacan custom or they could represent different social mores in two different parts of

Endnote: Atlantis and the Land of the Phaeacians the Mycenaean world. The marriage settlement involving the daughter of a very wealthy man or a monarch, furthermore,

need not necessarily follow the mores of the rest of society. The giving of land or other kinds of wealth to the prospective son-inlaw by a rich or noble family can be understood to have been done on behalf of the daughter. Her new husband, because of the added wealth, would be in a more powerful position and thus better able to provide for her comfort and safety. If this kind of settlement had been made with Odysseus, then Penelope, should she have been forced to leave against her own will, would naturally have wanted to take her possessions with her. No woman,

whatever the period, would do otherwise if she

could avoid it! In my view, however, it is not altogether clear whether two mutually exclusive types of marriage settlements were intended; cf. Bowra, Homer, 49-51, who thought that the two types might

possibly have overlapped, and Richardson, Commentary, 22.49-51, who thought that an exchange of gifts occurred between both sides. The giving of gifts to visitors from distant lands is well-attested in the Odyssey. Possibly this type of gift was meant in Od. 1.277-78 =2.197-98; cf. also 6.26-28, which also implies the giving of gifts at a marriage. Gifts given to the bride, on the other hand, can be understood to be part of the process of wooing. The suitors’ gifts to Penelope were clearly intended to win her favor. The bridal gifts, the pupia Eöva, of Il. 16.190, 22.472, and the arepeicra Edva of Jl. 16.178, can also be

understood as presents given to the bride to win her favor. In Jl. 9.146, when Agamemnon claimed that gifts would not be necessary, he can be understood to be saying that the wedding between his daughter and Achilles would be arranged by the father; the groom would not have to woo the bride. When Telemachus stated that he would have to pay Icarius a great price if of his own will he sent Penelope away, Od. 2.132-33, he added to this statement that he would suffer great evil from her father and that his own mother would invoke the furies against him, Od. 2.134-36. These statements imply that should Penelope be forced to leave against her own desires, these actions would be considered disgraceful and that they would be interpreted as showing a lack of respect for the elders in the family. The great price paid to Icarius need not necessarily refer to the return of the original bridal gifts. It can be interpreted as the price paid to atone for the disgrace brought upon Penelope.

141

logues and the description of Adantis as compared to the legendary nature of the Land of the Phaeacians cf. P. VidalNaquet in Myth, Religion and Soctety, ed. R.L. Gordon (Cambridge,

1981), 84-94, 201-15. An accurate rendition of an

ancient tradition was not the purpose of Plato’s discussion of Atlantis; Szlezak, Studia Troica 3 (1993): 233-37; G. Naddaf,

Phoenix 48 (1994): 189-209. Much of the detailed description of geography and government described by Plato may have been an addition made to create an appropriate example for the philosophical argument and it need not have been part of the original tale as reported by Solon. The accuracy of Plato’s tale can be shown to be questionable. The power attributed to the king of Atlantis was far greater than that achieved by any Minoan center or of any other prehistoric Aegean power. An element of epic exaggeration in the Egyptian tale is a necessary ingredient of the Adiantis legend, no matter where its origins lay. A confusion between the inhabitants of Thera and the nature of the Sea Peoples attacking Egypt in the reign of Ramses III, a not uncommon type of conflation of events of different centuries in oral tradition, may account for the so-called attempts of Atlantis to subjugate Egypt. For Sea Peoples cf. Wachsmann, [JNA 10 (1981): 187-220; Sanders, Sea Peoples, S. Giten, A. Mazar and E. Stern,

eds. , Mediterreanean Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE (Jerusalem, 1998). The location of Atlantis beyond Gibraltar was probably an addition of a later period when the actual location of the island had been forgotten. Atlantis and the Land of the Phacacians may represent two different traditions which developed out of the same event, one remembered in Egypt and the other preserved in the Odyssey. Cities overcome by volcanoes are rare in any period and that this was the fate of Thera cannot be denied. It was also the fate of Atlantis as remembered by the Egyptians and the apparent fate of the Land of the Phaeacians as told in the Odyssey. This possibility of separate traditions using different names developing from a single event was recognized early in this century by Homeric scholars such as Leaf, but more recent scholarship has generally ignored this idea and has tried to identify the Land of the Phaeacians as a figment of Homer's imagination; cf. among others Forsyth, Atanas, 111.

Many similarities between the two tales exist. Perhaps the most significant is that in both descriptions the ruling families were descendants of Poseidon, Critias, 113-14; Od. 7.56, and in both

ENDNOTE 6 ATLANTIS AND THE LAND OF THE PHAEACIANS

It was suggested in Chapter IV that the island of Thera be identified as the prototype for the Land of the Phaeacians, but Thera has also been associated with the disappearance of Atlantis; C.G. Doumas, Santorini, A Guide to the Island and its Archaeological Treasures (Athens, 1980), 62-63; Thera, Pompeu of the

Ancient Aegean, 151-56; Antiquity 48 (1974): 110-15; P.Y. Forsyth, Atlantis, The Making of Myth (London, 1980); E.S. Ramage, ed., Atlantis, Fact or Fiction (Bloomington and London,

1978); J.V.

Luce, The End of Atlantis, New Light on an Old Legend (London, 1969); A.G. Galanopoulos and E. Bacon, Atlantis, The Truth Behind the Legend (London, 1969); S. Marinatos, Kpntxa Xpovıra

4 (1950): 195-213; Antiquity 13 (1939): 425-39. The story of Atlantis, told to Solon by the priests of Sais in Egypt, is preserved in Plato's dialogues, Timaws and Cnhas. For discussion of the myth of Atlantis as part of the Platonic dia-

the sanctuary of Poseidon seems to have been placed in a prominent position, Critias, 116; Od. 6.266. Atlantis was known for its great abundance of crops, Critias, 110-11, and in the

sacred grove of Poseidon there were many trees which bore fruit twice a in the Land dant water, Critias, 108;

year, Critias, 117, similar to the garden of Alcinous of the Phaeacians, Od. 7.112-32. Both had abunCritias, 111; Od. 6.87, 292-93, more than one king, Od. 8.390, a harbor filled with ships, Crikas, 117;

Od. 6.268-69, 7.43, and a land which lay like a promontory jutting out into the sea, Cras, 111; Od. 6.263-64. In Adantis there was a bronze wall, Cntas, 116, and bronze walls were to be

found in the palace of Alcinous, Od. 7.86. Adantis also had walls of gold, silver, and tin, which can be compared to the Alcinous’

doorway of gold, silver, and bronze, Od. 7.89-90. Gold statues existed in Atlantis, Crittas, 111, which can be compared to Od.

7.100, where golden youths held torches in the palace of Alcinous and Od. 7.91-92, where gold and silver dogs made by Hephaestus guarded the doorway.

142

TALES OF HEROES: ENDNOTE 7

The names in the two traditions are different but not necessarily mutually exclusive. Atlantis was the name of an island,

wick noted that Knossos, Lyktos, and Phacstos, mentioned in

Timaios, 25, which contained

the Cydonians, mentioned in Od. 3.292, 19.176, can be associated with the town Kydonia of the tablets. In both the /liad and

many

cities, Crittas,

119. The

nomenclature in the Odyssey is vague and the name of the island itself is not clear. In Od. 6.3, it is called the Land and the City of the Phacacians whereas in Od. 6.8, the founder Nausithous was said to have settled his people in Scheria. Whether Scheria was the name of the peninsula, the region, or of the entire island is not clear.

ENDNOTE CRETE

7

In the Catalogue of Ships, /. 2.649, Crete was described as having a hundred cities, GAAou 0° of Kprimv EratöunoAtv apgevepovto, whereas in the Od. 19.173. 74, it was said to have many men, past counting, and ninety cities, Ev ö dvOparot | RoAACi, AREIPEOOL, Kai Evviikovta röAnec. The lesser number

of cities mentioned in the Odyssey as compared to those in the Iliad has sometimes been interpreted to mean that the Odyssey was later and that it reflected a more impoverished, later period in Crete than an earlier /liad which depicted a richer, more prosperous time. Cf. for example Hope Simpson and Lazenby. Catalogue of Ships, 115, who pointed out that the cities named in the Catalogue are situated in the central part of the island; they

interpreted this to mean that Idomeneus ruled Knossos when Crete was still wealthy and powerful whereas the Odyssey represented an impoverished Crete in the period after the destruction of Knossos. In the /liad, the description emphasized the cities and seven cities were named as the places from which the men had come plus all those men who came from elsewhere on the island. The passage in the Odyssey, on the other hand, described the people and five different groups of people were identified as living in Crete. The different emphasis of the two descriptions suggests that they relied on two different sources and that a difference in wealth or in period was not intended. If two different sources had been used, then it can be understood

that the two sources simply named different numbers as representative of large groups of cities in contrast to the many fewer which existed in the Argolid, Lacedaemonia, or the area around Pylos. The choice of number may have been partially influenced by the metric requirements of the verse and the numbers given were probably not meant to be understood as mathematically exact, just as the word hecatomb in the sacrifice at Pylos, Od. 3.1-59, was not meant to be an exact number (cf. discussion in Chapter V). Although the numbers are different in both sources, some

things are the same.

In both, Crete was

described as very populous and wealthy; there is no hint in the Odyssey that Crete had become impoverished and the earlier archaeological interpretation of Crete as an impoverished land in the later phases of the Bronze Age has been challenged; J. Bennet, 474 94 (1990): 208 11. Knossos, Gortyna, and Phaestos, which were mentioned in the Catalogue of Ships, also appear in the Odyssey, Od. 19.178, 3.294, 3.296. Only one other city on Crete was mentioned in the Odyser and that is the sea port of Amnissos: Od. 19.188. ‘This name is not found in the Iltad but it does occur in the Linear B tablets from Knossos: Ventris and Chadwick, Documents, IH: ch. also J.K. MeArthur, Place-Names in the hnovsus Tablets, Identification and Location, Minos Supplement 9 Salamanca, 1995;, 22.23. Ventris and Chad-

the /lad, were among the names found in the tablets and that the Odyssey, the leader of Crete was Idomeneus, the son of Deucalion; ff. 12.117, 13.451; Od. 19.180. Deucalion was identified as the son of Minos, //. 13.451-53; Od. 19.178-79, who was the son of Zeus, /l. 13.449-50, which might explain how Minos was

able to rule when he was only nine years old, Od. 19.179. These similarities suggest that both the /liad and Odyssey referred to a prosperous, prehistoric Crete and that the differences between them are a question of emphasis and not of date. Finley, The World of Odysseus, 17, suggested that Odysseus’ description of Crete in his false tale to Penelope, Od. 19.172-77, reflected the arrival and intermingling of the Greeks with the pre-Greek people of Crete. Such an intermingling may well have been intended, but this occurred when the people who first wrote Linear B at Knossos settled in Crete in the prehistoric period. This was not the period Finley intended to suggest but it is the first documented arrival of the Greek-speaking people in Crete and thus Finley's interpretation does not necessarily place the Odyssey at a later ime than the period of the /liad. There is a great deal of evidence for Mycenaeans in Crete, albeit it was ignored by Evans and many of his followers. The clearest documentation of their presence is the existence of Linear B writing. Since Linear B is Greek, the presence of Mycenaean Greeks from the mainland ruling and dominating Crete is clear. For the presence of Mycenaeans on Crete cf. Iakovidis. The Antiquaries Journal 58 (1978): 20. At the time Evans was eval-

uating the evidence from Crete, he did not know that Linear B was an early form of the Greek language, though he did recognize that many changes had occurred in the culture during the last phases of the palace at Knossos; cf. M.P. Popham in Änossos, A Labyrinth of History, Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, ed. D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano (Oxford and Northampton, 1994), 92-93. The existence of the Dorians on the island, Od. 19.177, is some-

what disturbing archaeologically presence is hard and bibliography of the Greeks, 203-

but until the Dorians are identified both and philologically, the significance of their to evaluate. For a recent survey of scholarship concerning the Dorians cf. Drews, The Coming 25, and Sanders, Sea Peoples, 184-86.J. Chad-

wick, La Parola del Passato 31 (1976): 103-17, suggested that the

Dorians were already present in Greece long before the fall of the Mycenaean civilization. He noted the difficulty of postulating separate waves of Greek-speaking pcople spanning a period of over 800 years between the first group of Greek speakers bringing in the Ionian language and the last group speaking in the Doric dialect. For this sequence to have been possible Greck as a language must have developed somewhere outside of Greece before the first wave of people arrived in ca. 2000 B.C. This group must then have been followed by a second wave of people speaking in the Achaean dialect and finally, at the very end of the Late Helladic Period, by a third immigration of people speaking Dorian. Chadwick questioned how it came about that all three dialects used the same “loan words”

adopted from the language spoken by the earlier people living in this area. In his opinion these “loan words” must have been

adopted before the Greek language split into dialects. These observations led him to conclude that Greck as a language developed in Greece itself and that it represents a combination

Endnote: The Eating of Fish in the Homeric Period of the Indo-European dialect brought in by the invaders and the dialect of the pre-Greek people already living in the area. After the language had formed, he believes, it split into dialects

and gradually there developed a linguistic division between the rulers and the ruled. In support of his reconstruction he cited E. Risch’s observation that variants existed among the Linear B

scribes; E. Risch, “Les differences dialectales dans le mycénien” in Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium in Mycenaean Studies, ed. L.R. Palmer and J. Chadwick (Cambridge, 1966), 150 57. These variants seem to indicate two socially stratified dialects. Chadwick suggested that one of the variants represents protoDoric which became the language of the lower class Myccnaeans. As a possible indication of the inferior position of the Dorians, Chadwick pointed out that the Dorian hero, Heracles, was never portrayed as a king; he always served in an inferior position and acted on behalf of someone elsc. He suggested that the early Dorians went to Crete with the Mycenaean rulers who had initially conquered Crete and that these same Dorians were later responsible for the 1400 destruction of the palace at Knossos. For current evaluation of the evolution of the Greek language in Mycenaean Greece cf. New Companion, part II, 193-342. Additional evidence for the presence of the Dorians in Myccnaean Greece can be found in both the archaeological and the literary record. Nilsson, Cults, Afyths, Oracles, and Politics in Ancient

Greece, 51--69, observed that Athenian sculpture and vase painting make it clear that Heracles was more popular than Theseus in Archaic Athens; he believed that Heracles must have originally been Mycenaean in order to account for this popularity. This same conclusion was reached by M.S. Menkes, Herakles in the Homenc Epics (Diss. for The Johns Hopkins University, 1978). Demargne, The Birth of Greek Art, 282-83, rightly pointed out that the legend of the Return of the Heracleidae, which is supposed to represent the “Dorian invasion,” was not mentioned in

143

Mycenaean Palace at Anossos, Evidence for the Final Destruction in the III B Period (Stockholm, 1977). For summary of the evidence of the

latest prehistoric habitation in the area of Knossos cf. Popham in Anossos, A Labyrinth of History, ed. D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano,

157- 70. The discovery of a Linear B

tablet in Chania dating to the period of ca. 1250 B.C. suggests that some of the Knossos tablets may also date to this later period; J.-P. Oliver in Anossos, 4 Labyrinth of History, ed. D. Evely, H.

Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano, 166-68. If Idomeneus is identified as the ruler of this later phase, he becomes acceptable as a participant in a Trojan War taking place during the LH III B Period. Since Idomeneus was said to be the son of Deucalion. the son of Minos, he presumably had a hereditary right to rule at Knossos. This right might have stemmed from one of his Mycenaean ancestors marrying into the Minoan ruling class. Possibly an aristocratic Idomeneus won the support of the Dorians and with their aid he was able to reassert his power at Knossos.

The clash of two different groups of people on Crete seems to be indicated in Odysseus’ false tale to Athena; Od. 13.256--86. In this tale Odysseus claimed to have killed the son of Idomeneus, who had threatened to rob him of his booty taken

from Troy. As a result of his action he had to flee from the island, taking with him only a part of his wealth. The false Odysseus, who had been threatened with a loss of his booty, can be understood to represent the upper class of Mycenaeans, who were loosing both their influence and their wealth, and who were later to flee from the island, leaving the land to the

figure,

Dorians. Idomeneus and his son, having abandoned their Mycenaean associations in order to gain leadership of the rising lower class, can be scen as representatives of the Dorians, who were usurping the political power of the aristocracy and who were beginning to dominate Crete. If the Dorians and Heracles are Mycenaean, then there is no need to date the Odyssey later than the /liad, except for the two

who had been active in the period of Nestor’s youth, long before the time of the Trojan War. Thucydides, 1.12, did not

out above, can be explained in an entirely different way. Once

the epics. Homer considered Heracles a Mycenaean

mention the Return of the Heracleidae; he merely stated that 80 years after the fall of Troy the Dorians together with the

Heracleidae became masters of the Peloponnese. Demargne concluded that the story of the Return was a later Dorian invention. Thucydides,

1.9, made the additional statement that

the Mycenaeans, fearing the Heracleidae, offered Atreus the scepter of Mycenae. This statement suggests that the Heracleidae and thus the Dorians were already present in Mycenaean Greece and that they represented an important political force which was feared by the ruling, upper classes of the society. Demargne, The Birth of Greek Art, 218, discussed the difficulty of Idomeneus ruling from a Knossos generally thought to have been destroyed long before the advent of the Trojan War. For discussions of varying opinions of Idomeneus and his role in the Ihad cf. J.T. Hooker, JHS 89 (1969): 68-71. Demargne suggested that Idomeneus ruled from a Knossos which had been rebuilt after the great destruction of 1400. Although the dates and the phases of the palace at Knossos are still being debated,

the identification of a Late Minoan III B stirrup jar from the latest floor indicates that the palace continued to be used alter the destruction of 1400;J. Driessen, An Early Destruction in the Mycenaean Palace at Knossos, A New Interpretation of the Excavation Field-.Notes of the South-East Area of the West Wing (Leuven, 1990): Mirié, Das Thronraumareal des Palastes von Anossos, L.. Hallager, The

different numbers mentioned for the cities and this, as pointed Heracles is considered Mycenaean,

then his son Tlepolemus,

the ruler of Rhodes, //. 2.653, and his grandsons Phidippus and Antiphus, who led the troops from the southern Sporades, ZI. 2.676-79, no longer need to be considered misplaced, which solves a separate problem in the Catalogue of Ships.

THE

ENDNOTE 8 EATING OF Fish IN THE HOMERIC

PERIOD

The suggestion has been made that the eating of fish was not considered heroic and that references to eating fish must be a

late component in the cpics; Kirk, Commentary, vol. I, p. 9; Stanford, Commentary, 4.368-69; 19.109 14. The emphasis on sacrificial hecatombs in the epics, particularly the /had, Stubbings, Companion, 523-25, may possibly have influenced scholars to accept this view. For discussion of the theme of eating in the epics cf. Griffin, Homer on Life and Death, 14-21. People living in the prehistoric period in the Mediterranean did eat fish, since fish bones have been found in excavations of Early, Middle.

and Late Bronze Age sites in Crete, "Troy, and the Greek mainland; cf. Mylonas, Aghios Aosmay, 148 and references there cited. Fish hooks have been found in Early Cycladic sites and in the later mainland sites of Eutresis, Thebes, and Perati: lakovidis,

144

TALES OF HEROES: ENDNOTE 9

Tlepam, 354-55, 460, fig. 156. Men holding fish were portrayed on the Fisherman Vase from Phylakopi, S.A. Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, pl. 2, and on the wall paintings of Thera, Thera VI, pl. 85. In coastal communities the cating of fish may possibly have been common and hence of little interest to either the bard or his audience. The emphasis on meat in the epics should merely be seen as an indication that meat was considered more desirable than fish. The eating of meat as a special event can be understood to be a natural development in any society where refrigeration is not an option and where the slaughtering of an animal produces a surplus of meat signifi-

carded; cf. R.P. Martin, The Language of Heroes, 2; A. Parry, 1CS 20 (1966): 212. The richness and complexity of the Homeric epics in comparison to the surviving Serbo-Croatian heroic songs and the different intellectual climate of the two periods may have been partially responsible for the initial oversimplification of Parry's conclusions. For discussion of the different circumstances in which the two traditions developed cf. Bowra,

candy greater than the requirements of a single family. Stan-

do Epic from Banyango (Congo Republic) (Berkeley, 1969). Mozarı, another great creative genius from yet another period, even though fully literate, composed almost entirely in his head; he

ford, Commentary, 9.84, also noted that heroes were never said to eat fruit, probably for the same reason they were not said to cat fish. In the Odyssey, references to catching or cating fish occurred in similes or in times of crises when food was scarce: Od. 4.368, 10.124, 12.252, 12.331, 22.384; these make it clear that fish were eaten by the people in the epics. Od. 19.109-14 told of the benefits received by a country when it was ruled by a blameless king: the sea would readily yield up its fish, the earth would bear wheat and barley, the trees would be laden with

fruit, the flocks would have many young, and the people would prosper. This catalogue of benefits implies the eating of both fish and fruit. There are three further references in the Odyssey to lish which mentioned people drowning and being caten by fish, Od. 14.135, 14.480, 24.291, and one additional simile, Od.

5.53. In the /had, references to fish imply that the sea was full of them: Z. 9.4. 9.360, 16.746, 19.268, 19.378, 20.392, 21.22, 21.122, 21.127, 21.203, 21.353. 23.692. For two other similes

related to fish in the /ltad cf. I. 16.406 8, 24.80--82. This awareness also implies the cating of fish. ‘The hero’s horror of drowning, Hainsworth, Commentary, 9.4, must ultimately have been related to the lack of proper burial and the accompanying rites, Od. 5.303

12, 11.51

80, and not to an aversion to the sea

or to the eating of the fish themselves as sometimes implied.

ENDNOTE HOMER,

The

THE

ALPHABET,

AND

reconstruction presented

9

LITERACY

IN ANCIENT

GREECE

in this book is based on the

premise that Homer could not write, but that he had been so well-trained in the traditions of his clan that he could remember and organize a great mass of information into a single great

epic. It also makes a sharp distinction between the written text of the had and Odyssey, which is the text we have today, and the

Homer, 15-16.

The Mwindo epic, a long, complex, oral epic from an entirely different culture, illustrates the possibility of such a composition in an illiterate society; B. Biebuyck and K. Mateene, The Muci-

wrote down his compositions after he had fully developed them and he made almost no later changes. The concept of a blind Homer, which was widely accepted in the past, indicates that in antiquity literacy was not considered a necessary tool for poctic achievement, since obviously a blind poet could not write. A statement made by Pliny, £p. 9.36, reinforces the concept that the modern perception of the importance of writing as part of the creative process is vastly different from the view held in antiquity. Pliny described his method of composition in the following way: “I rise just when I find myself in the humour. though generally with the sun; often indeed sooner but seldom later. ... If I have any composition upon my hands, this is the time I choose to consider it, not only with respect to the general plan, but even the style and expression, which I settle and correct as if I were actually writing. In this manner I compose

more or less as the subject is more or less difficult, and I find myself able to retain it. Then I call my secretary, and ... I dictate to him what I have composed, alter which I dismiss him for a little while, and then call him in again and again dismiss

him.” Translation by W. Melmoth, revised by W.M.L. Hutchinson, Play (Loeb edition, 1915).

Wade-Gery, The Poet of the Ihad, 9 14, argued that the alphabet was specifically introduced in order to record the monumental composition of the Jliad. This view has occasionally been repeated and supported; cf. for example I. Morris, CA 5 (1986): 122; Finley, The World of Odysseus, 30. In slightly modified form it has recently been endorsed by Powell, /lomer and the Ongin of the Greek Alphabet. New Companion, 3 32. Powell in his reassertion of this view placed heavy emphasis on the fact that the Greek alphabet introduced vowels into the writing which greatly facilitated the writing of poetry. The use of vowels (or more specifi-

oral tradition, which was widely known and which formed the

cally the separation of the vowels from the consonants; Have-

basis of the two great epics recited by Homer. After the work of M. Parry, it is hard to believe that there are still some modern scholars who cannot accept that literary achievement need not

lock, The Muse Leams to Write, 60 61) makes the reading and writing of Greek or of any other language easier whether it be

prose or poetry. The obvious success of this system is made

be tied to literacy and that the concept of an illiterate Homer still remains incomprehensible to them; ct. Chapter VII, note 1.

clear by the later, wide-spread adoption by the western world of

The outstanding achievement of ML Parry and his follower A.B.

If the script had been imported specifically to record the events

Lord is clearly indicated by the frequent quotations of their

of the Trojan War, then it is difficult to understand why the epic, instead of relating an isolated event, did not start at the

work: ct. for example \V. Edwards and Sienkewiez, Oral Cultures Past and Present, who compare a wide variety of oral traditions and who constantly quote the work of Parry and Lord. Even

though the pioncering work of Parn and Lord oversimplified some of the problems, ay forcefully argued by Shive. Naming Achilles, this does not mean that the entire theory should be dis-

the

Greek system with its separation of vowels and consonants.

beginning of the war and continue to the end. It ts a characteristic of the oral wadition to relate an isolated event within a single song. The history of an individual hero in the latter tradition is normally described in a series of songs, each covering only one episode, This ix clearly seen in the Gilgamesh epic from

Endnote: Homer, the Alphabet, and Literacy in Ancient Greece Sumer, one of our earliest recorded oral epic songs; Krammer, The Sumerians, 184; cf. also Jensen, Homeric Question, 34; Bowra,

47.154 (1950): 184-85. The oral approach to narrative composition

can

be contrasted

with

the written

approach

of

Herodotus and Thucydides who did start at the beginning.

145

concept that the earliest writing was used for mundane, mercantile purposes and once again emphasized the importance of the use of long and short vowels in the writing of hexameter verses. He supported the view that the alphabet was the work of one man

and

he suggested

that the script in imitation of

related events more or less chronologically, until they

Phoenician tradition was developed to write hexameter verses

came to the end. The episodic nature of the oral traditions was apparently not understood by Heubeck, Odyssey Commentan, vol. I, p. 12; he suggested that the poet of the had introduced the concept of relating a single event into epic tradition. Aristotle,

on dedications made to the gods. It is difficult to believe, however, that a single individual made so many dedications to the

They

gods that the effort of creating a special script to mark these offerings was warranted.

Robb recognized that the writing of

the best of

one’s own name is one of the earliest attempts made by a per-

Greek oral tradition concerned itself with individual episodes. He criticized the Cypna and the Little Iliad because they did not contain a unifying theme but were a collection of many events occurring within a specific sequence of time. The chronological approach of these two epics, which separates them from the rest of the epic tradition, suggests that the composers of the Cypria and the Little Ihad were influenced by written literature and it may be that these two epics were written down by their own composers. All other known early scripts in the western world developed first for the recording of information used for commercial purposes. Since the alphabet came from Phoenicia and contacts with Phoenicia were based on trade, it is logical to suppose that the earliest use of the Greek alphabet was also for mercantile purposes, even though these are no longer preserved. An origin associated with sea trade explains the carly, rapid spread of the alphabet in almost identical form over a wide area which

son first learning to write, but he failed to recognize that such

Poetics, 23.5-7, made

extended from

it clear that in his opinion

Italy to Athens, Rhodes and presumably

the

an effort was doomed to failure by anybody using the Phoenician script whose name began with a vowel. Attempts to write the names of many of the gods such as Athena, Arcs, or Apollo

were cqually difficult. Apart from proper names, there are a large number of Greek words which begin with vowels and many of the moods and tenses of the Greek verbs are differentiated by vowels or diphthongs. Any application of the Phoenician script for the writing of Greek makes clear that the diflerentiation between long and short vowels in the writing of hexa-

meter verses is minor compared to the other uses of vowels in the language. The attempt of a single individual whose name began with a vowel to write his name provides ample albeit a rather mundane motivation for the separation of vowels and consonants in the development of the Greek alphabet. This new-found ability of writing a name in Greck is reflected in the many early inscriptions which record the owner of an object on which the inscription was inscribed, Robb, 8, and indeed the

Phoenician coast where the alphabet must have originated. Early written mercantile records served to inform the agents in foreign ports of the consignment within the ship, thereby insur-

earliest known writing in the Greek alphabet belongs to this group of inscriptions, Ridgway in The Archaeology of Greek Colontsation, +1. The frivolous nature of its origins is revealed in the

ing the safe arrival of the entire cargo. Once

verses referring to drinking and dancing in the early writing on

the ship had

arrived, the records were presumably destroyed since the information they contained was no longer useful, hence the scarcity

pots; cf. Robb, 60. The recognition of the more practical aspects of this new skill is indicated by the existence of early

of carly written documents which otherwise appears odd after the initial widespread, rapid introduction of the alphabet. For the early preserved Greek writing in the alphabet cf. Jeffery, Local Scripts and supplement by A.W. Johnston to her second edition. For discussion of earliest known examples of writing in the Greek alphabet cf. D. Ridgway in The Archaeology of Greek

writing over a wide spread area and its mercantile usage is sug-

Colonisation, ed. G.R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis (Oxford,

ple found no use for reading because there was simply nothing

1994), 41-43. For survey of opinions concerning the origins of the alphabet and the spread of literacy cf. Heubeck, ArchHom 3 (1979) X; K. Robb, Literacy and Phaideia in Ancient Greece (New York and Oxford, 1994), 3-14. Confirmation

that the alphabet was originally used for mun-

dane purposes and not for literary ones might possibly be seen in the graffiti from Mt. Hymettos, one of the largest preserved bodies of early writing; M.L. Langdon, Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos, Hespena Supplement 16 (1976). These graffiti were written on simple, household pottery, Langdon, 49, which indi-

cates that the dedicators were not from the aristocracy but from the working class. These men would have been among the first

to learn and use the new script had it been initially introduced lor mercantile purposes. Some of the graffiti, furthermore, are obscene or trivial, Langdon, 47, which again indicates a utilitariin rather than a literary attitude towards the earliest writing of

the historic period. Robb, Literacy and Phaidea in Ancient Greece, 8 U1, rejected the

gested by the fact that these areas were close to the sea. Modern

scholars sitting in the great libraries available at the

major universities, in my opinion, have vastly overestimated the extent of literacy and its importance in antiquity. They overlook the fact that even after the alphabet was introduced, most pcofor them to read. The impetus to commit oral songs to writing was no doubt hindered by the lack of a reading public, whereas

the lack of reading material in turn retarded the spread of literacy. Concerning the spread of literacy in the Greek world cf.

among others R. Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, Oral Tradition and Writen Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 1989); Havelock, The Literate Revolution in Greece and tts Cultural Consequences, The Muse Leams to Write, Davison, Phoenix 16 (1962): 141 56, 219-33; Robb, Literacy and Phaideia in Ancient Greece,

99 251. R. Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, 128-36, noted that the use of written documentation varied widely in the carly

Greek cities. Sparta had almost no written laws and few public documents. Very few inscriptions have been found in Corinth and Thebes which suggests that these two cities also failed to use written documents as an important part of their political life. H.R. Immerwahr, Attic Senpt, catalogued all the preserved fragments of writing from Athens.

He noted,

176, that there

146

TALES OF HEROES: ENDNOTE 9

was a distinct increase in Athenian writing in the middle of the

sixth century B.C. He catalogued 181 examples of writing for the twenty year period between 550 B.C. and 530 B.C. in contrast to the 115 examples belonging to the two centuries imme-

diately preceding this period. So few were the inscriptions of the eight and seventh centuries in Athens, that Immerwahr,

15,

concluded that early Athens was “not a suitable location for the composition of the Homeric poems as some have thought” (Whitman,

Homer and the Heroic Tradition, 46 64). The great

increase in the numbers of inscriptions during the tyranny of Peisistratos, however, indicates that Athens had become a suit-

able place for the transcription in this later period. Limited literacy in Athens in the early sixth century can be deduced from a message of that date inscribed on the base of a

skyphos found in Athens; the message requests that Thameus put the saw under the threshold of the garden gate; M.L. Lang, The Athenian Agora, XXI: Graffiti and Dipint (Princeton, 1976), 8, B I. From the same deposit two other graffiti, written in a different hand, identify two vases as belonging to Thameus; Lang, 32, F 12--13. These two fragments suggest that the owner of the garden gate, the saw, and the associated house was the same Thameus for whom the message had been left. Since the saw was to be left out of doors, the logical conclusion is that the writer of the message, who wanted to borrow the saw, did not

have access into the house where the saw was kept. Consequently the message must have been left out of doors. It implies that an ordinary Athenian was not be able to read the message, otherwise there would have been no security in hiding the saw if its location were made clear to anyone who happened by. For discussion of limited literacy in the period immediately following the introduction of the alphabet cf. Lang in Nae Perspectives in Early Greek Art, ed. Buitron-Oliver, 65-79.

W.V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA and London, 1989), 52, suggested that the use of nonsense inscriptions on vases demonstrates a limited literacy since such inscriptions would obviously not have been acceptable to a fully literate society. He also noted, 46, that early inscriptions are generally very brief. He interpreted this to mean that writing was rare for ca. 250 years after the introduction of the alphabet and he estimated, 61, that less than 10% of the people in archaic times were literate. Havelock, Literate Revolution,

191-97, argued that

carly inscriptions on vases were arranged in such a manner as to enhance the artistic composition and not to be easily read, which again indicates a non-reading public for whom the vases were made.

In a period when litcracy was limited, the work of the men who transcribed the text of the /liad and Odyssey was far more dillicult and time consuming than is generally recognized in this

day of readily available secretarial help, portable recorders, and desk-top computers. Conceming the difficulties of transcribing an oral dictated text even in the modern period cf. Jensen, Homeric Question, 82. 86; Lord, Serbo-Croatian Songs, HI, 7 8: Singer of Tales, 125 28, 148: 50: 47.4152 (1948): 40-42. How much

more difficult this process must have been immediately following the introduction of the alphabet, when the skill was new, is rarely considered. Some of the problems which faced an eighthcentury scribe taking dictation from an cighth-century Homer were discussed by B. Kaox, in his Introduction to Fagles’ translaton of the Zhad, 2) 22. So dificult was the task, Knox conAuded. that a written cighth-centary text could have been writ-

ten down only by the bard himself. Because of these same difficulties, Kirk, Songs of Homer, 99, supported by Taplin, Homenc Soundings, 43, suggested that the epics were first preserved in memorized form and that the transcription of the text came at a later date. If this transcription took place in the second half of the sixth century when literacy was more wide-spread and skill

of writing more firmly established, then the difficulties, although still numerous, were considerably reduced. It has been suggested, by scholars who believe in an oral dictated text, that each book of the epics represented one song dictated within a single day; Jensen, Homeric Question, 88; Whitman, Homer and the Heroic Tradition, 249-309; Mazon, Introduction a

UIliad. More recently it was suggested by Stanley, Shield of Homer, 249

92, that the book divisions were established by a

sixth-century literate bard who reorganized, expanded, and embellished the traditional tales told by an eight-century Homer.

Eustathius on /l. 5.29, stated that the division into

books was the work of the Alexandrian Librarians. His statement is supported by Pseudo-Plutarch, Life of Homer, 2.4. The

absence of book divisions in the early papyrus manuscripts also indicates a later date for the introduction of such divisions; Hainsworth, Commentary, vol. III, pp. 57-58; S.R. West, Ptolema-

ic Papyn, 20-22; Bolling, AVP 42 (1921): 258-59. If the book divisions were made by the Alexandrian Librarians, then the length of each book has no necessary relationship to the length of the original dictated sessions. Some of the divisions, especially those which end at night and begin again in the morning, for example Books 7 and 8 of the /lad and Books | and 2 of the Odyssey, probably do coincide with breaks in the dictation. The same juxtaposition of night and day occurs within Book 4 of the Odyssey at 305-6 and in Book 3 at 490-91; these probably also mark the end of a dictated session even though they do not fall at the end of a current book. The beginning of Book 18 of the Odyssey with its introduction of an entirely new character, the public beggar Irus, probably also forms the beginning of a new dictated session whereas the division between Books 21 and 22 represent no obvious break in the narrative and may not have been a break. When the Alexandrian Librarians divided the epics into books, they naturally chose the end of an episode, speech, or action as the obvious division between books. These probably did coincided with breaks in the dictations, as argued by Stanley, 249-59, but this must be viewed as coincidence and it does not date the introduction of the divisions. Lord, TAPA 67 (1936): 109, observed that in Yugoslavia during the earlier part of the twentieth century, the length of time each bard could sing without stopping varied greatly. The limit was usually somewhere between 20 to 40 minutes. The number of lines was also found to vary greatly; one bard was able to sing 500 lines in half an hour whereas another sang only 200 lines in

the same length of time. Parry found that the same bard often varied considerably in the number of lines he was able to dictate in the course of one day; Chapter VI, note 149. Since the rate of dictation in antiquity was determined by the speed of the scribes, who were printing in capital letters as was the custom in that period, the number of lines possible within a given length of ume was far less in ancient Greece than the number of lines sung by the modern, Yugoslav bards in a similar length of time. Notopoulos, AZP 73 (1952): 233

38, discussed a Cretan epic

transcribed in 1786. The tale had an epilogue of 34 lines added by the seribe, a characteristic feature of these Cretan chroni-

cles. In the epilogue, the seribe described the process. The bard

Endnote: Homer, the Alphabet. and Literacy in Ancient Greece recited the story and he, the scribe, wrote it down a

little each

day, Aıyaxı xa@e pépa, line 993 of the epilogue. The song consisted of 990 lines, yet so difficult was the task that it took many

days. Attempts to identify logical breaks in the dictation (discussed in Chapter VII), combined with the evidence of repeated lines (discussed in Chapter VII), led me to the conclusion that a sin-

gle session could on occasion have consisted of only two hundred lines, whereas on other days the sessions appear to have been longer, but never as long as an entire book. Some of the breaks, especially ones found close together, may represent a pause in the day’s dictation. Other breaks must have come at the end of the day’s session. These sessions may at first seem surprisingly short but they compare favorably with the length of some of the Homeric Hymns and the even shorter Odes by Pindar (cf. note 19 in Chapter VII). In the Cretan epilogue published by Notopoulos, AJP 73 (1952): 233-38, both the scribe and the bard were described.

Greater importance was placed on the scribe, who was superior because he could write, than on the bard who was merely repeating the traditional songs of his community. In the

description of the bard, the chief emphasis was placed on the scribe’s good judgment in picking that particular bard, who was praised because he remembered so well the tradition handed down to him. Any originality or possible poetic ability of the bard was not acknowledged. Although we may not agree with this evaluation, it serves to inform us of the attitudes of both

bard and scribe during a period of limited literacy when traditions were preserved by oral transmission. For position of scribes in early Greek society after writing became more widespread, cf. Robb, Literacy and Phaideia, 87.

Scribes capable of transcribing the /liad and Odyssey in Peisistratid Athens were highly educated for their period and conse-

quently they must have been greatly respected by a society at a time when literacy was limited. The names of the men who transcribed the Homeric epics in sixth-century Athens are preserved by Ioannes Tzetzes, De comedia Graeca, Ma 24-25, Mb 32-33, Pb 22. He reported that “four wise men,” whom he

identified as Epiconcylus, Onomacritus of Athens, Zopyrus of Heraclea, and Orpheus

of Croton,

were said to have put

together the Homeric poems for Peisistratos. The information given by Tzetzes was repeated by a Scholium on Plautus; Schol. Plaut. ed. Fr. W. Ritschl Opuscula I (Leipzig, 1868), 506; in the scholium Epiconcylus appears to have been mistakenly replaced by Conculus. (The collected references are published by Platthy, Sources on the Earliest Greek Libraries, 106-8.) Onomacritus

was presumably the same man who collected the oracles of Musaeus for Peisistratos and who was mentioned by Herodotus, 7.6. The information from Herodotus places Onomacritus in Athens and associates him with Peisistratos. Onomacritus was also named with Orpheus and Zopyrus, two other men mentioned by Tzetzes, as the author of the Orphic corpus, Clemens Alex. Strom.

1.21; cf. Allen, Origins and Transmission, 233-34.

Thus three of the names mentioned by Tzetzes were associated together in antiquity and all three were placed in the sixth century. This leaves Epiconcylus as the only name which does not occur elsewhere in Athenian prosopography and it may be that this name was garbled in the later tradition. If the four men named by Tzetzes are identified as the scribes who wrote down

147

the words of a sixth-century Homer, then the 72 men, mentioned in the same passage by Tzetzes, might conceivably have been men hired to make copies of the original to be given to the favorites of Peisistratos. Such copies are a necessary inference since the written text was well-known in Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries. The distribution of copies by Peisistratos to his friends helped to guarantee the preservation and spread of the text even after the Library of Peisistratos and the official copy of the epics had been seized by the Persians. An unusual group of four fragmentary statues of seated male scribes was found on the Acropolis and possibly these represent the four scribes who transcribed the oral text of Homer and were named by Tzetzes. Three of the statues were published by H. Payne, Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis (London,

[1936]), +7, pl. 118; Acropolis Catalogue Nos. 144, 146, 629. Payne described them as a “curious isolated group ... unlike anything else in Greek sculpture.” A very small fragment of a fourth statue was subsequently identified; A.E. Raubitschek, BSA 40 (1939- 40): 17-18; W.-H. Schuchhardt, “Rundwerke ausser den Koren,” 333, no. 455, fig. 392, in H. Schrader, Die

Archaischen Marmorbildwerke der Akropolis (Frankfurt am Main, 1939). Acropolis Nos. 629 and 114 were published more recently by M.S. Brouskari, The Acropolis Museum, A Desenptive Catalogue (Athens, 1974), 64, 104, figs. 112, 207, where she dated the stat-

ues ca. 520 and 510-500 B.C.; she identified the object held by No. 144 as a box containing writing instruments. For further discussion cf. H.L. Alford, The Seated Figures in Archatc Greek Sculpture (Diss. for the University of California at Los Angeles, 1978), 396-408. The fragmentary head of the largest and best preserved scribe, Acropolis No. 629, has recently been identified

by I. Trianti in The Archarology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy, Proceedings of an International Conference celebrating 2500 years since the birth of democracy in Greece, held in the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 4-6, 1992, ed. W.D.E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T.L. Shear, Jr., H.A. Shapiro, and FJ. Frost (Oxbow Monograph 37, Oxford, 1994), 83-86. Trianti has also

shown that this statue should not be associated with the dedicatory inscription earlier assigned to it by A.E. Raubitschek, Dedtcations from the Athenian Akropolis, A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C. (Cambridge, MA, 1949), 10-12, no. 6. This unique group of four statues, made within a short period of each other, represents a type occurring only at this time. The subject matter of the group suggests that they should be associated with some unusual occasion that involved writing. Treasurers of Athena existed throughout most of the sixth century so it seems unlikely that one group of four would have been espccially honored in this position in contrast to the others who also became treasurers. As a dedication to mark the writing down of the laws, the group is either too late for Solon’s laws or too early for the laws of Cleisthenes. The date, however, is appropriate for the writing down of a sixth-century dictation of the /lad and Odyssey. Although the Peisistratids were no longer honored in Athens at the end of the century, the repeated performances of the epics during the Panathenaic Festival must have gradually made evident the superiority of the Athenian texts. As a result of this recognition the scribes were newly honored and their

statues were placed on the Acropolis as a tribute to their achievement.

148

TALES

OF HEROES:

ENDNOTE 10

A group of bards, known in antiquity as the Homeridae, was

Cynaethus may possibly be understood to be part of the clan of the Homeridae living on Chios as opposed to the branch living on Samos; cf. Wade-Gery. The Poet of the Iliad, 29. Cynaethus and his associates were accused by the scholiasts on Pindar of

considered the special guardians of the songs of Homer. A wide

doing much

ENDNOTE 10 THE HOMERIDAE

variety of sources, beginning in the early fifth century B.C. and continuing into late antiquity, mention these bards: Pindar, .Nemea 2.1 and scholia on ode; Plato, Phaedrus, 252.b.4. Ion, 530.d.7, Republic, 10.599.e; Isocrates, Helen, 65.1; Strabo, 14.1.35; Plutarch, ‚Moralia, 496.d-e (which indicates that some of the Homeridae were female); Athenaeus, 1.22.b c, 15.669b c: Pseudo-Lucian, Demosthenis Encomium, 17.14; Aelius Aristides, 46.228, 47.327; Harpocration, s.v. "Opnpidaı:

Eustathius on Z. 1.6, 1.22, 1.399, 2.390, 2.709, 3.485, 4.17. The Homeridae are considered by some scholars to have been

a guild of bards; M.W. Edwards, Homer, Poet of the Iliad, 26; Kirk, Commentary, vol. 1, p. 2; Whitman, Homer and the Heroic Tradition, 81. But just as the Peisistratidae were the sons of Peisistratos and the Alcmaconidae were the sons of Alcmaeon, the

Homeridae were most probably the sons (or rejatives) of Homer as argued by Allen, Ongins and Transmission, +2 51. Wade-Gery, The Poet of the Iliad, 21, combined the two ideas: he suggested that originally the Homeridae were Homer's kinsmen but by the end of the fifth century they had become a guild of bards. The great popularity of the /liad and Odyssey suggests that a guild of bards concentrating on these two epics can be expected to have become large and prestigious. The number of ancient references to the Homeridae, however, are very few compared to the hundreds which name the bard called Homer. Had the Homeridae become a great guild of bards, they should have been named more frequently in the ancient sources. Had the Homeridae been the kinsmen of Homer, then it is understandable that their numbers remained small and the references to them remained few. Strabo,

14.1.18, and Plutarch, Lycurgos, +.3--4, inform us that

Creophylus was an early associate of the Homeridae. For discussion of these passages cf. Allen, Origins and Transmission, +7; Jensen, Homeric Question,

137; Burkert, MusHelv 29 (1972):

74-85. Creophylus has been identified variously as Homer’s

harm to the words of Homer;

this is the type of

accusation we might expect to find being leveled against a rival clan by the Homeridac of Samos. This same scholiast attributed the Hymn to Apollo to Cynaethus and it has been suggested by both Burkert and Janko that Cynaethus went to Samos to the court of the tyrant Polycrates where this particular hymn was

composed. The visit of Chian Cynaethus to Samos would obviously have angered the Samian Homeridae and it may be as a result of this visit that the criticism of him was so vehement in the later scholia. In addition to Creophylus and Cynaethus individual members of the clan appear to have been called Homer. A seventh-century Homer was visited by Lycurgos (cf. Endnote 11), whereas Arktinos appears to have studied with an eighth-century Homer, Suda s.v. Apxtivog. Herodotus, 1.53, placed Homer in the ninth century (cf. Introduction, notes 14-15). Other ancient

authors dated him to an even earlier period (cf. Introduction, note 16). Finally various references discussed in Chapter V1 place him in the sixth century.

Burkert, “The Making of Homer in the Sixth Century B.C.” in Papers on the Amasis Painter and his World, 43:62, after examining

early references to the oral tradition and epic subjects portrayed in vase painting, concluded that the Iliad and Odyssey as specific songs were not isolated from the rest of the epic tradition until the second half of the sixth century. He suggested, furthermore, that creative improvisation was replaced by the singing of fixed texts before the end of the century (cf. Chapter VI, note 25+). Although the argumentation for his conclusions is convincing. it

is difficult to reconcile his conclusions with the traditional eighth-century date for Homer which Burkert accepts. The suggestion that the singing of the fixed texts began in the later part of the sixth century implies creative improvisation in the earlier part of the century and hence the absence of early fixed texts. The most natural explanation for the emergence of the /liad and Odyssey as specific songs in the second half of the sixth cen-

son-in-law, friend, and host. His descendants were said to been

tury is the establishment of a fixed text at that time. Once an

the guardians of the Homeric epics and to have lived on Samos where they became the teachers of Pythagoras. This combination of ancient references suggests that Creophylus became one of the Homeridae by marriage and that either he, or one of his descendants, established a separate branch of the family on Samos, as distinct from the branch living on Chios; for origin of

eighth-century Homer is abandoned, Burkert’s observations can be used to support a sixth-century Homer creating a fixed text in Peisistratid Athens. (This same conclusion is suggested by the beginning of Pindar’s Nemean Ode 2; cf. Endnote 12.) Janko, Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns, tried to date the Hymns composed by the Homeridae in relationship to the works of Hesiod and to the /liad and Odyssey. Cf. also Finkelberg, CQ 38 (1988): 31-41, and comments in Endnote |. Linguistic studies have

the Homeridae on Chios cf. Strabo, 10.4.19, 14.1.35. The con-

clusion drawn by Burkert that Creophylus was a rhapsodist and an organizer of a guild is not accepted here since the whole

concept of a rhapsode demands a fixed text which only came into being, in the interpretation offered here, after the lifeume

of Creophylus. Cynaethus, another member of the Homeridac, was said to have gone to Syracuse: Scholia on Pindar, \emea 2.1. For discussion cl. Stanley, Shield of Homer. 291 93: Janko, Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns, 112 14: Jensen. Homeric Question. 153: Burkert. “Kynaithos, Polyerates, and the Homerie Hymn to Apollo” in Arktouros, Hellenic Studies presented to Bernard MAW. Ano, ed. GW. Bowersock, W. Burkert. and M.C.J. Putman, 53 62: Mus/lele 29 11972): 74 85: Notopoulos. IJ/P 83 (1962): 337-68.

generally assumed that the /liad and Odyssey were earlier than

Hesiod and the Hymns, Janko, 10, but this date has been disputed by Chadwick, JHS 110 (1990): 174-77, and Whatmough, AJA 52 (1948): 45 50. The latest linguistic feature of the two great epics is Attic and proponents of the carly date have yet to explain this addition. In the Hellenistic Period there was disagreement over the dating and at least one ancient opinion expressed by Ephorus placed Hesiod before the /Mad and Odysser, Janko, 194 95. In view of the conflicting evaluations of the linguistic evidence. the other evidence for the dating of the two great epics, in my opinion, need to be seriously considered and in the reconstruction presented here, this evidence points to

Endnote: Lycurgos a sixth-century date. Janko, 198, admits to linguistic idiosyncrasies developing in different parts of the Greek world. Hainsworth, Commentary, vol. III, pp. 1-31, discussed the diflerent types of formulae used in the epic language and he concluded, p. 34, that the “singer had to master a special language that

149

Aelian, 1-H. 13.14; owe SE AvKxotpyos 6 Aaxedaipovios aßpoav rpwrog Es thy EAAdSa Erönioe tv Opnpov noinativ. to dE ay@yipov tovto E& lwviac nvika anedhunoev fyayev. votepov dE Metoiotpatos ovvayayav anéonve thy IAıada cai “Odveoeıav. Aelian distinguished between the tradition known to

one clan of the Homeridae might have continued to retain the

Lycurgos and the /liad and Odyssey associated with Peisistratos. This passage seems to indicate that whatever it was that Lycurgos took back to Sparta, it was not the same Jhad and Odyssey

older forms of epic language which differed from the more

which Peisistratos had.

advanced bards. As niques to language

Plutarch, Zreurgos. 4.4; exei 5€ Kati toig Opnpov norrpacıv EvTUXOV RPWTOV. WS EOLKE, RAPA toig ExyOvoic toig KpeoovAou diatmpoupevois, kai Katidav Ev avtoic tis mpdc NSoviv Kai axpaciav Statpıßnnz TO noAitixov Kai nadeutiKOv OK EAGTTovog aElov onovdiic avapepiypevov, Eypayato mpoOvpex. Kai ouvnyayev ws Sevpo Kopidv. hv yap tig dn S6Ea tüv Endv auaupa napa toic “EAAnoy, Exextnvto 5€ ov RoAAOL HEPN Tıva,

deviated sharply from any vernacular and a special grammar.” Under these circumstances it becomes understandable that the

linguistic forms used by Hesiod and other groups of each generation taught the traditions and the techthe next generation of bards, they also taught the epic In the reconstruction offered here it is suggested that

the epic language retained the older linguistic forms for a much

longer period of time in some areas than it did in other areas. Although the traditions preserved by the Homeridae began in

the prehistoric period, the language itself appears to have been

Onopadnv Tis NoINOEWS WG ETUXE, Siagepowevng

continually changing: cf. Hockstra, Homeric Modifications of For-

autHvV Kai paAiota

mulaic Prototypes, and Hainsworth, The Flevibility of the Homeric Formula, A change in the language, however, does not necessarily mean

that the contents of the tradition were also changed.

Words of rank from the Mycenaean period may have been dropped when their meaning was no longer understood (cf. Chapter V, notes 150, 167), but later words for positions estal-

lished during the Dark Age or Geometric Period were not added to the epics. Technical terms appear to have been occasionally confused and sometimes conflated (cf. discussion of helmets in Chapter II) but references to later technology developed after the fall of the Mycenaean civilization were avoided. Other words such as 243, Chapter 318, Chapter not have been

avorata (note 33, Chapter I), opoco8vpn (note I), payes (note 292, Chapter I), peoddpat (note I), and otpertög (notes 38, +42, Chapter III) may fully understood by the bards but they continued

to be used. Special phrases such as ex 8 EAacav xpoBuporo Kai aißdovong Epıdounou (note 130, Chapter I) and xapn Kopowvtes

"Axanoı (note 154, Chapter III), which have particular significance in the Mycenacan Period but not in the later periods, were retained whereas other words of Mycenaean origin appear to have been dropped. Gradual changes in the language and in the formulae were almost inevitable during the centuries of oral transmission, but they effect the expression and presentation of the ideas and not necessarily the ideas themselves. The Homeridae may have regularly called on Zeus for inspiration whereas Homer called upon the Muses (cf. Endnote 12) but this does not

mean that the Homer believed in a religion which differed from that of the other Homeridae. He merely choose to express himsclf in one way whereas the Homeridae mentioned by Pindar used a different formula. In a similar way, the substitution of a

new word or new phrase need not mean a change in the content of the oral tradition nor do these new phrases necessarily

represent the introduction of new ideas.

ENDNOTE 11 LYCURGOS The

Spartan lawgiver Lycurgos was said to have taken the

poems of Homer from Ionia to Sparta. The collected ancient passage seem to indicate that Lycurgos took to Sparta the oral tradition concerning the Trojan War and not a written manuscript. Several ancient references refer to this event:

npw@toc Exoinoe

Yvapipnv dé

AvKovpyos.

Plutarch

informs us that the poetry was already known among the Greeks, although only a few had possession of certain parts of them. He went on to say that Lycurgos was the very first to make them really known. It can be inferred from these statements that Lycurgos brought back the entire Cycle and not just

parts of it, since his contribution went beyond that of those people, such as Peisistratos, who possessed only certain portions of it, that is to say the /ltad and Odyssey. Knowledge of the tradition in seventh-century Sparta extending beyond the /liad and Odyssey is suggested by the Spartan poet Aleman, who was said

by a scholiast on /l. 3.250 to have named Zcuxippe as the mother of Priam. Since this information is not included in either the /ltad or the Odyssey, Alcman must have had some other source of information. For other references by Aleman to the Trojan tradition cf. Apollonius, Pron. 83.3; Schol. on Ul. 3.39, 16.236; Aelian, Vid.

12.3; and Edmonds,

Lyra Graeca, 1,

60-61, 86-87, 106-7; Davison, TAPA 86 (1955): 13-14. Plutarch, Moralia, 1132.c, reported that Terpander was said to

have emulated Homer and to have set his words to music, which once again indicates a knowledge of the Trojan Cycle in early Sparta. Merkelbach, RAM 95 (1952): 31-32, suggested that the Lycurgos story was a late attempt to copy the Peisistratid tradition. Since both Aleman and Terpander seem to have been aware of the tradition, obviously someone took it to Sparta be it Lycurgos or another early visitor. Strabo, 10.4.19; G> gaci tives Kai ‘Ounpw diatpifovn Ev Xi. Katapat nalıv Eis tiv oixeiav. Strabo stated clearly that there

was a Homer who lived in the seventh century on Chios and that this man met Lycurgos. This Homer would appear to be different from the Homer mentioned by Herodotus who had lived not more than four hundred years before Herodotus’

time. These two references suggest that were several bards called Homer. One of them appears to have lived on Chios and to have been the descendant of the original Homer. A second rival group of bards, among whom Creophylus was named, appear to have lived on Samos; cf. Strabo, 14.1.18, 14.1.35. and Endnote 10. Strabo’s seventh-century bard called Homer is probably the same man mentioned in Dio Chrysostom, 2.45: EREI tor Kai dacıv avtov Exatvetnv Opnpov yevéo@at, Kai Tp@tov ano Kprimg ni tig lwviag Konica thy Roinoıv eig thy "EDAaöa. It was argued above, in Chapter VI, that the Trojan tales taken to Sparta were oral in format, since there is no trace of an Tonic

150

TALES OF HEROES:

manuscript, representing a copy of an early Ionic text, or of a Doric manuscript, representing a Doric transcription. The absence of a written text is also indicated by the Athens-Megara controversy over Salamis. The Spartans, at one point, were asked to arbitrate. One of the arguments used by Athens to substantiate her claim was based on the Catalogue of Ships. If the Spartans had had a written text at the time they were asked to arbitrate, they would almost certainly have produced that text in order to evaluate the claims made by both sides.

ENDNOTE 12 PINDAR Pindar in \emea 2.1

3, stated that the Homeridae were accus-

tomed to call on Zeus for inspiration: “OGev nep cai Opnpidar PANt@v ENEwv Ta ROAA aordoi Gpxovtar. Ards Ex Rpootpiov ... But the Jad calls on the Muses, not Zeus: "Eorete viv nor, Movoar OAvuntia Saat

Exovcat

11. 2.484=11.218=14.508= 16.112; cf. also 4. 2.761, which also mentions the Muses. The first line of the Odyssey also calls on the muse: "Avöpa pot Evvene, povboa, NOAUTPONDOV...

Four fairly important conclusions can be drawn from this contradiction. First: the Zliad was not the single grand composition

of an cighth-century Homer whose descendants memorized his epic preserving it for later generations, as has sometimes been suggested; had this been the case, Pindar would have called on

the Muses and not on Zeus. Second: the Homeridae must have had a group of songs which did call on Zeus, songs independent of the /liad and the Odyssey we have today. If the Iliad were cighth century in date, followed soon afterwards by the Odyssey, then these two works must have been only a part of a tradition consisting of many different epics received by the Homeridac

ENDNOTE 12 the isolation of the Zltad and Odyssey from the rest of the tradition in the sixth century. Pindar’s awareness of Homeric songs other than the /liad and

Odyssey is made clear by Pythia 11. 33, which refers to the prophetic powers of Cassandra. Although Cassandra was mentioned in both the Iliad and Odyssey as the daughter of Priam (Il. 13.366, 24.699; Od. 11.422) her special gift of prophecy was not revealed; Kirk, Commentary, 7.44-45. This additional knowledge

on the part of Pindar makes clear that he was aware of the larger corpus of Homeric songs and some of these must have been the songs which called on Zeus for inspiration. In another reference, Pythia 4. 277-79, Pindar purports to quote Homer. The exact quotation, because of the difference in meter used by the two types of poetry, does not occur in either the Ilad or the Odyssey but the fact that Pindar said he was quoting a specific person called Homer rather than the bards known as the Homeridae again suggests that he thought of Homer as an individual who was different in some way from the others in the clan. Had Pindar been referring to a very carly Homer, whom he knew only vagucly by reputation, it seems unlikely that he would have differentiated between the individual who founded the clan and the clan itself which continued the traditions and songs established by the early founder. A Homer brought to Athens by Peisistratos must have still been remembered in Athens when Pindar first went to the city to study and it

appcars that this is the Homer whom Pindar mentioncd. ‘Two other references made by Pindar also name Homer the individual as a separate person and not just as another member of the clan: ‚\emea 7.20

€yo SE RAEOV EAnoyaı Aoyov ‘OSuacEos ij radav 514 tov advent yeveo? "Oyunpov. Enel yevseoi oi notavg payava

Isthmia 4. 37-39, speaking of Ajax: GAA "Oynpös tor tetipaxev 1 avOparov ög avtov räcav opOdcaic apetav Kata papdSov Edpacev Beoreciov EREWV Aoıroig abUperv. Gepvov Encoti tr: cogia SE KÄERTEL Rapdyoıca pVG0IG °

from the original Homer. Third: for Pindar to have made the

statement about Zeus, the songs sung by the Homeridae must have been more memorable than the Zliad and the Odyssey, which seems unlikely since these songs are no longer preserved, or else the /liad and Odyssey we have today must have formed a separate, isolated segment of the tradition in Pindar’s time. The separation of the Jlad and Odyssey from the rest of the songs of the Homeridae suggests that the two epics had been fairly recently composed and that they had not been fully incorporat-

24:

scribed in the sixth century under Peisistratos. Fourth: if the

Because these passages specifically mention Odysseus and Ajax they are thought to be the earliest preserved literary references to the /liad and Odyssey we have today; this association was first made by the scholia on Pindar. It is understandable that the Odyssey in Pindar's ode should be described as giving great fame to Odysseus, since he is the central hero of the epic, but it is somewhat odd that Pindar should have singled out Ajax alone from the many heroes said to have fought at Troy and whose exploits were described in the /ltad. In both the /liad and Odyssey, Ajax was described as being sec-

Homer who dictated the /had and Odyssey can be dated to the

ond

ed into the corpus of songs sung by the Homeridae at the time

Pindar was writing. This is exactly the type of differentiation which is to be expected if indeed the epics had been first tran-

only to Achilles;

/l. 2.768-69,

17.280

=0d.11.470

for calling on the Muses instead of Zeus, and he freely used the

=11.551= 24.18. His prowess was demonstrated at the beginning of Book 6 where Ajax was named as being the first to cause the ranks of the Trojans to break. After him Diomedes. Erylaus, Polypoetes, Odysseus, and other Achacan heroes were

new formulae to express those concepts and ideas which he

mentioned;

wished to portray. CE R. Sealey, REG 70 (1957): 312 51, for further discussion of the beginning of the Newean Ode: Nisetich, CP 83 1988: 119, for discussion of differences between Pindar and Homer: Burkert. "Uhe Making of Homer in the Sixth Cen-

successful, the Trojans would have been driven back into their

sixth century, then it becomes clear that this Homer did not

merely repeat formulae and phrases taught to him by the elder Homeridae. He developed his own formulae, such as his phrase

JL 6. 12, 20. 29, 30. ‘The Achaean

assault was so

city had not Helenus urged Aeneas and Hector to rally their troops and aflerwards to sacrifice to the gods: 1. 6.73-101. Even though Ajax had been the first to cause the Trojans to

tury B.C" in Papers on the Amasis Painter and his World. 43 62, for

retreat, Helenus in his speech did not mention Ajax as the

Endnote: Pindar

151

source of difficulty. It was Diomedes whose strength was feared;

Ajax second only to Achilles above all other Danaans (tov

Il. 6.96

GAAov Aavawv pet apvpova Mndetova, Il. 17.280=0d. 11.470=11.551=24.18) was also used for Nereus in the Cata-

97=6.277

78, 6.306-7.

Diomedes

was described as

having an arıstaa and so great was his prowess that with the help of Athena he was able to wound two of the gods, Ares and Aphrodite; /l. 5.336, 5.856. Ajax was frequently depicted as fighting in the forefront of the Achaeans, once again showing the prowess, similar to the beginning of Book 6, and he was obviously respected by his colleagues in battle; cf. for example HM. 11.544-74, 12.351-412, 15.415, 16.101- 11, 18.132-37. He was the first hero mentioned in the abortive Catalogue of Horses at the end of Book 2 (cf. Chapter VII) where he was described as being the best as long as Achilles and his horses remained apart from the fighting; /l. 2.763-67. Even though he was named as being the best, he remained apart from the other great heroes on the battlefield. In contrast to the other prominent heroes, he was never aided by one of the gods, he did not have an anstea, and he did not kill an important opponent. When he fought with Hector in single combat, first Apollo and then Zeus interfered, the fighting was stopped, and Ajax was deprived of a major victory; Jl. 7.206-310. Achilles, Patroclus, Diomedes, and Odysseus were said to kill more named opponents compared to the number attributed to Ajax (note 14 in Chapter V). When the armor of the dead Achilles was awarded to one of the Achaeans, it was Odysseus who won

the armor

and not Ajax; Od. 10.112; cf. also Aithiopis and Little Iliad. In the tradition handed down in the other epics, it is clear that the Achaeans at Troy did not recognize Ajax as second only to Achilles. Pindar’s references to Cassandra and to the Homeridae make it clear that he was aware of the other parts of the Trojan Cycle and he must have known that the other parts of the Cycle did not honor Ajax as being the best after Achilles. Pindar’s statement in Isthmia 4. 37-39 implies that the /ltad was somehow different from the rest of the tradition and that in the /liad, for the first time, Ajax was recognized as an important warrior. The clear implication of such a statement is that before the time of Homer the importance of Ajax was not generally recognized. This is a strange inference indeed, if the statement refers to an cighth-century Homer, the founder of the clan which bore his

name, but it is one which fits comfortably into a sequence which places this particular Homer and his dictation of the Iliad in sixth-century Athens. An Jhad dictated in Athens in the sixth century can be understood to contain certain additions (cf. Chapter VI). If the evalu-

logue of Ships, Ji. 2.674 (cf. note 79 in Chapter V). In the Catalogue of Ships, however, Nereus was second to Achilles not for his valor but for his beauty; //. 2.673. Possibly the line was originally designed for Nereus and his extraordinary comeliness and it was for this reason that Nereus was remembered, even

though he was a weakling and few people followed him; Ul. 2.676. The repetition of this same verse of praise from the earlier Catalogue for Ajax in the later rendition of the /liad may have been another exaggeration used to enhance the reputation of that hero. Ajax came from Salamis, /l. 2.557, and Salamis was claimed by the Athenians (cf. Chapter VI). The sons of Ajax were said to

have acquired Athenians citizenship and to have lived in Athens; Plutarch, Solon, 10.2. Shrines to Ajax’s sons and possibly to the hero himself are known to have existed in sixth-century Athens; Shapiro, Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens, 154-55; R.E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, III: Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia (Princeton,

1957), 90-93. Important Athen-

ian families belonging to the clan of the Philaidae and possibly the Salaminioi traced their ancestry to Ajax; cf. J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, 10, 294. No important Athenian hero was mentioned in the /liad (cf. Chapter V) but Ajax was known to have fought at Troy and if Athens claimed Ajax as one of her own, a newly important Ajax added luster to the Athenian reputation. Confirmation of a newly enhanced reputation for Ajax can be found in Athenian vase painting. Late in the sixth century there developed a sudden interest in subjects depicting Ajax; Moore, AJA 84 (1980): 417-34;J. Boardman, 474 82 (1978): 11-25. One of these scenes was painted by Exekias, an important painter of this period, who portrayed Ajax with Achilles playing a board game, fig. 142. Although the subject was new and had no direct parallel in literature, it became popular and was frequently copied. The sudden interest in depicting various scenes of Ajax should have a reasonable explanation. Athenian pride in a newly enhanced Ajax portrayed in a sixth-century dictated text of the /lad provides ample motivation for this new trend. If a newly enhanced position was created for Ajax in the sixthcentury rendition of the /lad, then Ajax’s involvement in the Embassy

to Achilles, /l. 9.162-682, becomes just one other

ation of Ajax in the Iliad differs from his position in the rest of the Cycle, then it is legitimate to ask whether Ajax’s newly

example of this process. The friendship between Achilles and

acquired stature was another Athenian “addition,” one of those

where in the had, then becomcs the impetus for his presence on

complements to the city made by a sixth-century Homer singing in Peisistratid Athens. The repeated verse which placcs

away with Achilles playing a board game.

Ajax which this scene implies, but which is not evident elsethe Exekias amphora

where he is portrayed idling the time

ABBREVIATIONS

‚Li

LL!

AZA

AjP AM Antk ArchHom

BASOR BCH Beazley, BSA

1BV

CMS Commentary

Companion cp

„Archäologischer Anzeiger des deutsches archävlogisches Institut. "Apxatoloyıxa AvdiextaE££ Adnvov. American Journal of .Irchaeologv. -[merican Journal of Philology. Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Mhenische Abteilung. „Antike Kunst. „Ircharologia Homerica. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem and Baghdad. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. J.D. Beazley, Adic Black-figure Vase-painters (Oxford, 1956: The Annual of the British School at Athens. Classical Antiquity. Cambridge Ancient History. Classical Journal. Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Sievel. G.S. Kirk, general editor, The Hliad:

1

Commentary, G.S. Kirk, vols. 1-11 (Cambridge,

1985.

1990):

J.B. Hainsworth, vol. III (Cambridge, 1993): R. Janko, vol. IV (Cambridge, 1992); MW. Edwards, vol. V (Cambridge, 1991); N.J. Richardson, vol. VI (Cambridge, 1993). AJ.B. Wace, and F.H. Stubbings. editors. 4 Companion to Homer (London and New York, 1962). Classical Philology. The Classical Quarterly. The Classical Review. P. Astrém with contributions by N.M. Verdelis, N.-G. Gejvall and H. Hjelmquist, The Cuirass Tomb and Other Finds at Dendra, 1 (Studies in Mediterranean Archacology, vol. +, Göteborg, 1977). Classical World. “Apyatodoyixov AeA tiov.

‘Apzarodoyixn Epnuepig. Furumark, A

G&R HSCP lakovidis, LHC

NA IuMit

MusHelv

Mylonas, ALVA Nae Companion Odyssey

Commentary

To “Epyov mig Ev ‘A@rivats Apyatodoyixis Eraipeias. A, Furumark, The Afycenacan Pottery, Analysis and Classification (Stockholm, 1941), motive number. Greece and Rome. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. S.E. Iakovidis, Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece (Monumenta Greaca et Romana, vol. IV, Leiden, 1983). The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration. Istanbuler Mitteilungen. Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Institutes. Journal of Hellenic Studies. I.M. Shear, Mycenaean Domestic Architecture (Diss. for Bryn Mawr College, 1968). Museum Helveticum. G.E. Mylonas, \ycenae and the Mycenaran Age (Princeton, 1966). I. Morris and B.B. Powell, editors. „1 Nae Companion to Homer, Mnemosyne Supplement 163 (Leiden. New York and Cologne, 1997). A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey, A. Heubeck, S.R. West and J.B. Hainsworth, vol. I (Oxford. 1988); A. Heubeck and A. Hockstra, vol. I] (Oxford,

OFA Opus.irch Opustth Panagia Houses PCPS PofM. Praktika Pylos | Prlos 11 Pylov Ill

AJ. Evans, The Palace of Minos (London,

1921-36).

Tpaxtıxa ms Ev A@njvats Apyatodoytxis Eraipeias. CW. Blegen and M. Rawson, The Palace of Nestor at Prlos in Western Messenia 1: The Buildings and Their Contents (Princeton, 1966). ML. Lang. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenta, I: The Frescoes (Princeton, 1969). CW. Blegen, M. Rawson, W. 'Taylour and W.P. Donovan, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, IL:

Ri

1989);J. Russo, M. Fernändez-Galiano and A. Heubeck,

vol. III (Oxford, 1992). Oxford Journal of Archaeology. Opuscula Archaeologica. Opuscula Atheniensia. ILM. Shear. The Panagia Houses at Mycenae (Philadelphia. 1987). Proceedings of the Gambridee Philological Society.

teropolts and Lancer Town, Tholoi and Grave Circle,

‘Princeton, 1973. Revue archéologque.

Chambers Tombs, Discoveries

Outside the

Citadel

154

TALES OF HEROES

SMEA Stanford, Commentary

TAPA Tiryns Il Tiryns Hl Thera 1-NV Troy Ul Troy IV ICs

Revue des eludes greques. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie. Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolict. W.B. Stanford, The Odyssey of Homer, Introduction and Commentary (London, 1958-1959). Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Assoctation. G. Rodenwaldt, Tiryns, Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Instituts, II: Die Fresken des Palastes (Berlin, 1912). K. Müller and H. Suize, Tiryns, Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Instituts, UW: Die Architecktur der Burg und des Palastes (Augsburg, 1930). S. Marinatos, Excavations at Thera, \-VII (Athens, 1968-76). C.W. Blegen, J.L. Caskey and M. Rawson, Troy, Excavations Conducted by the University of Gincinnati, 1932-1938, II: The Sixth Settlement (Princeton, 1953). C.W. Blegen, C.G. Boulter, J.L. Caskey and M. Rawson, Troy, Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati, 1932-1938, IV: Settlenents Vila, VIIb and VII (Princeton, 1958). Dale Classical Studies.

NOTES

INTRODUCTION I For bibliography on 257 93: 73 (1979 -80): #9 156: for additional general ed., The liad: 1985,

1990); J.B.

the epics cf. J.P. Holoka, CW 66 (1972 73: 65 1505 83 (1989--90): 393 -461; 84 (1990-91): bibliography and commentaries cf. G.S. Kirk, 4 Commentary, G.S. Kirk, vols. I 11 (Cambridge.

Hainsworth,

vol. IV (Cambridge,

vol. IH

1992); M.W.

(Cambridge,

Introduction and Commentary 1988); A.

R. Janko, 1991);

1993); W.B. Stanford, The (London,

Heubeck, S.R. West, and J.B. Hainsworth, Odysser, vol. I (Oxford,

1993);

Edwards, vol. V (Cambridge,

NJ. Richardson, vol. VI (Cambridge, Odyssey of Homer,

Four-horse chariots are indeed post-Mycenaean,

Heubeck

1958-59);

A.

A Commentary on Homer's and

A.

Hoekstra,

vol.

II

(Oxford, 1989);J. Russo, M. Fernandez-Galiano, and A. Heubeck, vol. II (Oxford, 1992); I. Morris and B.B. Powell, eds. A Neu Companion to Homer, Mnemosyne Supplement 163 (Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1997) 2 The concept of a blind Homer from Chios is based on a statement in the Delian Hymn to Apollo, 172. It is now generally accepted that the bard of the Delian Hymn was different from the bard who composed the Hliad and Odyssey. but the concept of a blind Homer is still often repeated. CE for example R. Janko, Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns (Cambridge, 19821, 114 15. who suggested that the statement in the Delian Hymn referred to an cighth-century Homer, the founder of the clan, who was described in the Hymn by one of his later descendants. 3A. Lasky, A History of Greek Literature, ans. by J. Willis and C. de Heer (London,

1966), 7, 14.

1 MLM. Willcock, 4 Commentary on Homer's liad, Books I IV (London, 1970) , xi, beginning statement of his introduction. 5 Kirk, Commentary, vol. 1, p. 4. 6 G.S. Kirk, The Songs of Homer (Cambridge, 1962). 57. 7 P. Levi, A History of Greek Literature (Middlesex,

1985), 25.

BC.R. Beye. Ancient Greek Literature and Society, (Uhaca and London, second edition, 1987), 34. 9 Kirk. Commentary, vol. I, p. 10. And indeed, Kirk's list, p. 9, of dated geometric objects is even smaller than might be first suspected. He listed as definitely datable to the eighth century: the use of a pair of spears, Phoenician ships, cremation, and the bancful signs of the Bellerophon story. Each of these will be discussed below and each will be shown to derive from Mycenaean sources and not to be eighth century. As probable references to the eighth century Kirk listed hoplite fighting and four-horse chariots. Hoplite fighting in the /lad is a muchdebated subject that will be discussed in Chapter II; the view presented here is that there are no definite references to this type of fighting.

if four-horse chariots

were intended; this question is discussed in Endnote 4, whether references to four-horse chariots might be earlier or later than the eighth century, however, was not discussed by Kirk. On

the subject of Dark

Age reflections in the fltad cf. A.M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to te Eighth Centuries (Edinburgh, 1971). 389, who felt that there was nothing from that period in the epic; and

cf. also 377, where he commented that nothing seems to have happened during that period and therefore there was nothing to be remembered. 10 1. Morris, GA 5 (1986): 94. A few scholars in recent years have suggested a date later than the eighth century for Homer; cf. for example QO. Taplin, Homeric Soundings, The Shape of the Iliad (Oxford, 1992), 33-35; M.L. West, Mus#el 52 (1995): 203 219; E.F. Cook, The Odrsyey in Athens, Myths of Cultural Origins (Ithaca and London, 1995); G. Nagy, Poetry as Performance, Homer and Beyond (Cambridge, 1996), 101. The cighth-century date for Homer, however, is still generally accepted: J.P. Crielaard, “Homer, History and Archaelogy: Some Remarks on the Date of the Homeric World” in Homeric Questions, Essays in Philology. Ancient History and Archaeology. Including the Papers of a Conference Organized by the Netherlands Institute at Athens (15 May 1993) ed. J.P. Crielaard (Amsterdam, 1995), 273-75; AJ. Graham, “The Odyssey, History and Women" in The Distaff Side. Representing The Female in Homer’s Odyssey, ed. B. Cohen (Oxford and New York, 1995), 3-17; Nae Companion, especially pp. xvii xviii, but also pp. 3, 511, 625, 648. 11 These similarities were first noted in LM. Shear, The Panagia Houses at \ycenae (Philadelphia, 1987). 20-21, and they formed the impetus for the present study. 12 For the Trojan Cycle see Endnote 1. 13 On the basis of comparative letter shapes adopted by the Greeks from the Phoenician script, attempts have been made to date the introduction of the alphabet to a period earlier than the eighth century; cf. J. Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet (Jerusalem, 1982), 175-86, for support of an 1100 B.C. date; M. Bernal, BASOR 267 (1987): 1 20, for an even earlier date. The texts of the earliest inscriptions found in Greece, however, suggest that writing had just been introduced and that literacy was limited at the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the seventh; for discussion of the difficulties of accepting a date earlier than the eighth century cf. M.L. Lang, “The Alphabetic Impact on Archaic

Greece”

in New

Perspectives in Early Greek Art, ed. D. Buitron-

Oliver (Hanover and London, 1991), 65 79. For further discussion of literacy in this early period cf. Endnote 9. 14 Herodotus, 2.53: ‘HoioSev yap cai “Opnpov fırinv tetpaxodioin Eteon boxen peu xpecfutepous yeveo@at Kai ov aA£ocı. The phraseol-

156

NOTES FOR THE INTRODUCTION

ogy used by Herodotus indicates that even in the fifth century B.C. there was some question conceming the date of Homer. 15 H.T. Wade-Gery. The Poet of the liad (Cambridge, 1952), 25 29, converted Herodotus’ ninth-century date into the eighth by altering the lengths of the generations said to be implied. although not stated, in Herodotus’ chronology. This conversion has generally been accepted. and it may well be that Herodotus intended an eighth-century date, but the date given is the ninth century and it is modern scholarship that juggled the figures so as to convert that date yet again to the cighth century. 16 CE. ELA, Parsons, The Urvandnan Library (London, 1952), 2.43. 17 Diogenes Laertius, 2.46. 9.18. These and other passages that seem to date a Homer to the sixth century will be discussed further in Chapter VIL 18 Suda, s.v. “Apxtivoc: ThAew tov Navtew aroyövov. MiAnotos. ERONOLOG, Hanh, Opnpov, ac A€yer 6 KAaCopeviog Aptepov Ev tw repi Oypnpov' yeyovas kata thy 6° Odupaiada, pera vi Em tov Tpoixav. As a source for early dates, the Suda is questionable since it was compiled in the twelfth century A.D.; long before that time there was obvious confusion concerning the date of Homer. 19 B.B. Powell, Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet (Cambridge. 1991), 218. Earlier the same idea was expressed by R. Lattimore, Introduction to his translation of The Miad of Homer (Chicago, 1951), who wrote on p. 25: “The Cyele is post-Homeric, and this can be said positively.” 20 W. Kullmann, Die Quellen der Mas (Wiesbaden, 1960) argued that the entire Cycle was based on the oral tradition and that one part could not be dated before or after another part. W. Schadewaldt, Von Homers Welt und Werk (Stuttgart. 1959). 155 202, maintained that the -lithiopis by Arktinos existed in written form before the /liad was composed. For difficulies of dating the -lithiopis cf. D.L. Page, CR 13 (1963): 21 24. For later evaluation of this problem cf. Kirk, Commentary, vol. II, p. 27.

21 Powell, Origin of Alphabet. 192, 206, tried to prove an ecighth-century date for the epics. He listed thirteen significant features that should, in his opinion, have indicated the date of composition, but only two, by his own admission, were found to be meaningful. These were the bard's apparent ignorance of hoplite warfare and the absence of writing. Since no one would argue the obvious corollary that the bard was also ignorant of iron swords because he failed to mention them, his apparent ignorance in other areas cannot be considered a necessary criterion for the date. ‘The central thesis of Powell's book is that the alphabet is particularly suited for the writing of poetry and hence the impetus for its introduction must have been for this purpose. This argument ignores the obvious fact that the alphabet is also particularly suited for writing the Greek language whether poctry or prose, and incidentally for other languages as well, as indicated by the subsequent usage of the alphabet. For further discussion of literacy cf. Endnote 9. 22 Cf. for example the statement made as early as FLA. Wolf and quoted in his Prolegomena to Homer, 1795, translated with introduction and notes by A. Grafton, G.W. Most, and J.E.G. Zetzel (Princeton. 1985), p. 16 of Introduction: “impossible to prepare so great a work as the fliad without writing” and more recently Heubeck, Odyssey Commentary, vol. I, p. 12. 23 Cf for example Willeock, Commentary, p. xii, whose entire argument was based on the premise that the Zlrad must be post-Mycenacan. Whether the date was cighth century as opposed to the seventh or the ninth was not considered. 24 Lesky. History, 7,01: Janko. Homer, Heviod and the Hymns, 191. 25 ‘This assumed sequence ignores the fact that the compositions in hexameters continued long after Iyric poetry had been introduced: cf. ELA. Havelock. The Literate Revolution in Greece and It Cultural Consequences Princeton. 1982. 10.9192. 220 26. Sappho wrote at least one wedding song in dactylic hexameters and her vocabulary reflects the intluence of epic language: D.A. Campbell. Greek Lyra Poetry (New York, 1967), 273 74. Both Phoevlides and Nenophanes were also said to

have written epics as well as elegiac verses: Suda, s.v. PorvAiöng;

Dio-

genes Laertius, Venophanes. 9.18. For comparison of the Homeric epics with other early literature from Greece cf W.G. Thalmann, Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greck Epic Poetry (Baltimore and London, 1984: G. Nagy. Pindar’s Homer. the Lyric Posewsion of an Epic Past (Baluimore and London, 1990. who assumes the co-existence of various poctic traditions. 26 1. Morris, C45 :1986;: 93. 27 Janko, Commentary. vol. IV. p. 8. Janko then proceeded to try to prove that the Zliad was earlier linguistically than the other preserved written portions of the oral tradition. For further discussion cf. Endnote 10. 23 CI. Homer's History. Mycenaean or Dark Age? ed. C.G. Thomas (New York, 1970:. One of the chief proponents of the view that the epics must be post-Mycenaean was MUI Finley, JHS 84 (1964): 1 9; The World of Odvsseus ‘London, 1977): Economy and Society in Ancient Greece ‘London, 1981). Finley's view has been widely accepted: cf among others AM. Snodgrass, 77/78 94 (1974): 114-15: 1. Morris, C4 5 (1986): 81 12: 5.M. Hurwit. “Art. Poeuy. and the Polis in the Age of Homer” in From Pasture to Polis. Art in the lee of Homer. ed. S. Langdon (Columbia and London. 19931, 18. 20 Homeric scholars interested in the archacological remains usually consult HAL. Lorimer, /lomer and the Monuments (London, 1950) and -1 Companion to Homer, ed. X,J.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York. 1962), which is heavily dependent on Lorimer. In a recent commentary on the Odvsser, Fernändez-Galiano, Odyssq: Commentary. vol. MI. pp. 210 17, the entire discussion of the Homeric house was based on Lorimer and all subsequent archacological work was ignored. Some of the work in ArchHom explored isolated Mycenaean elements but frequently these studies were based on the premise that Homer does not reflect the Mycenaean period. as in H. Drerup, ArchHom (1960) O, 1-136, and therefore they obscured the full extent of the Mycenaean remembrances. In the .Nae Companion, written to replace the original Companion, both editors and many of the authors were skeptical that any remembrance of the prehistoric period was possible and thus, not surprisingly, they found almost nothing of importance to be Mycenaean. 30 Ch. CLA. Trypanis, Greek Poetry from Homer to Seferix (London and Boston, 1981), 69- 76. 31 There have been increasingly numerous attempts to try to disprove or to modify the work done by Parry and Lord: cf. among others D.M. Gunn,

AJP 91

(1970):

192

203;

D. Shive, Naming Achilles (New

D. Wender,

AJP 98 (1977):

York and Oxford,

1987). Even

327

+7;

though

some of the conclusions were somewhat exaggerated, it does not necessarily follow that the basic results of their rescarch should be disregarded. Shive, for example, noting the variety of epithets used for Achilles, concluded that the bard was literate, but other explanations are possible. In Chapter VIII the epithets for Odysscus are examined; it is suggested that the bard developed a variety of epithets to indicate the different characteristics of an individual hero and that the choice of epithet in a particular scene was sometimes based on a specific characteristic that the bard wished to emphasize in that particular sequence. His use of a wide variety of epithets for some of his more favorite personalities is seen as an indication of his extraordinary command of the oral technique. 32 Herodotus, 2.116, 4.29. 33 CL J. Griffen, 748 97 (1977): 39 53. and Endnote 1 for further discussion of the Trojan Cycle. 34 Profegomena, 137 48, chapters 33 35. 35 CT. Lesky, History, 37. 36 Shive.. Naming

Achilles, 130.

37 Beve. „Incient Greck Literature, V2. 38 For survey of different views concerning the writing down of the epies el. D.G. Miller. Imprornatin. “Lypolagy, Culture. and “the Naw Orthodow": Hoe Oral ty Homer? (Washinton,

D.C.

1982590

102,

„Votes: The Architecture of the liad and the Odyssey CHAPTER THE ARCHITECTURE

I

OF THE /LIAD AND THE ODISSET

1 CE. Od. 6.305 7. 8.66= 8.473, 19.38, 23.90. In references cited the = sign means that the two lines are the same or almost the same. Certain lines are considered equivalents even when slight changes actually occurred; these included the change of töv to thy, the third person ending changed to first person, the occasional addition of a 8. the use of BoupiwAutdg, in place of Soupi KAutdéc, and other such similar changes. 2 Od. 8.55 56. 3 Q0d. 4.15. 13.26.

# Lorimer, Monuments, 406 33, discussed the Homeric house in some detail. She approached the subject with the pre-determined idea that the epics were composed in the cighth century and that knowledge of Mycenaean architecture must already have been lost by that time. Lorimer’s view was followed by W. McLeod, in Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Faghtieth Birthday, ed. KJ. Rigsby (Greck, Roman, and Byzantine Monographs No. 10, Durham, NC, 1984), 209; his casual statement that the Homeric house consisting of courtyard, prodomos, and megaron reflects a house type that continued into the Hellenistic Period, ignores many other elements associated with the Homeric as corridors,

stairs, basements,

storerooms,

additional

rooms on upper floors, large size, and complexity. Drerup, ArchHom (1969)

O,

I

136, and

more

recently

5. Rougier-Blanc,

REG

109

(1996): 44-61, also assumed that the buildings in the epics had no association with the Mycenaean era but were glorified remembrances of the Geometric Period. Drerup’s view with some modifications is supported by M.O. Knox, CQ 23 (1973): 1-21, and by Hainsworth, Odyssey Commentary, 6.303 and 6.304. The view that the Homeric houses were based on Mycenacan prototypes was presented by AJ.B. Wace, JHS 7! (1951): 203-11; Companion, 489 97. This approach was supported by J.V. Luce, Homer and the Heroic Age (London, 1975), 49 -53, and

H.

Plommer, JHS

97

(1977):

75

83,

but

it has been

ignored in the current commentaries; Fernandez-Galiano, Odyssey Commentary, vol. III, pp. 210

2. and to be of such

a size that it could hold a multitude of

divinities, /. 20.4- 12.

7 Od. 17.264 71: trans. by A.T. Murray, Homer, The Odvsser (Loeb edition, 1966).

such

12 Od. 7.85-90. 13.4. Stanford, Commentary. vol. I. p. xliii, suggested that the luxury of the gardens and palace of Alcinous was a deliberate imitation of Minoan or Asiatic culture. floor. 1.4.1

6. 17.96 97.

6 Cf. Priam’s palace with its many thalamoi, 4. 6.242 50. For other references to this palace see /L 24.160 68, 191 92. 236 38, 305 7, 322 23.

house,

11 This is suggested by the frequent repetition of lines using this word: for repetitions cf. notes 125, 126, below.

13 For example the palace of Zeus which was said to have a golden

4.0d. +.17= 13.27. 8.83. 3 Od. 4.130 346.305

157

story and when this type of building is described. the description is usually based on real buildings that are familiar to the audience. Odysseus’ palace probably belongs with those buildings that were remembered because they form an important part of the story and were based on structures known to the original audience. The palaces of Nestor and Menelaus probably represent the first wpe of building noted by Bowra.

17; Stanford,

Commentary, vol. I, pp. xlı xliii;

and most recently K.A. Raallaub, Nee Companion, 625, who stated without hesitation: “the Mycenacan palaces are a world apart from the houses of the Homeric leaders.” 9 Od. 22.143 and Od. 19.37, 20.354. The meaning of some of these words had become obscure by the time the earliest commentaries were written, which suggests that the architectural form of the houses described in the epics had already changed by that time. Words used one time in either the Zliad and Odyssey, the hapax legomena, are far more frequent than is usually recognized; cl. M.W. Edwards. Commentary, vol. V, pp. 53-55. Once the architecture of the houses had changed, the existence of hapax legomena among the architectural terms made the definition of such terms even more difficult. 10 Od. 22.126, 132. 333. C.M. Bowra, Heroic Poetry (London, 1964). 143-47. observed that buildings, especially habitations, are frequently described in oral pocty since a man's house reflects his style and character: buildings are also included because they are important in the

Digitized by Google

11 Bronze thresholds, mentioned in /. 8.15 and Od. 7.89, are in contrast to the stone and wood thresholds usually mentioned in the epies: cl. note 238 below. The chariot used by Hera had inappropriate metals ascribed to some of its parts, fl 5.722 31; MW. Edwards, Homer. Poet of the Iliad (Baltimore and London, 1987), 163, thought this chariot wats unrealistic. The precious metals on Hera’s chariot, however, may represent its decoration rather than the actual metal used for its structure. The number of suitors, 108, who gathered at Ithaca, Od. 16.247 51, and the 50 sons of Priam, /l. 6.244 46. may be considered other examples of epic exaggeration. Stanford, Commentan, 16.247 51. found the number of suitors so unrealistic that he thought these verses should be rejected, but they can be accepted as epic exaggeration and need not be removed from the text. 15 Bronze nails found in the walls of the so-called Treasury of Aureus at Mycenae are a clear indication that metal decoration on walls occurred in the Mycenaean

Period; cf. AJ.B. Wace, Mycenae, An Archae-

ological History and Guide (Princeton, 1949), 32; G.E. Mylonas, .Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966), 121. 16 Hainsworth, Odyssey Commentary, 6.304, stated that the megara in the epics were rectangular, and he associated this rectangular shape with the central rooms of geometric houses; this shape, in his opinion, was

different from the more or less square megara found in the Mycenacan palaces. Hainsworth’s conclusions concerning the rectangular shape of the megara in the epics seem to me unjustified and in any case megara in the Mycenacan Period varied greatly in size and shape so that the shape alone is not a necessary indication of date. Mycenaean megara were sometimes more or less square, as in the palaces at Mycenae, Tiryns, and Pylos, fig. 27. but they could also be more rectangular in shape, as seen in the Tsountas House, fig. 5 room C, and West House, ‚fig. 6 room C, and in the palace at Gla, S.E. lakovidis, ag 1:'H ‘Avaoxagn 1955

2 and nacan ‚Age. A ies in

1961 (Athens,

1989), 103-66, 287

-300, plan

11 rooms

23. For the architectural form of a megaron as part of the Mycehouse cf. K. Werner, The Megaron during the Aegean and Anatolian Study of Occurrence, Shape. Architectural Adaptation, and Function (StudMediterranean Archacology, vol. 103, Göteborg, 1993), 83-120.

17 For fuller discussion of the Mycenaean house and its development cf. LM. Shear, Afycenacan Domestic Architecture (Diss. for Bryn Mawr, 1969), 429- 84: @iAra"Exn eis Tedpyiov 'E. Mudevay vol. I (Athens, 1986), 85 98; Panagia Houses, 144 46, 150 54: G. Hiesel, Späthelladische Hausarchitektur. Studien zur Architekturgeschichte des griechischen Festlandes in der späten Bronzezeit (Mainz am Rhein, 199%). For bibliography of individual houses cf. list of illustrations on pp. 244 53. 18 .\ built staircase leading down to the basement level was found in the Tsountas House at Mycenae and the foundations of a stair leading to the upper floors were found in the House of Columns: Wace. Aber:

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

158

NOTES FOR CHAPTER I

nae, 67, 93. Interior stairs have also been restored in the West House, N.M. Verdelis, The Alycenae Tablets UI, ed. J. Chadwick, in Transactions of tee American Philosophical Society 52 (1962): 25-26, and in the Panagia Houses, Panagia Houses, 23, 42. In the palaces at both Pylos and Mycenae partially preserved stairs leading to an upper level were found; C. W. Blegen and M. Rawson, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, 1: The Buildings and their Contents (Princeton, 220-22;

G. E. Mylonas,

MA1A,

67; Ergon

1966),

111-14,

167-9,

1962: 93. Exterior stairs led

to the main floor level of the House of the Oil Merchant, N. M. Verdelis, Ergon 1962: 104-6; ADA, 145, 147-49; the M House at Mycenae

and the palace at Mycenae,

Mylonas, 44414, 31, 66, text fig.

6; Exgon 1963: 68, fig. 69; S.E. Iakovidis, Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece (Monumenta Graeca et Romana, vol IV, Leiden, 1983). 50- 53. Similar exterior staircases have been restored in Panagia Houses Il and III, Panagia Houses, 28-29, 61. 19 It was suggested by J.L. Myres, JHS 20 (1900): 140-43, that ava and xatü represented movement into and out of. This idea was accept-

West

House

at Mycenae;

Verdelis, Afycenae Tablets III, 22: 23; in this

house it may well be that cooking over the central hearth served more as a ritual than as a practical means of actually preparing food. The palace at Ithaca probably also had a separate room for the baking of bread and the preparation of more elaborate dishes, but that does not preclude the use of the central hearth for simpler forms of cooking or for ceremonial presentation of food. Od. 20.105 11, 20.122-23 seem to refer to the service areas of Odysseus’ palace, which could have contained areas for cooking food not normally cooked over the open flames of the hearth. Modern scholarship has on occasion compared Odysseus’ palace to the large, excavated palaces at Mycenae, Tiryns, and Pylos; the bard, however, made it clear that he visualized the palace at Ithaca as being smaller and less grand than the major palaces of its day; this is indicated by Telemachus’ reactions to Menelaus’ palace at Sparta, Od. 4.43--44, and Odysseus’ reaction to Alcinous’ palace in the Land of the Phaeacians, Od. 7.133

34.

logical evidence. When the bard said that Penelope went down or up a staircase, Od. 1.330 and 21.5, there is no justification for assuming that the bard was saying anything other than what he appeared to be saying. For a synopsis of the linguistic problem cf. D.H.F. Gray, CQ 5 (1955): 1-6. For a discussion of the archaeological evidence cf. Wace, companion, 490, 493.

24 The chimney pots from the palace at Pylos are well-known; Pyles 1, 81, 200, fig. 271 nos. 2-3, 7- 8, fig. 272 nos. 6-9. A chimney pot was found smashed on the floor of Panagia House I next to the hearth and a second chimney pot was found further up the hill slope; Panagia Houses, 113, no. 150, pls. + B, 33, fig. 21. The discovery of chimney pots in both the palace at Pylos and the more modest Panagia Houses suggests that such chimney pots were not infrequent in Mycenaean domestic architecture.

20 The restoration of a single level over the main room and vestibule does not preclude multiple levels over other areas of the house; cf. Panagia Houses, 17. Multiple levels may have created problems in lighting as noted by K. Müller and H. Sulze, Tiryns, Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Instituts, Il: Die Architektur der Burg und des Palastes (Augsburg, 1930), 192, and Lorimer, Afonuments, 414 n. 2, but whatever our personal reaction may be to this architectural form, the presence of staircases in domestic architecture makes it clear that more than one story existed in Mycenaean buildings.

25 For painted plaster cf. M.L. Lang, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Westem Messenia, 11: The Frescoes (Princeton, 1969) and 231-36 for bibliography and list of more important examples; S.A. Immerwahr, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (University Park and London, 1990). Fragments of painted plaster have also been found in the Panagia Houses: Panagia Houses, 11-12, 136 43. Similar to the chimney pots, the discovery of painted plaster in the palaces and in the more modest houses suggests that painted plaster was another common feature in the architecture in the Mycenaean Period.

21 For the development of courtyards in Mycenaean domestic archi-

26 For width of doorways in Mycenaean domestic architecture compared to doorways of modern structures cf. Panagia Houses, 24 n. 42.

ed by Lorimer, Afonuments, 407, but it is not supported by the archaeo-

tecture cf. Panagia Houses, 62. 63, 151, and references there cited.

22 The smaller, second megaron, the so-called Qucen’s megaron, at both Pylos and Tiryns are well-known. A second megaron, less wellpreserved, was also found at Mycenae; fig. /0, no. 15. The restored plan of the palace at Mycenae presented here showing this megaron was drawn by Tl. Shear, Jr. and is based on the published plans of Wace, Mylonas, and lakovidis plus our own personal investigation of the site. There is clear evidence on the site for all the details and walls shown on this plan except for the two columns added to the main courtyard, no. 7 in fg. /0. This portion of the courtyard was destroyed when the retaining wall along the south side of the lower megaron collapsed. The parallel for columns in this position is to be found in the main courtyard of the palace at Pylos, no. 44 in fig. 9. They were restored at Mycenae in order to obscure the irregular lines of the courtyard since major rooms and important areas in Mycenacan architecture were always rectangular whenever possible.

27 Cf. Panagia Houses, 23-24 and especially n. +1 on 24. A good reason for the absence of windows in the rooms with central hearths was pointed out some time ago by D. Mackenzie, BSA 12 (1905 6): 254; he observed that windows in these rooms would have created drafts, decreasing the effectiveness of the chimney pots and increasing the amount of smoke in the room.

23 The cooking of food on the hearths of the Homeric houses has been considered as an indication of a post-Mycenacan date by some scholars; cf. for example M. O. Knox, CQ 23 (1973): 3 +. and Od. 16.1-3, where Eumacus appears to have been cooking in his hut, presumably in the room with the central hearth. The discovery of cooking pots near the hearths of the Panagia Houses clearly indicates that these roams in some of the houses were used for cooking during the Mycenacan Period: Panagia Houses, 110 1%. The cooking of food in the megaron of Odysseus” palace can thus be paralleled by this same action in the smaller Mycenacan houses, even if falthough this remains uncertain: the hearths of the major palaces were not normally used in this way. A separate room has been identified as che kitchen in the

Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris, 1968-80), s.v. avorata for various interpretations of this word suggested in antiquity.

28 Od. 6.297-312. 29 Pylos 1,87 88; Mylonas, MALI, 60. 30 Od. 1.144-55. 31 Od. 1.319 20. 32 Stanford, Commentary, vol. 1, p. xiii; vol. Il, Appendix B, p. 435: A.T. Murray, Odyssey. vol. 1, p. 26 n. 1; RJ. Cunliffe, A Lextcon of the Homeric

Dialect (Norman,

reprinted

1988),

39 s.v. avoraia;

cf. P.

33 Luce, Homer and the Homeric Age. 50, has already pointed out the obvious association between the avérata and the chimney pots. 34 In the Jliad megaron was used twelve times in the singular and fortyfive times in the plural. Four lines containing the word were repeated with little or no change: these are //. 6.91 almost = 6,272, 9.144= 9.286. megaron used here in the singular: and /l. 8.507 almost = 8.547,

22.484

almost

= 24.726=

Od. 4.300, which

times in Odrwer, megaron used in plural.

is repeated

three

Notes: The Architecture of the Wiad and the Odyssey 35 Megaron was used cighty-four Umes in the singular and 161 times in the plural; twenty-seven lines were repeated almost without change. Repeated lines using megaron in the singular are Od. 4.300= 7.339= 22.4975 I. 24.647: Od. 4.625= 17.167, 7.179 B0a= 13.50 Sia, 7.230= 19.1= 19.51, 16.165= 16.345, 16.341= 17.604, 17.398b 00= 20.3-43b ++. 18.185= 19.503= 22.433. 19.47= 20.144, 21.236= 21.382, 22.257= 22.274 almost = 22.120, 22.441= 22.458, 16.104 almost = 18.24 almost = 21.262. Repeated lines using megaron in the plural are Od. 1.365= 4.768= 18.399, 2.91= 24.129 almost = 19.139, 4.557= 5.14= 17.143, 4.6245 24.412. 10.523= 11.31. 11.182= 16.38, 11.334= 13.2. 14.326= 19.205, 15.77= 15.94, 16.76 77a= 19.528 29a, 19.30= 21.387 almost = 22.309, 1.295 almost = 11.119. 1.374 almost = 2.139, 3.186 almost = 4.101. 36 For eüotaßes, ZI. 18.374. only occurrence of this word in the /fad. For evanktov, 4. 2.661, 9.1-4= 9.286, used elsewhere in the fliad only for the hut of Achilles, /1. 9.663= 24.675. 37 Used once by ‘Telemachus in reference to his home. Od. 2.139. 38 Used seven times, always to the singular, in five different lines: Od. 20.258, 22.120, 22.127, 22.257= 22.274, 22441 = 22.158. megaron owned by Odysseus. This same adjective was used for OaAapos in Od. 23.178. 30 Used seven dimes in four different lines, always in the plural: Od. 1.365= -+.768= 18.399, 10.479, 11.334= 13.2, 23.290, The references are to Megara owned by Odysseus, Circe, and Aleinous. 40 Used once, in the singular, Od. 22.239, megaron owned by Odysseus, The other usages of this adjective in the epies are 1. 2.415, 18.22: 24a= Od, 24.315 17a. H

Used

four times.

in ovo different

lines:

Od. 2.400.

19.30=

21.387

almost = 22.399. Except for Od. 2.400, the reference is to the doors of the peydpev ed varetadvtev: the megaron once more belonged to Odysseus. This same adjective used for 86po¢g: H. 6.370= 6.497, 11.769: Od. 17.28 almost = 17.85= 17.178, 17.275, 17.324= 21.212 almost = 20.371, 24.362. In Od. 4.96 adjective used with otxos. 42 Od, 20.258. 22.120, 22.127, 22.257= 22.274, 10 be compared to the well-built megaron of /. 18.374. In wo additional references the women were led out of the well-built megaron, Od. 22.441= 22.458; although no doorway was mentioned, the use of one is implied by the action. +3 Od.

10.479 and 23.299.

th Od. 11.331= 13.2. 15 Od. 1.305= 8.768= 18.309, 46 This interpretation differs from that made by S.R. West. Odrwer Commentary, 1.365: 66, who suggested that the adjective meant “shacly, cool,” since that appears to be the meaning of the adjective when associated with clouds. Stanford, Commentary, vol. I, p. xlii, interpreted oxidevtov to mean that the megara were ill-lit regardless of the time of day. The wide doorways and white clay floors of the Mycenaean houses combined with the clarity of the Mediterranean light made these rooms much lighter than most northern scholars realize. In these early houses, conserving heat in the winter was no doubt considered far more important than either light or air. Doorways that could be closed in the winter and the absence of windows served to help keep the megara warm in the cold weather. In beuer weather. the courtyards could have served as outdoor living rooms, similar to their use in Greek villages today. 7 CH. Od. 3.331 36. comments made by Athena in the guise of Mentor to Nestor about the late hour when it is more fitting to be asleep than to be sitting and feasung.

159

48 Od, 22.239. 49 The use of this adjective can be compared to the dusty floors of the same megaron: cl. note 288 below. Stanford, Commentary, vol. I. p. xiii. took the use of the adjective “smoky” to indicate that the room had no chimney. Chimney pots found in Mycenaean domestic remains indicate that this is nota necessary assumption. In different periods of history. the amount of smoke escaping from the fires found to be aceeptable has varied. but central hearths with chimney pots do not necessarily create a smoky atmosphere. In monasteries of modern Greece. monks inhabiting some of the older buildings that still retain central hearths and chimney pots claim that there is actually very little smoke from these fires; whatever smoke there is rises so quickly to the ceiling and the chimney pot that there is usually scant trace of smoke left on the cetling itself. 50 Od. 2.400. 31 Od. 2.397 98. 52 Od. 19,305 21.387. 22.399, 33 ACT. Murray in the Loeb edition of the Oder translated this term as “stately”: Lautimore in his translation of the fliad used “well-established” same definition given by Chantraine, Dictionnaire. s.v. vaio: Cunlille, Laveen, 275 sv. vartdo, gives “pleasant to dwell in.” SET this association is acceptable, this meaning relers only to the megaron. When the word was used with 86pog, cf note +1 above. it could not refer to the more private parts of the palace since it was the suitors

themselves

who

went

into the Sdpoug eb varetdovtas.

Od.

17.178, 17.324; here it appears to have been used to indicate that part of the patace that was roofed as opposed to those parts that were open or not roofed, such as the courtyards. The different connotations of the word can be compared to the different connotations of the use of the word “family” when used for “the family room” as opposed to “the family house” in modern American parlance. 35 The movement of people in the palace at Ithaca gives clear evidence for the existence of two megara. In Od. 18.3046 11. the suitors were making merry in the megaron where they were joined by the disloyal handmaidens. ‘The disguised Odysseus. disgusted by their actions, scalded them saving that they should be with Penelope as she satin her megaron, Od. 18.313 16: here a second megaron, separate from the one used by the suitors, is indicated. After the departure of the suitors, Od. 18.128, Odysseus had been left alone in the megaron. first at Od. 19.1 and later at 19.51, where he was joined by Penelope. Od. 19.53 56. Ac this same time, the servants were said to come out of it megaron. presumably the second megaron, Od. 19.60: they came to clean the debris left by the suitors. apparently in the large, more formal imegaron where the banqueting had taken place and where Odysseus and Penelope were meeting. Later Odysseus was again lett alone in the megaron, the one used by the suitors, Od. 19.600 2, when he saw the disloyal handmaidens once again, coming out of a megaron, Od. 20.1 6. supposedly the second megaron. the one mentioned earlier in Od.

19.60.

56 The division of public versus private areas of the palaces is not meant to suggest that there existed in the Mycenacan palaces a women’s Megaron separated from the one used by the men, as many early scholars of Homer have suggested: ef. Wace, JAS 71 (195 h: 203. Stanford, Commentary, vol. I, p. xliii, observed that Penelope naturally secluded herself in the more private areas of the establishment when the unwanted suitors invaded the palace. Od. 18.158 62 clearly implies that Penelope normally avoided contact with the suitors. At Sparta. Helen was found in the same megaron with Menelaus, as was Arete with Alcinous in the Land of the Phaeacians: Od, 4.120 37, 4.219 31. 7.133 45. There is no hint of a separated women’s megaron in those

160

NOTES FOR CHAPTER I

sections of the Qdfssey relating the actions of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus; Od. 11.409 34, cf. also Od, 3.253-75; nor do the actions of Priam’s family suggest any such divisions; 4. 3.125, 6.286, 6.371 -77,

77 Od. 20.95 %.

22.460, 24.209.

79 Od. 7.136 37, in the Land of the Phaeacians. Other libations taking place in the megaron or main room were mentioned in Od. 3.340= 21.272, 18.151, the palace in Ithaca; Od. 14.447, the hut of Eumaeus: fl. 9.176 (which = Od. 3.349= 21.272). the hut of Agamemnon. Libations were also performed out of doors, as at Pylos, Od. 3.45, 3.342, and on the Island of the Sun, Od. 12.363, when the feasting was outside and not in a building.

57 Od. 21.236, 21.382, 21.387, 22.396, 22.399. 58 The architectural remains from the period immediately following the collapse of the palaces make it clear that habitations of the later period no longer consisted of large, complex houses with double megara and many other assorted rooms. For the architectural remains of that period cf. Drerup, ArchHom (1969) O, 1-136, R. Hampe and F. Simon, The Birth of Greek Art from tee Mycenaean to the Archaic Period (New York, 1981), 52-65; K. Fagerstrom, Greek Iron Age Architecture, Developments through Changing Times (Studies in Mediterrancan Archaeology. vol. 81, Géteborg, 1988). 59 This interpretation is contrary to the conclusions drawn by M.O. Knox, JHS 90 (1970): 117-20: cf. note 83 below. 60 Od. 22.421. 61 Od. 19.535--50.

78 Od. 4.763, 10.523= 11.31.

80 Pylos I, 88. This installation occurs only in the large, main megaron of the palace and was not duplicated in the smaller megaron or in the other rooms. 81 Cf. Od. 22.120, 127, 143, 239, 257= 274, which refer to specific parts of the megaron, singular. When the attack began, the suitors withdrew into the innermost part of the hall, singular, Od. 22.270, and

later like herds of cattle they ran about the hall, singular, Od. 22.299. Phemius wondered whether it was possible to leave the hall, singular, in order to seek the altar of Zeus, apparently the one in the courtyard, Od.

62 Od. 3.354, 3.401, 4.165, 4.392, 7.12, 10.5, 11.68, 11.162, 13.334, 13.403, 15.450, 16.33, 16.120, 17.391, 18.267, 19.490, 19.497, 20.68, 20.214, 22.151, 22.313, 22.396, 22.417, 22.421, 23.56, 23.132. 63 Od. 4.210, 15.354. In Od. 8.227, the opposite action took place. that is to say someone died and did not reach old age in the megaron.

22.334;

it was

the

room

itself he wished

to leave and

not

the

palace. Afterwards the maids set all in order in the hall, singular, Od. 22.457, and Odysseus purged it, Od. 22.482. When Medon reported to the relatives, he spoke of the hall in the singular,

Od. 24.449, since all

the events had taken place within a single room and not throughout the whole palace.

68 The opposite action took place in Od. 2-4.187.

82 The word megaron was used 245 times in the Odyssey and only on three occasions was the plural used when the singular might have been expected. In Od. 22.171, when Odysseus sent Eumaeus and Philoetius to capture Melanthius, Odysscus stated that he would keep the suitors within the megara, plural, perhaps meaning that he would keep them within and not allow them to escape from the palace. In Od. 22.211, the suitors being attacked shouted in the halls, plural, although at this point they had been confined to one room. This usage can be com-

69 Od. 11.182= 16.38, 24.162.

pared to Od. 21.1

61 Od. 3.186, 3.256, 4.101, 4.192, 6.62. 9.31, 17.521. 65 Od. 4.537, 11.198, 16.106. 66 Od. 4.557= 5.14= 17.143, 13.337, 15.354. 67 Od. 1.432, 19.254, 20.167, 23.28.

4, 21.367, 21.360, where the halls seem to define the

70 Od. 23.302.

suitors themselves, meaning the suitors, those who were at the palace. In Od. 22.375, Odysseus gave permission to Mcdon to leave the halls,

71 Od. 23.113.

plural, whereupon

72 Od. 4.238, 4.624= 24.412. 4.763, 7.190, 8.42, 8.242, 10.452, 10.523= 11.31, 19.217, 20.117, 22.56. 73 Od. 19.572-74: viv yap xataßriow deBiov, | toüg neifxeac, toüg KEIVOG Evi HEYApoLaLv Eoimv | totacy’ E&eing, Spudzous tic. Sudera navrac; cf. also Od. 21.1 +, 21.74 79, 21.120-24. 74 Lycaon was said to have cleven chariots in his megara. /. 5.193, and Aeneas kept horses in his megara, fl. 5.270. Megaron in the plural form in these two examples seems to mean somewhere within the palace; surely the horses were not meant to be understood as being housed in the main room. A different usage of the term occurred at Il. 6.91= 6.272. Here the robe that was to be dedicated to Athena was described as the one that was the fairest within the megaron. Possibly megaron in the singular was used in this case to indicate that the robe was in that part of the palace which was more private. Later when the robe was actually fetched, it was taken from the thalamos, not the megaron: I. 6. 288. 75 Wace. Companion, 494. noted that note a specific room within a building be compared to the English usage of times mean a specific room within a building as a whole.

the use of the same word to conas well as the whole building can the word “hall” which can somebuilding but can also mean the

Medon with Phemius, Od. 22.378, left the megaron,

singular. Odysseus’ statement could be interpreted to mean that he was giving Medon permission to leave the palace, not just the individual room within the palace. 83 M.O. Knox, 745 90 (1970): 117-20, suggested that the two different words originally had different meanings and she concluded that 56p0¢ initially meant the palace of the king, although by Homer's time 56105 could be used for any house. The only distinction she could find in the epics between a private house and a palace was one of size and elegance of the furnishings. Further study of domestic architecture has revealed that these same characteristics separate the Mycenacan palaces from the private houses: Panagia Houses, 150: 54. 84 CH. I. 6.360 fl. where the four words appear to have been used interchangeably. Hector having said he was going olxövde, Il. 6.365, to seck his wife and son, went to his Sopoug, ff. 6.370, but he did not find them in the megaron, ev peyäapoıanv, /l. 6.371, and so he left the Sapa, Hl. 6.390, and found Andromache near the city walls. After having bid her farewell, he instructed her to retum eig oixov, Jl. 6.490 (which = Od. 1.356= 21.350). Andromache, returning to the d6poug, fl. 6.497= 6.370, joined her maidservants who had remained évi otk, fl 6.500. References to Hades also used both words: ff, 23.19= 23.179, 23.103, 22.52;

0d.4.834=

Ht, 22.52.

These

24.264 references

almost

=

suggest

15.350 almost that S6pog

and

= 20.208 almost dana

were

=

some-

times used interchangeably and that both words could be used to refer

76 Od. 19.322 and Later in Od. 20.258. Odysseus was portrayed seated

to the entire building.

m ıhe mevaron. sinwnlar.

house

ch

45.213.

For usage of Sopa

21.14:

Od.

5.208,

in the singular for the entire

7.2242

19.5262

I

19.333;

Od.

Notes: The Architecture of the Iliad and the Odyssey

161

8.13; for plural cf. /L 2.854, 6.221, 11.77: Od. 4.72, 20.122. For &dp0¢

94 Od. 3.399.

in the singular as house cf. /. 2.701,

95 Od. 4.304, 7.346. ‘The next morning when Menelaus arose he was said to leave his @dAapocg, Od. 4.310. If puz@ S6n0u is understood to mean within the palace, then the inconsistency seen by Lorimer, Monuments, 426-27, is avoided. This same phrase was used in /l. 22.440 to identify the place where Andromache was weaving.

10.267; for plural cf. /.

11.132,

14.202= 14.303, 23.84; Od. 3.313, 15.10. 85 M.O. Knox, JHS 90 (1970): 117, among others, stated that the Phaeacian palace could not be Mycenaean,

since Nausicaa

instructed

Odysseus to ask for the house of her father when he reached the city; she told him “easily it is known, even a child could guide you”; Od. 6.300. Mycenaean palaces are usually located at the top of the citadel and are said to be so obvious a visitor need not have asked the way. This may possibly be true at Pylos, but the area around the palace is as yet so litde known, it seems somewhat premature to make any definite statement.

It cannot,

however,

be said of Mycenae

where

the entire

area between the fortification walls and the palace was covered with buildings. These structures do not appear on the general plans because they are not clearly understood; cf. G.E. Mylonas, Mycenae Rich in Gold (Athens, 1983), fig. 72, plan of citadel, as compared to his figs. 14 and 94, and our fig. /47 in Chapter VI, aerial views of citadel showing extensive remains of walls not shown on the plan. Entering the citadel of Mycenae, a stranger may have realized in a general way where the palace stood, but when the whole area was covered with buildings, the actual approach to the palace from the Lion Gate was not obvious. A stranger, not knowing the topography of the citadel, might well have had difficulty finding the Grand Staircase, no. 6 in fg. /0, nor could he know, unless otherwise informed, whether the proper approach to the palace was by way of the Grand Staircase or through the Palace Propylon, no. 4 in fig. 10. On entering the citadel at Tiryns, a visitor, unless previously informed, could not have been certain whether to turn left or right at the first gate even though he could see more or less where the palace stood; cf. Mylonas, MMA, fig. 51. At Mallia on Crete, the location of the palace is again not obvious; cf. P. Demargne, The Birth of Greek Art, trans. S. Gilbert and J. Emmons (The Arts of Mankind, New York,

1964), 87-90, figs. 109- 19.

86 She used Sepa at Od. 6.296, 6.297, 6.299, but at Od. 6.303, she called the building a 56p0¢. 87 Od. 7.142. 88 Od. 7.144. This phrase in this same position also occurred in Od. 2.322, 16.274, 17.232, 17.332, 21.298, 22.199. 89 Later, when Eumaeus carried the great bow ava Sépata, Od. 21.234, or ava Sapa, Od. 21.378, he was walking about a specific room, not throughout the palace, since earlier, Od. 21.58, Penelope had already brought the bow to the péyapévbe, where the suitors were gathered. After the slaughter of the suitors the floor of the Sönos, Od. 22.455, was cleaned, presumably the floor of the megaron, not the floors of the entire palace. For other examples of S606 used in place of megaron cf. Od. 22.291, 22.440. For dia cf. Od. 22.23, 22.307. 90 Il. 6.316. Earlier reference to Helen being in the megaron, Ev peyape, Jl. 3.125, makes it clear that the house also contained a megaron, not mentioned in /l. 6.316.

91 Od. 22.494. Cf. also Od. 6.303-4 where Nausicaa instructed Odysseus: GAA’ Oxét’ Gv oe Sonor KexvOem Kai avn, | dca pada peyaporo d:eA8€épev; here three divisions were again mentioned. 92 F. Noack, Homerische Paläste. Eine Studie zu den Denkmälern zum Epos (Leipzig, 1903), 49-54, suggested that Sepa was used for secondary rooms of whatever kind surrounding the megaron. This explanation, however, seems to be incomplete since it does not explain the use of Saua in Od. 21.234 and 378.

93 Od. 3.402. IH. 17.36 relerred to women being made widows puxy@ BaAayoıo veoro: puxe here seems to mean

usage in Od. 3.402.

simply within, similar to its

96 Od. 22.180. 97 Od. 16.285. This room was supposed to have been locked and therefore there was no need to put the armor in any special place within the room, simply within the room would have served. The women locked away during the slaughter cringed puz@ OaAduov, Od. 23.41, but here again since they were locked in, they can be understood to have been simply within the thalamoi. This is similar to Od. 9.236, where Odysseus and his comrades, seized with terror upon seeing Polyphemus, withdrew into the cave. Wace, JHS 71 (1951): 210, pointed out that the superlative, puyoitatog, to indicate the innermost part of the megaron in Od. 21.146, the position where Leiodes was standing when the slaughter began, confirms the usage of puyd¢ as meaning simply within. 98 Od. 7.87, 7.96, used once for the bronze walls of the courtyard and once for the fixed seats of the megaron. The plural thresholds used for the entrance into the megaron suggest that this entrance consisted of several openings similar to the entrance into the megaron at Tiryns, instead of the single doorway found at Mycenae and Pylos; cf. fig. 27. 99 These fixed seats present something of a dilemma. Apart from the thrones, there is no evidence for fixed seats in the megara of Mycenaean palaces. Fixed seats were found in the throne room of the palace at Knossos; AJ. Evans, The Palace of Minos (London, 1921-36) I, 4-6, fig. 1; IV, 905-8, fig. 877. The throne room at Knossos appears to have been added by the Mycenaeans, who controlled the palace in its later phases; S. Mirié, Das Thronraumareal des Palastes von Knossos (Bonn, 1979). It is not clear whether the stone seats found in the throne room represent in stone a feature made of wood on the mainland, and hence no longer preserved, as suggested by Mylonas, MAMA, 63, or whether they were a traditional Minoan feature which were usually placed on the upper floors of the palace where rooms of public importance were normally placed by the Minoans; cf. J.W. Graham, The Palaces of Crete (Princeton, 1962), 115-25 for restoration of important rooms on upper floors and 40, 49, 51, 58, 65-67, 211-12 for benches in Minoan architecture. This same room in Alcinous’ palace had a central hearth by which Arete was seated; central hearths are a feature of the Mycenaean palaces; they do not occur in the Minoan counterparts. 100 Od. 3.263. 101 This same phrase was used to describe the dwelling place of Sisyphus, son of Aeolus and father of Glaucus in the city of Ephyre; Jf. 6.152. The personality of Sisyphus as described makes it unlikely that he would have been satisfied with a house in some remote area. This description is in contrast to the more frequently used expression of éxds or ax “Apyeos ixzofdtoro; Zi. 2.287, 9.246, 19.329; Od. 4.99, 24.37. The use of pux@ instead of €xa¢ or ax can be understood to be a means of emphasizing the location of those who stayed at home in the Argolid as opposed to the warriors who had gone to Troy and were far from home. 102 It was used six times in the Odyssey, 4.302, 14.5, 15.5, 15.466, 20.1, 20.143, twice in association with the palace of Menelaus, twice with that of Odysseus, once in the palace of Eumaeus’ father, and once with

the hut of Eumaeus. It occurred twice in the /liad, 9.473, 24.673= Od. 4.302, once for the home of Phoenix’ father and once for Achilles’ hut at Troy. Mpé5opn0¢ was always used in the dative singular preceded by €v or Evi.

162

NOTES FOR CHAPTER I

103 4. 24.673= Od. 1.302. where the reference is to the palace of Menelaus: in both passages people were said to be sleeping in the prodomos, Cf. also Od. 15.5, 20.1, 20.143, for other references to people sleeping in the prodomos. lot Od. 14.5. M.O. Knox, CQ21 (1971: 30. tried to distinguish between Eumaeus’ hut or «Atoin and the palaces. She argued that the words pneyapov. Sapa, Sapata, and rpddopog used for Eumaeus’ hut were the result of misplaced formulae and that his hut did not have such rooms. Méyapov and Sapa were used twice in association with Eumaeus’ establishment: Sopata and rpddopog were each used once. KEumaeus’ habitation was also said to have a courtyard and a hearth. Hainsworth, Commentary, 9.202-4, 9.658-68. also felt that the architectural terms associated with the palace were misplaced when applied to the xALoin inhabited by the Achaean warriors at Troy. In fA 24.44856. Achilles’ «Aıoin was described as having a courtyard and a pitched rook; he also had a prodomos, in which a bed was set up for Priam. Mycenaean houses, even those that were small in size, had a main room with hearth, a porch or vestibule in front, frequently though not always a room in the rear, and an open space or enclosed unroofed area in front, in other words the same elements that formed the central unit of the palaces: Panagia Houses, 150 5-4. The description of Eumaeus’ house and the hut of Achilles at ‘Troy fit the pattern of the smaller Mycenaean houses. Eumacus was said to live in a KAtoin whereas Laertes lived in an oixog: consequently it seems justifiable to interpret the first as smaller and less grand than the second, but size alone does not necessarily indicate what kind of interior divisions existed. The xAıoin of the Achaean warriors at Troy were probably visualized as less grand and substantial than the buildings they normally inhabited, and hence the use of the word xAıcin for their habitations: but again, the term scems to be indicative of size and not of the interior subdivision of space. 105 Od. 20.1. 20.96. The implication of Odysseus’ action is that furniture did not normally remain in the prodomos, since he put the bedding in another room. ‘The prodomos was also mentioned by Eumacus in the tale of his abduction from his father’s house; Od. 15.466. Eumacus’ nurse found three cups in the prodomos lying amid the tables and chairs of the banqueters who had been feasting with his father. Since feasting took place in the megaron. a position nearby is indicated: after the banquet the chairs and tables appear to have been removed from the megaron and temporarily stored in the prodomos. Phoenix, in his tale of his youth, related how someone in the prodomos had watched him all night: A. 9.473. If the prodomos had been immediately next to the thalamos, the watcher could not have failed to see Phoenix as he opened the door. This suggests that a certain amount of space lay between the door of the thalamos and the position of the prodomos. Its use by a watcher at night indicates once again that it was sheltered or enclosed in some way. 106 Wace, Companion. 491; Mylonas, 4. 62; Stanford. Commentary. vol. I. p. sii. This area of the palaces is the logical place to put temporarily tables and chairs from a feast beld in the megaron: cl. note 105 above. 107 Panagia Houses, 24, 63.

109 The mpodopog was used only in the dative singular, whereas the npd8upoy when it was used inthe dative was abways plural. In the sin the

rpd@upay

was

110 Od. 1.103 4: om 5 ‘[axngevi Ste Exi npoßüpors 'Oducnog, | ovdou Er’ avAciou; the arrival of Athena. Od. 1.119: Br 5° i@üg xpo@üpo1o: the actions of Telemachus. Other occurrences of rpo@upov are 1. 11.777, 15.124, 18.496, 19.212. 22.71, 24.323= Od. 3.493= 15.146= 15.191 and Od. 4.20, 7.4, 8.304, 8.325, 10.220, 14.34, 16.12, 18.10. 18.101. 18.386, 20.355, 21.299, 22.474. 111 An exterior entranceway is also indicated in the A. 11.777 and 18.496, where people were gathered together before the palace of Priam, and possibly in 4. 22.71, where the watchdogs were portrayed lying in the entranceway of Priam’s palace. Passages in the Odyssey that seem to refer to an exterior entranceway, but with less certainty, are Od. 7.4, 8.304, 8.325, 10.220. 112 4. 24.3232 Od. 3.493= 15.146= 15.191. The repetition of this line suggests that it was part of a formulaic departure scene handed down through generations of bards. JH. 24.323 related Priam’s departure from his palace with the cart carrying the ransom for the body of Hector. Od. 3.493 and 15.191 reported the departure of Telemachus and Peisistratos from the house of Diocles in Pherae on their journey to and from Sparta. Od. 15.146 repeated the same scene as they departed from the palace of Menelaus. Od. 4.20 represents the reverse action when the np68upov was mentioned during the arrival of Telemachus and Peisistratos at Sparta. In /. 15.124, Athena departed from her palace on Olympus in a similar manner but without the formulaic language. The ai@oved mentioned in these passages will be discussed further below. 113 Od. 18.10. 114 Od. 18.32-33: "No ot pév nporapoıde Gupdav vyTnAdwv ovdod Ent Eeotov. The phrase rporäpoıde Ovpdwv vwnAdev was used earlier in Od. 3.407 10 describe the place Nestor sat when he awoke in the morning. On that occasion, Nestor was probably visualized enjoying the early morning sun as he sat in his courtyard near the entrance to the megaron. 115 Od. 18.95

107.

116 This entrance at Mycenae did not lead directly into the courtyard. as it did at Pylos and ‘Tiryns, but it gave access to a long corridor and various other clements of the palace that lay between the exterior entrance and the courtyard, no. 7 in fig. /0. The variations in the plans of the different palaces were probably duc to the differences in the terrain on which the palaces were built and they help to explain the occasional vagueness of the architectural terms used in the epics. 117 Cf. palace at Pylos, fg. 9, with no. 4 being the np6@upov, no. 5 the npodopos. and no. 6 the megaron. Wace, Companion, 489 97, did not discuss the xpd8upov; nor did Mylonas. Lorimer, Monuments, 415, mentioned it only in passing where she implied that it served as an entrance into the courtyard. Stanford, Commentary, vol. 1, p. xlii, reached the same conclusion, 118 Od. 143-4, 16.12.

108 Doorways in Mycenaean domestic architecture compared to doorways of the modern period were unusually wide: ch Panagia Houses, 24 n. #2. where it was noted that doorways leading into major rooms had a width exceeding 1.00 n., whereas standard doorways constructed in American houses are less than 1.00 m. for exterior doors and considerably less than 1.00 m. for interior doors.

aular

accusative cases. When somcone went through or left the npo@upov, it was always the singular form of the word which was used. When people stood in it or guarded it, it was always plural.

used

in

the

nominative,

genitive.

and

119 Stanford, Commentary, 14.34, thought the reference was to an outer gateway but an interior position for the prothyron in this passage seems more likely to me since the rpdBupov was mentioned before the avai.

120 For other, smaller houses with porches cl. Houses S and T at Aghios Kosmas, GLE. Mylonas. lefties hosmas, cli Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery in Mtica Princeton, 1959), 52053, drawings 14-15. 121 CR Od. 1.105 and 1.119. the arrival of Athena atthe palace of

„Votes: The Architecture of the Wiad and the Odyssey Odysseus where the plural was used when it was first mentioned, but the form turned into the singular when Telemachus approached it (rom within the palace. ‘The singular form was also used in the repeited phrase //, 24.324= Od. 3.493= 15.146= 15.191, where exterior entrances scem to be implied. The plural form was used in 4. 11.777. 18.496, 22.71: Od. 1.103. 4.20, 7.4, 8.304, 8.325. 10.220. where it could also be interpreted as the outer doorway. 122 Od. 18.10, 18.101, 18.386, 20.355. The singular form also occurred in Z. 15.124, 19.212; Od. 14.34, 21.299, 22.474, which can be interpreted as doorways into megara. 123 This usage is somewhat similar to the name Propylaca given to the Mnhesiclean entrance to the Athenian Acropolis, which had five doorways in it, as opposed to the more common, simpler entrances into other sanctuaries, which had single doorways and were called propylons. 12+ It should also be noted that the exterior entrance could conceivably have had only one columnar lagade, which could account for the use of the singular for some of the exterior porches, at least in the Mycenacan Period, thus adding to the later misunderstanding. 125 In the Zliad, at®ovea occurred six times; two of these lines were repeated in the Odyssey: Hl. 6.243, 9.472. 20.11, 24.238, 24.323= Od. 3.493= 15.1465 15.191: fl 24.644= Od. 4.297= 7.336. In the Oder the ai8ovea occurred thirteen times, nine repeated lines representing four different verses and four lines that occur only one time: Od. 3.399= 7.345. 3.493= 15.146= 15.191. 4.297= 7.336, 8.57. 18.102, 20.176= 20.289, 21.390, 22.449. 126 Od. 3.399= 20.176= 20.189.

7.3.45, 3.493=

15.146=

15.191= 4. 24.323: Od.

127 fl. 6.243, 20.11. Kirk, Commentary, 6.242 50, interpreted the Geoths aiBovoyo of Il. 6.243 to be the polished porches made of either stone or wood. If Mycenaean palaces are accepted as the prototype. the columns were presumably made of wood, since Mycenaean columns, unless used decoratively as on the fagade of the Treasury of Atreus, were

always wooden,

whereas

the floor on

which

the columns

stood

and possibly the lower part or dado of the adjacent walls were made of stone. Lorimer, Monuments,

431, suggested that the use of stone in the

architecture of the epics was a reflection of tales heard of Egyptian or Phoenician stone buildings: this is an unnecessary complication since a parallel already exists within the Mycenaean world. 128 Cunliffe,

Lexicon,

11 s.v. aißovoa:

Stanford,

Commentary,

vol. I. p.

xhi and comment on Od. 4.297.

120 Wace, Companion, 491; Mylonas, ‚AL. 46 +47. Lorimer, Monuments, +15, tried to distinguish between the ai®ovea of the avAn, which she identified as the columned facade of the entranceway into the courtyard, and a second ai€ovga, which she identified as the columned facade of the megaron itself. Chantraine, Dictionnaire, s.v. aißo, gives cxterior entrance to courtyard.

130 Od. 3.493= 15.146= 15.191= 4. 24.323, where the singular verb replaced the plural of the Odyssey. The departure scenes of the Odyssey are full of repeated lines, which suggests a formulaic departure often repeated and possibly not fully understood by the bard. Od. 3.486 through 3.494 was repeated in its entirety in Od. 15.184-92. In addition 3.487 was repeated in 2.388= 3.497= 11.12= 15.185= 15.296= 15.471. Verse 3.491 was repeated in 2.1= 3.404= 4.306= 4.431= +.576= 5.228= 8.1= 9.152= 9.170= 9.307= 9.437= 9.560= 10.187= 12.8= 12.316= 13.18= 15.189= 17.1= 19.428 and ff. 1.477= 24.788. Od. 3.492-93 was repeated in 15.145-46= 15.189-90; the second line in this couplet. 15.146 and 15.190, was repeated in fl, 24.323. And finally Od. 3.494 reappeared as Od. 3.184= 15.192= 4. 5.366= 8.45. 131 71. 9.472. The same phrase was used in Od. 22.499: here it was that the 108 bodies of the dead suitors were laid out. ‘The bodies would not

163

have been laid immediately in front of the megaron, in the rpéBupov, where they would have hindered entrance into the megaron, nor would they have been laid outside the palace, where they would have been seen immediately by the relatives. For the number of suitors sce Od. 16.247 -51, where the suitors along with two attendants, six servants, a herald. and a bard were mentioned. ‘These lines have been questioned because of the high number: cf. note 14 above. Such a number, however, is quite in keeping with epic exaggeration typical of the oral

tradition,

and

we

should

understand

the number

to mean

many and not to represent a specific figure. A place where many bodies were laid out needed to be fairly large. An ai€ovec of fairly substantial size is also indicated in the /iiad when Zeus called an assembly of all the gods, who meet in the Seo; aiBovenaw that Hephaestus had built for Zeus: 4. 20.10 12. 132 Od. 4.297

300 (Telemachus and Peisistratos in Sparta) = 7.336

39

{Odysseus in the Land of the Phacacians) = 4. 24.644 47 (Priam in the hut of Achilles at Troy). Cf. also Od. 3.399 (Felemachus at Pylos: = 7.345 (Odysseus in the Land of the Phacacians} where the visitor slept in a bed that had been set up. The setting up of beds and the passages of visitors sleeping in them, similar to the departure scenes, were filled with repetitions, once again suggesting the formulaic nature of the lines associated with this process. In the scene in Sparta: Od. 4.297. 300= 7.336 39= N. 24.643 47 with Od. 4.300 also = 22.497. Od. 4.302= Uf. 24.673;

Od. 4.303=

4.21

and Od. 7.340=

23.291.

Each

time a bed for

visitors was set up with purple blankets, coveriets, and fleecy cloaks un aidovon Epıdourw, the master of the house was said to sleep within pux@ Sopov bwnAoto with his lady wife: Nestor at Pylos, Od. 3.402= 7.346, Alcinous in the Land of the Phacacians: 4.304, Menelaus and Helen at Sparta; and #. 24.675 76, Achilles and Briseis at Troy, where they slept pux@ wAucing Eünnktov. ff. 24.675 occurred earlier in /. 9.663. 133 Od. 4.297-300, 4.302. Other references to the aidovoa suggesting a position within the courtyard are Od. 20.176= 20.189, where animals brought to the palace at Ithaca were left tethered vx aidovon eptdobne; such animals would not have been left untended outside the palace, nor presumably would they have been put in the entranceway to the megaron where they would hinder access: Od. 21.390, where Philoetius found a rope he could use to bar the gates leading into the courtyard: 4. 24.238-47, where Priam drove away all the Trojans from the ai8ovea, driving them &&@ with his staff, so that he could have some privacy. Cf. also Od. 8.57, where the palace of Alcinous was described as having ai®oveai te xai épxea Kai Sdpo1 full of people: although less clear than the other references, the at@ovea appears to be within the palace. 134 Od. 4.302= I. 24.672. when Priam spent the night in Achilles” hut where there occurred a similar sequence of a bed being set up in the ai8ovea, which several lines later turned into a bed being occupied Ev

Rpodope Sopov. 135 Colonnaded stoas in Greck architecture were not constructed again until much later; the earliest preserved examples were built late in the seventh century; they were located in religious complexes where they were used as isolated, exterior buildings; in this period they were not associated with domestic architecture, nor were they constructed as part of an enclosed, interior space; J.J. Coulton, The Architectural Davelopment of the Greek Stoa (Oxford, 1976). 26-27. Coulton, |, noted that Liddell and Scott, s.v. aißouca, associated the aißouca with the stoa; the

word stoa, furthermore, is not metrically possible in a dactylic hexameter. Stoas

were

first used

in houses

much

later; one

of the earliest

examples is the sixth-century Building F in the Athenian Agora; H.A. ‘Thompson, Hesperia, Supplement 4 (1940): 15 33; TLL. Shear, Jr., Athens Comes of Age, From Solon to Salamis (Princeton, 1978). 6. 136 70 2-41.64 and 24.673 which = Od. 4.297 and 4.302.

164

NOTES FOR CHAPTER I

137 The bed of Circe, Od. 10.480; that of Calypso, Od. 5.226-27; the cave of Polyphemus, Od. 9.306; on shore off the beached ship, Od. 9.150-51= 12.6-7, 9.169= 4.430= 4.575= 9.559= 10.186; on his ship when

it was under way,

Od. 9.74-75,

10.28; on the islands of Acolus

and Helios, Od. 10.13-15, 12.317; in the Land of the Phaeacians, Od. 7.230= 19.1= 19.51; on the Phaeacian ship as he returned to Ithaca, Od. 13.78-80: in the hut of Eumaeus, Od. 14.517, 15.493, 16.481; in his own palace disguised as a beggar, Od. 20.1; and finally in bed with Penelope, Od. 23.231-46. At Troy, he slept in his xAtoin, as did the other Achaean heroes, /. 9.663= 24.675, 9.712, 10.74, 10.140. 138 Od. 20.1--3. Presumably he chose to sleep on an ox hide to retain his image as a humble beggar. Penelope slept within in her bright upper chamber, Od. 19.600; for other references to the txepdiov cf. Od.

16.449,

18.206,

22.428,

and

discussion

below.

Once

again

the

theme occurred of the mistress sleeping within (alone since the master was away) and the visitor sleeping without upon bedding especially prepared for the occasion. 139 I. 9.473. Cf. note 105 above. 140 Cf. Elpenor who slept apart, seeking cooler air, in the house of Circe; Od. 10.552-60 with 10.558-60= 11.63 -65. 141 Od. 4.71

74.

142 A colonnaded courtyard has been restored in the West House at Mycenae, no. A in fig. 6; a colonnaded courtyard also occurs in the House of Columns, no. F in fig. 7. The courtyards of these two buildings are different from the courtyard of the Tsountas House where columns are absent and the formal regularity is missing, no. A in fie. 5. A very simple courtyard with a paved clay floor, only partially enclosed, can be seen in Panagia House I, no. | in fig. 3, whereas unroofed areas around buildings enclosed by walls forming an even more informal sort of courtyard can be scen at Berbati, A. Akerstrém, OpusArch 2 (1941): fig. 1. 143 1. 6.242 -50. 144 The courtyard associated with Telemachus’ thalamos, Od. 1.425-26, represents one of the smaller, less formal courtyards.

It can

be compared to the smaller courtyard in front of the so-called queen's megaron at Tiryns and a somewhat similar arrangement at Pylos, fg. 9, no. 46 is the so-called queen’s megaron and no. 47 served as its courtyard, to be compared to no. 6 the main megaron and no. 3 the courtyard of the main megaron. 145 Od. 7.112. 116 Luce, Homer and the Homeric Age, 52, citing Pylos, claimed a Myccnaean parallel for water piped into a palace. Blegen, in his description of the aqueduct found at Pylos, Pylos 1, 335-36, specifically stated that No terracotta pipes were found in the aqueduct; the aqueduct led the water to the palace, not into it. Blegen also noted that similar hydraulic installations have not been found at Mycenae, Tiryns, or Thebes. In Panagia House I a drain ran out of Room 2 into the courtyard and in Panagia House II a drain ran from Room 9 to the exterior; these drains ran away from the houses, not into them; figs. 3, 24. Rooms with drains, usually identified as bathrooms. were found in the palaces, but here again built channels led water away from the palaces and not into them.

147 PofMA 141 43, 225-30; IL 461 63. 148 The Land of the Phaeacians was described as an island, and its original prototype may have been one of the Greek islands where a mixture of Minoan and Mycenaean characterises occurred in the bate

Bronze

Age.

The

existence

of fixed

seats

in the

Phaeacian

megaron may be another indication of close Ges between the Land of the Phacacians and Crete

of note 99 above,

149 Il. 9.472, 9.476. CI. also Od. 17.266-68, where Odysseus’ palace was described. Later in Od. 21.389, locked the doors of the courtyard, its walls were again cial emphasis on the walls of the courtyard also 16.165= 16.343, 22.442= 22.459, 22.449.

the courtyard of when Philoetius mentioned. Speoccurred in Od.

150 Od. 17.266 68. 151 So Cunliffe, Lexicon, 191 s.v. Opıyrög, where two occurrences of this world are listed: once as an inner molding quoted above, Od. 7.87, and once as an outer coping, Od. 17.267.

152 Od. 7.87-90. Just before the bronze walls of the courtyard were mentioned, there was a couplet describing a gleam as of the sun or moon over the high-roofed house; Od. 7.84 85: &&> te yap nekiov aiyAn REAEV HE cedtvns | Saya Ka vwepedes peyadntopos AAxıvöoro. Similar words were used earlier to describe the palace of Menelaus, Od. 4.4546. The image of the gleaming house was probably meant to suggest the wealth

of the palace,

inside and

out, reflecting the shine of

highly polished bronze and wood. It implies households that were not only opulent but also well-maintained, with proper attention given to oiling the woodwork and to polishing the bronzes. Telemachus’ statement to Peisistratos in Od. 4.71-75 makes clear the association between wealth and objects that gleam. Cf. also /l. 6.294-95= Od. 15.107-8; ff. 14.185; Od. 19.234, 24.148, where different types of clothing, all of which were valuable or special in some way, were said to be bright, shining, or gleaming, Od. 1.184, where the reference is to ai6eva oiönpov, which presumably was said to shine as an indication of its value. The association of wealth with the visual image of shining objects suggests that the bard could see and that he was not blind. 153 Cf. among others Luce, Homer and the Homeric Age, 51. Lintels of silver, for example, are not viable as an architectural clement, unless we suppose that they were actually made of wood and only covered with silver. 154 H. Schliemann, Tiryns (London 1886), 28-92; PofM II, 594-95: IV, 897; Hainsworth, Odyssey Commentary. 7.87. Cf. also M. Venuris and J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge, 1959), 135. 339

40, no. 239, where furniture decorated with kyanos was listed.

155 Od. 7.82-83. Odysseus was said to go to the palace, “AAKkivoou xpos Stat’ ic, pondering decply before, rpiv, he reached, ixéo@ai, the bronze threshold. At this point, although he had already reached the palace, he had not yet crossed the bronze threshold. There

it was

where he saw walls all around him made of bronze, the walls that stretched from the threshold to the innermost part. This places him somewhere within the palace, presumably in the courtyard since he had yet to cross the threshold of bronze. It follows that it was the courtyard walls that were made of bronze stretching from the threshold (of the doorway between the court and the street that he had just crossed)

to the innermost part (of the court). The @piyxég¢ xuavoro that went rept can be understood to be over the bronze walls, i.e. the courtyard walls forming a coping of some sort. Next, Od. 7.90-94, Odysseus saw a golden door, the doorposts of silver and the threshold of bronze. guarded by two silver dogs. This is presumably the same doorway with threshold of bronze that he had not yet crossed while pondering deeply in line 83. After the dogs made by Hephaestus were described, we are then told that within there are fixed seats, line 95, Ev 5 Opdvor xEpi Toixov Epnpedar EvOa Kai Evda. With line 95 the description of the interior of the palace begins and at this point we should visualize Odysseus as having entered the actual palace itself. 156 Od. 14.6= 1.426. The second half of this line was repeated in Od. 10.211, which = 10.253. TON. Ihre De bb sn Diesel ntsactnenn do Laas” courtyard are Od. 15.555. 16.165 which = 106.343, the courtyard of the

Notes: The Architecture of the Iliad and the Odyssey palace at Ithaca. The ava of Polyphemus' cave was also used to house some

of his animals;

Od. 9.184-86,

9.239, 9.338, 9.462.

Polyphemus'

courtyard was called a péecavdos by Eurylochus, Od. 10.435, which was the only occurrence of this word in the Odyssey, elsewhere Polyphemus’ courtyard was called an avn, which suggests that under certain circumstances the two words, the avai and the pécoaudos, were interchangeable. In the /had, the informal courtyard was usually mentioned as part of a simile, often in association with sheep and/or lions; Jl. 4.433, 5.138, 5.142, 10.183; twice in a simile it was called a pécoavaos, Il. 11.548, 17.657. The word péacavios also occurred as the place where Paris was sitting when he was approached by the three goddesses; /l. 24.29. 158 Od. 14.10-12. The construction of the courtyard walls around Achilles’ hut at Troy was similar; /. 24.452.

159 F. Chamoux, REG 65 (1952): 281 CQ21 (1971): 19.

88, accepted by M.O. Knox,

160 In a similar manner a builder today might say that he would construct for you a well-built house, one with good, solid foundations and

a strong, firm roof. Such a statement is not meant to imply that the house was not to have walls, floors, or windows, elements normally found in houses. 161 The importance of protecting the mud brick fabric of the walls with a coping is not often recognized; cf. for example Stanford, Commentary, 14.10, who interpreted the coping as a security device, added to the walls to make them more secure. The use of a coping on mud brick walls can be seen today in some of the modern Greek villages where an occasional wall of this type is still in use. 162 Although they seem quite different, the palace courtyards did develop out of the simpler type of court that was originally only an open space in front of the house, sometimes enclosed by a surrounding wall for security. For the development of the courtyard in Mycenaean domestic architecture cf. Panagia Houses, 22-23, 62-63, 151. The courtyard of Eumacus’ hut is similar to the court built around the hut of Achilles at Troy; /l. 24.449 56. A third type of avAh was mentioned in If. 9.232, where the Trojans, spending the night on the battlefield, set up a temporary camp enclosed by walls; here the meaning of avan appears to be a simple, walled enclosure. 163 A second courtyard used for animals explains the dung heaps in the courtyards that appeared so troublesome to Gray, CQ 5 (1955): 8. In A. 24.161, Priam, covered with dung, along with his sons, moaned the death of Hector: his daughters and daughters-in-law moaned inside, Gva Senat‘, /l. 24.166, and a third and apparently separate group consisting of Trojan citizens moaned in the colonnades, the aißovoa, /l. 24.237--38, which were identified above as being in the formal courtyard of the palace; these passages imply that Priam in J. 24.161 was in a separate courtyard, one not being used by the Trojan citizens. 164 Od. 4.20 21. In the epic the chariot appears to have been driven directly to the gate of the palace at Sparta. The excavated remains of the palace at Pylos indicate that at Pylos it was possible to drive the chariot to the palace itself. At Mycenae, however, this was not possible, especially after the construction of the Grand Staircase. When the epics were first composed, probably some of the palaces were approachable by chariots whereas others were not. similar to the approaches of the existing Mycenaean palaces. 165 Od. 4.39 41 with Od. 4.39= 1. 8.543, where the ‘Trojans loosened their horses from the chariots after a day of fighting. 166 Cf. stable for Priam’s horse, 24.279 80, and horses kept in his palace by Aeneas. ff. 5.270. note 74 above.

165

167 Od. 4.42= Il. 8.435, where a chariot belonging to Hera was tilted up against the wall after her horses had been led away, stabled, and fed. 168 Od. 4.43b—4+4. Another reference to a secondary courtyard can be seen in Od. 20.96-111, where twelve women worked grinding wheat and barley; the actions of Odysseus and the omen sent by Zeus imply that the woman still working was out of doors, presumably in a courtyard of some sort but not the one used by the suitors. In addition to the references cited above the avAn was mentioned in Od. 2.300, 4.678, 18.237, 18.239, 20.355, 21.191, 21.240, 22.137, 22.376, 22.474, 23.49 (the palace at Ithaca), 7.130 (Alcinous’ palacc), 10.10 (the palace of Acolus), 15.162 (Menelaus’ palace) and //. 11.774 (palace of Peleus), 24.639 (hut of Achilles). 169 It has been suggested that the rooms with painted decorations at Thera were religious areas; N. Marinatos, AM (1983): 1-19; Art and Religion in Thera, Reconstructing a Bronze Age Society (Athens, 1984); see K.P. Foster, 474 99 (1995): 423 and her note 4 for further bibliography. Although the subject matter of many of the wall paintings may have

been

religious, it should be noted

that western

art throughout

recorded history has often portrayed religious subjects. It was during the French Revolution that western art became politicized and thereafter art ceased to be predominantly religious in character. The palazzi of the Italian Renaissance were filled with religious art, yet no one would countenance the idea that they were religious centers. If swallows represent divine epiphany, as suggested by Foster, 409-25, it is somewhat difficult to understand the presence of seven divine personifications within the single, very small room decorated with the Lilies Fresco, the addition of at least six swallows in Room 4 of Xeste 3, and the use of swallows in scenes with homed animals and monkeys in Beta 6, plus the many representations of swallows on the vases from Thera. In my opinion there are too many swallows for all of them to represent divine presence. It is also of interest that in each of the buildings thus far published there is a room dominated by a landscape wall painting that does not contain human figures (or in the case of the antelope fresco and the boxing boys, Room B | in Building Beta, only human figures in a very minor role); these rooms also have a window, an anteroom of some sort, and a closed off area for storage (Room 4 in the West House, Room

2 in Xeste 3, Room

| in the House of the Ladies,

and Room 2 in Building Complex Delta). These are characteristics that well suit the identification of all these rooms as sleeping chambers. There are still many more wall paintings to be restored from the excavations at Thera, such as the landscape scene decorating the stairway of Xeste 3, the portrayal of men walking up the staircase of Xeste 4, and the floral fragments which fell into the room identified as a kitchen in the House of the Ladies; C.G.

Doumas,

The Wall-Paintings of Thera,

trans, A. Doumas (Athens, 1992), 128, 176, 184-5. Unuil the full complement of paintings is known, it seems to me premature to assign religious connotations to all the paintings, even in those examples where no obvious religious symbolism is apparent. For further discussion of the difficulty of accepting the possible religious nature of this room cf. M.B. Hollinshead, AJA 93 (1989): 339-54; Doumas, The Wall- Paintings of Thera, 28-29. 170 I. 6.244, 6.248. 171 The thalamoi described on Achilles’ shield from which the brides were led also make the association with family and marriage; Il. 18.492. Other references in the /lad to the thalamos that associate it with family and marriage are 11.227 (which Iphidamas left to seck glory at Troy) and 17.36 (warrior was killed, leaving his wife a widow in their newly built thalamos). In /. 22.63, Priam tried to persuade Hector to retreat into the citadel, fearing lest all his sons be killed, his daughters taken into captivity, and the thalamoi destroyed: here the thalamos is usually interpreted to mean treasure chamber, but the

166

NOTES FOR CILIPTER I

association of sons, daughters, and thalamoi suggest that the thalamos here was being used as a symbol of marriage and family continuity, which the war was destroving. X similar interpretation for the thalamoi used in the tale of Meleager is also indicated: 4. 9.582, 9.588. 172 In the scenes of Hera’s seduction of Zeus, the thalamos was mentioned in ZZ 14.166. 14.188. 14.338. Helen's thalamos was mentioned in #4. 3.142 iwhere she dressedi. 3.174

(which she left to follow Paris).

3.382 twhere Aphrodite, rescuing Paris after the duel, placed him), 3.391 iwhere Aphrodite sent Helen), 3.423 (where Helen went with the inevitable consequences implied in ber position). 6.313 (which Paris builo, 6.321

and

336 {where

Hector

found

Paris).

Kirk,

Commentary,

3.174 75. associated the thalamos with the marital bedchamber, but later in Commentary, 6.321 24, he identified it as a living room, this identification does not appear to be justified by the other usages of the word. In ff, 6.321 and 336. Paris can be understood to have taken his weapons into the bedroom, that is to say into a more secluded, isolated area of the house, where he was lounging about, hoping to avoid the notice of other warriors and their wives. R. Fagtes. in his translation of Homer, The liad New York, 1990), line 6.377, also understood the thalamos of 71. 6.321 to be the bedroom. 173 Od. 4.263. In Od. 16.34 35. when Telemachus asked whether his mother had remarried, deserting the bed of Odysseus, he was presumably referring to the bed as a symbol of marriage, similar to Helen's reference to the thalamos, quoted above: if the bed in Telemachus' statement is understood as a symbol and not as the actual bed used by Penelope during Odysseus’ absence (cf. note 179 below), then it becomes unnecessary to explain Telemiachus' reference as a corruption of the text or a confusion on the part of the son, as suggested by Stanlord, Commentary, 16.34 35. 171 Od. 8.265 366. In Od. 10.340, where Circe invited

Odysseus. into

her thalamos and her bed. the same association was clear.

175 Od. 23.178. 23.192, 23.229, 23.295. 176 Od. 1.425 +4, 19.48, Telemachus retired for the night to his thalamos. Telemachus left his thalamos in Od. 2.5= 4.310, where Menelaus left his thalamos after a night of rest. These lines were echoed in 17.36 37= 19.53 54. where Penclope left her thalamos. ‘The sons of Nestor left their thalamoi first thing in the morning, Od. 3.413. Nausicaa went to her thalamos to sleep in Od. 6.15; the two other references to Nausicaa’s

thalamos,

Od. 6.7+,

7.7. were

not so clearly associated

with sleeping, but they seem to be referring to the same room. 177 Od. 21.5 19. The same line with xateByoeto in place of npooefngeto occurred earlier in Od. 1.330 where the actions of Penelope were reversed. The only other reference to xAipa& in the Odyssey is 10.558= 11.63, where Elpenor, having slept on the roof of Circe’s house, forgot to use the KAipaka nakprjv and consequently fell off the roof. The KAipag in this passage is usually translated as a ladder; A.T. Murray, Loeb edition: Cunliffe, Lexicon, 229 s.v. «Aipa&. The excavated remains of Mycenaean houses indicate that those houses had stairways leading to the upper levels: since stitirways existed, there is uo reason why they should not have also led to the roofs of the houses. Such an interpretation makes it unnecessary to translate the same word, the wAipa£. as both a ladder and a staircase. The word «Atpag did not occur in the fliad. 178 Sleeping accommodations in the Mycenaean Period probably varied greatly, just as they did in the Medieval cases where important people had separate rooms in which to sleep. whereas the young and unimportant slept together in the main hall. Sleeping in the main hall war iinplied for Odysseus’ comrades in che House of Ciree, whereas Odysseus himself was sharing Ciree’s bed in a separate room. Od. 10.179

80:

this same

arrangement

occurred

in Od. 23.209,

when

the

two herdsmen Sept with Telemachus in the megaron alter the saugh-

ter of the suitors, while Odysseus once again slept in a thalamos, this time with Penelope. In the smaller houses of the Mycenaean Period, the use of the thalamoi must also have varied, being used by different members of the family should one be sick, should the master of the house be widowed, the weather unusually hot, etc. Cf. Laertes’ actions during Odysseus’ absence, Od. 15.352 57; he had broken the normal pattern of life, tiving apart from the others. 179 Only Odysseus, Penelope, and a single maidservanı, the daughter of Actor,

were

said

to have

entered

this thalamos,

Od. 22.225-28.

Since earlier in the epic, Od. 17.506, Penelope was said to be sitting in her thalamos with her female servanıs, and in Od. 21.8 she went to her thalamos

with

her handmaidens,

it can

be understood

that during

Odysseus’ absence Penelope was not using the special thalamos built by Odysseus, but another one somewhere else in the palace. 180 Od. 23.190--200. ‘The use of the olive tree in the construction of the bed and its possible significance has been much debated; cf. Stanford. Commentary, 23.190 ff. The simplest and most obvious explanation, in my opinion, is that this peculiarity was introduced so that the bed could be identified and hence could be used to identify its maker, Odysseus. In a similar way the broach mentioned in Od. 19.225, was used to identify its owner. This broach, as will be discussed below in Chapter III, was identifiable by its unique double clasps, which made it similar to no other broach known from any ancient period. The use of the olive tree for the bed and the double clasps on the broach, which were not readily visible to the casual observer, made them unique and thus useful as a means of identification. 181 Cf. furniture listed in Linear B tablets, fig. 133, Ventris and Chadwick, Documents, 332-47. Odysseus’ bed can be compared to the chair and footstool decorated in this same manner, Od. 19.56-58, whereas the ideogram for footstool on the tablet can be compared to the actual footstool portrayed on the gold ring from Tiryns, fig. 47. 182 It has been recendy argued that the bed found in the Room of the Lilies Fresco is too small to be a bed and that it should be restored as a bench for use in a room that has religious connotations; Foster, 47A 99 (1995): 421 22. Although this bed, only 1.60 m. in length, is somewhat short for the taller people of the Greek mainland, cf. J.L. Angel in G.E. Mylonas, 'O ragixdg Kuxdog B néiv Muxnvev (Athens, 1972-73), 393, islanders have always been shorter than their mainland counterparts. The fact that the main entrance into Delta 2 also had a doorway 1.60 m. in height, Foster, p. +22, supports the suggestion that the people of Thera were shorter than their mainland contemporaries. Size alone can not be used to prove that this object is a bench; for further discussion see S. Marinatos, Excavations af Thera IV (Athens, 1971), 42. 183 Parts of the floors in both rooms were laid on top of the leveled bedrock, which places both rooms on ground level as seen from the outside,

but because

of the sloping hillside on which

built, the sloping floor of Room 9

the house

was

lies 1.25 to 1.50 m. below the floor

of Room 10, fig. 26; Panagia Houses, 31. Additions made to pre-existing structures can be documented in the archaeological record; cf. for example the courtyard of the smaller megaron that was added to the palace at Pylos, no. 47 in fg. 9 Prlos 1, 203.

184 Od. 23.190: Epxeog evtdc, 185 The existence it was stated that ford, Conmentars, hall and the other

of this type of wall is indicated in Od. 16.341, where the swineherd left the Epxea te péyapov te; cl. Stan16.311. where he defined the Epxea as enclosing the buildings af the palace.

186 Wace, JHS F995 L a: 209, CE Od. 1.362= 19.602= 22.356. 2.358, 22.328. where Penelope was clearly sleeping in this chamber. In Od. 17.36= 19.53. Penelope was said to leave her thalamos, having gone cartier, Od. 16.449 and 18.302. te her upper chamber: a conflation of

Notes: The Architecture of the Wiad and the Odyssey the two types of rooms also occurred in Od. 4.787 and 4.802, where Penelope is in her upper chamber but is visited by a dream in her thalamos. If the thalamos and the upper chamber were originally considered two different rooms, then the confusion apparent in these passages can be understood to have been introduced by later bards who no longer understood the distinction between the two rooms. Stanford, Commentary, 16.416, influenced by earlier commentators who thought the Homeric

house did not have

upper floors, called this room

Pene-

lope’s attic. In a palace, even a comparatively small one such as the palace at Ithaca, surely Penelope would not have had to resort to the attics to find privacy. Chantraine, Dictionnaire, s.v. brep@a. defined it as an upper room in the house used by women. The Etymologicum Magnum, s.v. brepaiov, called it the women’s quarters. 187 Od. 17.96-97, Penelope spinning in the megaron; Od. 17.1016, Penelope

stated her intention

to go to her ürepwiov;

Od.

17.492

93,

Penelope sitting apart from the suitors. Cf. also Od. 15.517, where ‘Telemachus stated that Penelope did not often appear before the suitors but usually remained apart, weaving in her upper chamber. 188 #1. 3.125. Andromache was also said to weave but the location of this activity was placed simply within the lofty house, /1. 22.440. 189 Od. 4.130 34.

191 Od. 23.364= 4.751=

17.49, where the same instructions were given

to Penelope by Telemachus. 192 In the Iliad the Uxepdiov was mentioned twice. In /. 2.514, it was the room in which the meeting took place between Astyoche and the god Ares that resulted in the birth of Ascalaphus and Ialmenus. In Ji. 16.184, it was the meeting place of Hermes and Polymela that resulted in the birth of Eudorus. Such meetings may well have been perceived as taking place in one of the upper, more secluded rooms of the palace rather than in the thalamos, the room associated with marriage: cf. note 171 above. 193 Od. 16.449, 18.206, 19.600, 22.428; the first two references are to the room being used during the day, the last two at night. 152 above,

where

the association

between

wealth

and

objects that gleam was suggested. 195 Cf. Panagia Houses, 23-24. The use of party walls in the Panagia Houses indicates the absence of windows in the megara, the vestibules, and the rear rooms. Basements without windows in Mycenacan architecture are, of course,

a well-known

feature. This evidence

suggests

that windows were not common in Mycenaean domestic architecture. The existence of a window in the Granary at Mycenae, cf. Wace, Mycenae, 56, and representations of them in a wall painting; Wace, fig. 98a; M.C. Shaw, BSA 91 (1996): pls. A-B, however, makes it clear that windows were known and were occasionally constructed. This characteristic of Mycenaean architecture is in contrast to the many windows found on both Crete and Thera. 196 Cf. Od. 1.328. 4.760. 17.101. 18.206. 18.302, 16.449, for use during the day, and Od. 2.358. 19.602, 22.428, for use at night. Penclope. using this room at night, can be seen as an extension of her use of the room during the day. 197 Od. 2.337 58. 198 Od. 1.106. 199 Od. 1.376 77= 2.141

201 dL. 24.191, 24.275, cf. also simile at /. 4.140

45, where a thalamos

containing the king's treasure is mentioned. 202 Od. 15.98- 108 with Od. 15.99= Il. 24.191; cf. also Od. 4.615. 16= 15.115 16, where Menelaus promised to give Telemachus a silver krater with a gold rim. In Od. 4.131-32, Helen’s work basket was also described as being made of silver and having a golden rim. This combination of silver decorated with a gold rim occurs on a cup from Grave Circle B at Mycenae, Mylonas, 'O ragixds xixdog B trav Muxnvav, 340, 421, pl. 101b; two cups from Grave Circle A, G. Karo, Die Schachigraber von Mykenai (Munich, 1930--33), pl. 106, 136; two cups from Midea, A.W. Persson, ‚Neu: Tombs at Dendra near Midea (Lund, 1942), fig. 99.6, pl. V1.2; Royal Tombs at Dendra near Midea (Lund,

1931),

pl. 33, lower left; and a very fragmentary cup from Vapheio, C. Tsountas, Ephemens 1889: pl. 7 no. 15. 203

Od. 8.439.

Earlier in Od.

3.441, Arete came

out of the thalamos

holding a bow! embossed with flowers, another precious object. 204 Od. 19.256. 205 Od. 21.8. 206 Od. 21.5.

190 Od. 22.421. Cf. also the twelve women servants of Od. 20.105 8: these women appear to have been working in still another area of the palace (cf. note 168 above). References to Penelope cither sleeping or weeping in the ürepwiov also suggest that the room was somewhat removed from the more functional, working areas of the palace.

194 Cf. note

167

200 Ji. 6.288.

12,2.237.13.377

78, 18.280.

207 Od. 21.42. 208 Stanford, Commentary, 21.48-49, observed that the simile used when Penelope opened the door of the storeroom emphasized that the room had been shut for a long time. 209 Od. 21.51. Stanford, Commentary, 21.51, interpreted these words to mean wooden shelves, an interpretation not accepted here. For alternate translation cf. Murray, Loeb edition, where the phrase is translated as “a high floor”, and Lattimore, who used “high platform.” 210 A third type of thalamos, one for the storage of weapons, sometimes been suggested. References to this particular thalamos Od. 19.17 and in Book 22 lines 109, 140, 143, 155, 157, 161. 166, 179, and 180. For reasons given below, a third type of thalamos special area for the storage of weapons has not been accepted here.

has are 174, as a

211 The word thalamos occurred twenty-six times in the Iliad, nine times with at least one adjective. In the Odyssey the word occurred forty-six times, but only eleven times did it have adjectives; of this total,

thirteen references were to the thalamos in which Telemachus and his father stored the armor from the megaron; twelve refer to the room in which some one slept; seven to a room holding special objects; an additional eight that could be closed or locked. 212 With high ceiling, bwépogoc, occurred the most frequently, /l. 3.423, 24.191-92 (where it is also called fragrant with cedar), 24.317; Od. 2.337, 4.121 (which was also called fragrant); two of these references are to storage areas; the other three are probably sleeping chambers. The adjective, vwnpe@rs, with high roof, was used in {l. 9.582, for a sleeping chamber. Of polished stone, Eeotoio AiBo1o, occurred twice in reference to the thalamoi of Priam's children, //. 6.244, 6.248. In J. 17.36 new, véo51 ML 23.306 +48, 23.402 47. 23.514 27, 23.541 62. For significance of the role played by Antilochus during the Funeral Games cf. Richardson, Commentary, 23.262 897, 23.301 50, 23.7 40- 97.

54 The

V1 statement

made

by Diogenes

Laertius, Sofon,

55 This conclusion is contrary to the conclusions drawn by Merkelbach, Rh AP 95 (1952): 23-47, who argued that the Megarians cannot have made their accusation before a written text existed. His argument seems to rest on the assumption that history must be based on written documentation, and it ignores the fact that the use of orally preserved information as a basis for later historical claims was acceptable in antiquity. Families in Athens who claimed Mycenaean ancestors must have based their claim on information that was preserved orally during the Dark Age. The repetition of these claims by Herodotus, 5.65, and "ausanias, 2.28.9, make it clear that they were considered acceptable, even though modern scholars such as J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, 600-300 B.C. (Oxford, 1971), 10. 294, attach no validity to this information. 56 These references were first recognized and collected by F.A. Wolf, Prolegomena ad Homerum (Berlin, 1795). For evaluation of Wolfs contribution and summary of subsequent scholarship cf. Introduction to F1. Wolf, Prolegomena to Homer, 1795, wanslated with notes and introduction by Grafton, Most, and Zetzel: C.G. ‘Thomas, Homer's History, Mycenaean

or Dark ige? 1-8. 57 Lycurgos, Against Leocrates, 102: BobAopar 5 wiv Kai tov “Opnpov rapacx&odaı Eraıvüv. otw yap LrEAaßov tudv OL Ratépes onovdaiov eivar xountiv dote vopov Edevro Ka®’ Exdornv Revıermpida tov NavaSnvaiwv povou tev GAAwv nointov paywdeioGat 1a Exn. 58 [Plato], Hipparch. 228.b: 66 GAAa te ROAAG Kai KaAG Epya cogiac are&eiEato, kai Ta Oynpov Exn xpaetoc Exopioev EIG TMv YY Tauımvi, Kal nvaykage tous payadots Tlavaßnvaioıc EE vxoAnweas Edeäns avra drievan, Goxep viv Eu olde xorover. The law of Hipparchus is sometimes understood to indicate that he started the musical contests. Panathenaic vases portraying musical events began in the middle of the sixth century about the time the Greater Panathenaic Festival was established, before Hipparchus was old enough to initiate laws. It seems more likely that Hipparchus re-organized the existing contests and introduced stricter rules, as argued by J.A. Davison, JAS 78 (1958): 39; J.A. Scott, The Unity of Homer, 65

52 2.

16.149

51: Acropolis

Museum

No.

611;

Kakrides.

EAAnvıwn

MuBoAoyia. V, 43. fig. 29. dated ca. 560 B.C.; Friis Johansen, Early Greek Art 115 19: Beazley, ABV, 82. below, 1. Early vases from Athens which portrayed Homeric subjects were listed by J.A. Notopoulos, fesperia 29 (1960): 183 84. He found few examples that correspond to the iad and Odysser. He concluded that there must have been a widespread ignorance of these particular Homeric epics in Athens during the seventh and carly sixth centuries B.C. 43 UL 2.558: Aristotle, Rhetoric,

1.15: Plutarch. Salon,

10: Strabo. 9.1.10:

Quintilian. 5.11.40: Diogenes Laertius, Solon 1.18. For discussion of ancient

passages

23067:

M.P.

‚Lund.

1951.

historical

sce among

Nilsson, 27

Cals. Mortis,

41: Allen.

background

vol. II. part 3.372 as legend. JA.

Merkelbach,

Origins and ‘Transmission, 2314

95 (1952):

in CUT

second

37.

For the

edition.

19825,

116. XL]. Apthorp, The Manuscript Exidence

Heidelberg,

Davison.

RA M

TIPE

1980: 86

169 1055:

70, dismissed this inci17

18, suggested

that

the Megarians invented the tale to discredit the Athenians. "This may have

been

the incentive

66. For discussion of the

foundation of the Panathenaic Festival and the dates of the musical contests cf. J.A. Davison, JHS 78 (1958): 26-42; 82 (1962): 141 +2: TAPA 86 (1955): 8 13. For general discussion of the festival cf.J. Neils. (roddess and Polis, The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens, with contribu-

tions by E,J.W. Barber, D. Kyle, B.S. Ridgway, and H.A. Shapiro (Princeton,

1992); K. Rhomiopoulou,

preface to exhibition catalogue:

Mind and Body: Athletic Contests in Ancient Greece (Athens, 1989), 41 -46; Shapiro, Art and Cult under the Tyrants, 18-47: E. Simon, Festivals of Attica (Madison, 1983), 55 72: H.W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (Ithaca and London, 1977), 33. 50. 39 Schol. on Pindar. Nanea 2.1.

Oracles, and Politics in Ancient Greece

cf X. Andrews

78.5392

fer Interpidaten in Homer dent

others

1.57. that Solon

had done more than Peisistratos to illuminate Homer can be understood to mean that Solon made the Athenians perccive the potential political importance of the Trojan Cycle at the time the Salamis controversy first erupted. Cf. also Plato. Timaios. 21.b, where the association between Solon and the oral tradition was also suggested.

for the original

accusation.

but

the incident

was mentioned by Aristode. which suggests that the controversy, regardless of its motivation. was historical and nota later invention.

60 Diogenes Laertius, Solon, 1.57: ta te Oynpov E& unofoAng YEypase payaseriodaı. olov Gnov 6 pitas EAnkev. ExeiBev GpxecOar tov Ex6nevov. UGAAOv obv Lédwv “Ounpov Edaticev 7 Meiciotpatos, dic ener Arevxidag Ev neunte Meyapixav. This passage attributes the law to Solon on the basis of Dieuchidas’ Megarian History. ‘The Greater Panathenaic Festival and the ineduction of musical contests, as indicated In the date of the cartiest Panathenaic amphoras, appear to have been established after the period of Solon’s domination of Athenian political life. Dieuchidas in his histon was iving to discredit Peisistratos and in

Notes: The Origins of the Written Text of the liad and the Odyssey his efforts to avoid mentioning Peisistratos by name. he appears to have substituted Solon’s name for that of Peisistratos. 61 How much was actually memorized and how much was newly composed by individual bards, and the related subject concerning the difference between the singer called an ao1dd¢ as opposed to the singer called a payobos has been much discussed; cf. Burkert, “The Making of Homer in the Sixth Century B.C." in Papers on the Amasts Painter and his World, 43-62; Jensen, Homeric Question, 112 23. Concerning the degree of memorization in other cultures and the variation of its use by different bards cf. Finnegan, Oral Poetry, 79, 139 40. The oral tradition lasted for centuries in early Greece. There must have been a great variety of ability and consequently of techniques among the bards. Inevitably the more creative bards produced more newly coined formulae and original compositions, whereas the less creative bards relied more heavily on memory and songs sung by others. This appears to have been the situation which M. Parry found in Yugoslavia: Lord. Singer of Tales, 14.17. J.A. Notopoulos, 47? 83 (1962): 344. working on the oral tradition of Crete, found that both types of singers. those who created as well as those who

repeated

from

memory,

could and did

exist at the same time. Notopoulos. 349, argued that passage of the Panathenaic law started the concept of the pawadög as the type of bard who memorized the text of others. It is more characteristic of oral composition and its methods, in my opinion, that the law mercly ordered the bards to sing of the events in the order presented by Homer but did not compel them to use the actual words of Homer. In Plato, fon, 531a, it was observed that certain parts of the epic are more moving and hence casier to sing than others. ‘The law merely kept the bards from repeatedly singing the same sections (notes 58 60 abovci. When it became apparent that the words of Homer. as they were written down, were far superior to those presented by the various bards. then the bards began to memorize the fixed text. Even as late as the beginning of the fourth century B.C., however, bards felt free to change the text; Plato, fon, 530 a b. Once memorization of the text began, the need for a written text developed, and as the fame of the written words spread, the copies multiplied and eventually spread throughout the Greek and Roman world. 62 Pausanias, 7.26.13: Aiyeipas 5¢ Ev to herab cai MleAirivng x0A1cpa üurrxoov Lixveviav Aovotcca kadoumevn EYEVETO HEV URO TÜV Licveviev avdotatos, pvmioveverv BE Kal Opnpov Ev Kata Aöye tev ovv Ayapépvovi gaa aut, xoiioavta ERoOG ot 8 "Trepnoinv te kai aireıviiv Aovoeccav. Neısiotpatog S€ qvixa Exn ta Oynpov Siecxacpeéva te xai [adAAa] GANaxoü pvmovevdueva Opole tte avrdv Meicictpatov fi tev tiva Evaipev petaxoihoat TO Övona UKO dyvoiac. 63 Anthologia Palatina, | 1.442: Nevsiotpatov. ög tov “Opnpov / jOporca. oropasnv TO xpiv derdopevov. 64 Cicero, de Orat. 3.34: Qui primus Homeri libros confusos antea sic disposuisse dicitur ut nunc habemus. This same information is given by Eustathius in his introduction to Book | of the /lad. 65 Aclian, FH. 13.14. 66 ‘The Jensen, Earliest sion of Athens

collected references to the Peisistratid text are published in Homeric Question, appendix; and in part in J. Plauthy, Sources of the Greek Libraries (Amsterdam, 1968), 97-110. For general discusthe passages and their relationship to the art and artefacts of ef. Shapiro, .trt and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens, 1-47.

67 CH. for example, [Plato]. Hipparch. 228.b, where it was stated that Hipparchus introduced the poems of Homer into Athens. Allen, Orgins and ‘Transmission, 228, observed that this is a remarkable statement to make concerning an event that was supposed to have happened 150 years cartier. Ifthe statement in the dialogue is considered an exagger-

225

ation, then possibly it can be understood to mean that Hipparchus, by regulating the singing of the Homeric pocms in the Panathenaic Festival, introduced the epics in their entirety for the first time to many of the less well-educated people of the city. 68 CE. especially S.R. West, Odyssey Commentary. vol. I. pp. 36 38: Davison, 74P4 86 (1955): 1 21; Companion, 219 20: Merkelbach, Ah 95 (1952): 23 +47: but also Havelock, The Muse Learns to Write, 12; Finley. The World of Odysseus, 38; Kirk, Homer and the Oral Tradition, 125, 133: R. Pfeiffer. History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to Ihe End of the Hellenistic Age

‘Oxford,

1968), 8; Whitman, Homer and the Heroic Tradition,

74: Lattimore, Introduction to his translation of the fhiad, 13 n. 2; Apthorp, The Manuscript Evidence, 65 67. 69 Jensen, Homeric Question, 159 71, and Carpenter, Folk Tale, Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics. 12 14, argued that the Peisistratid text represented the original dictated text. This view has been generally ignored or denied; I. Morris, C15 (1986): 91-92; WLM. Sale, 47P 104 11983): 295 98. More recently an occasional scholar is beginning to reconsider

the possibilities of this idea: G.

Nagy,

TAPA

122 (1992):

11 52. But the idea that Homer cannot be sixth century has become so fixed that that later consideration usually modifies this view: G. Nagy, Poetry as Performance, 110. For other recent views on the date of Homer cf. note 10 of introduction. When Allen, Ongin and Transmission, 226 48, examined these passages in some detail in 1924, he recognized that the ancient references indicated a Peisistratean date; he felt. 244, that such a date was “inconsistent with the date of the Epic Cycle” and therefore he rejected the idea of a Peisistratid recension. More recent work on the oral tradition has made it clear that the datc ofa written text of the Jliad and Odyssey is not dependent on the date of the other preserved written portions of the Cycle, and thus Allen’s arguments for an early date are no longer valid: cl. Endnote 1. Janko. Commentary, vol. IV, p. 32. suggested that the “Peisistratean Recension” was fabricated by the Pergamene librarians to discredit the Aristarchus text; nevertheless he did admit, 37. that the “Auic traits in the epic diction do prove that Athens played a major role in the transmission, and this must be related to the Peisistratids’ patronage of Homeric poctry.” He concluded that the Peisistratids “probably procured the first complete set of rolls to cross the Aegean” but he rejected the idea of a Peisistratid oral dictated text because of his preconceived notion that the text of the Lhad and Odyssey must date to an earlier period. K. Stanley, The Shield of Homer, Narrative Structure in the Iliad (Princeton, 1993), also accepted an cighth-century Homer; he suggested that the earlier songs were reorganized, expanded, and elaborated in sixth-century Athens into the written text we have today. 70 1. Morris, C4 5 (1986): 91-92, objected to the use of vase painting for the dating of Homer. His objections appear to be based on the fact that the vases of this period contradict his predetermined position that Homer belongs in the cighth century. He presented no new evidence in support of an eighth-century date for Homer and he stated no reasonable objection to the use of vase painting as evidence. He merely quoted other scholars whose opinions agreed with his own. If vase painting, and by inference all other types of pottery, are debarred wholesale as evidence, as suggested by Morris, then many of the archacological deductions concerning the history of ancient Greece must also be discarded. 71 This same date is suggested by the great increase of indirect references to the epics beginning at this time, Davison, Companion, 220, and a substantial increase in vase painting of subjects related to the Jad, Friis Johansen, Early Greek Art, 223 27. 728. Woodford. 748 102 (1982): 173 85. The addition of Ajax to this scene has been much discussed: ef. M.B. Moore, 17.1 84 (19805: 417 34. The subject itself appears to have no fiterary parallels and it seems to representa new idea developed by Exckias. For popularity of

226

NOTES FOR

Ajax in late sixth-century Athens chence his portrayal on the Exekias amphora. and the possibility that the glorification of his position in the fhad was inspired by Athenian interest cf Endnote 12. 78 CE Chapter 1. #1 Athenacus. 1.3.a: the other people mentioned in this passage are Polyerates of Samos. Eucleides of Athens, Nicocrates of Cyprus, the kings of Pergamon, Euripides the poet, Aristotle the philosopher, Theophrastes. and Neleus who preserved the books of Aristotle and Theophrastes. Peisistratos” Library was also mentioned by Gellius. Nactes Mae. 7.17.12: Pertallianus, Ipologetiwus. 18.5: Hieronymus, pot. 34 Isidorus, Eirmologiarum vice originum, 6.3.3 5. For modern scholarship on the subject ef. JA. Davison. Phoenix 16 11962: 152, who pointed out that the tyrant Cleisthenes of Sievon also had a library; Platthy, Sources on the Earliest Greek Libraries. Apart from the otherwise unknown Nicocrates of Cyprus, the other eight people on Athenacus’ list are Achenians. tyrants, or kings. 75 Herodotus, 7.6.3: Exovtes “Ovopaxpitov. üvöpa A@nvaiov xpnonoAoyov te kai Stadermv xpnauav tüv Movoaiov. aveßeßnkeouv. iv ExOpnv xpoxataAvodpevor EENAdoOn yap ro Inräpxou tov TleıGlotpatou 0 Ovopaxpttus €€ Abnveov. Ex avtogupw GAots Und Adcov Tov ‘Eppiovéos Euroreov Es ta Movouiov xpnopov as ai Eri Anıvo ENikeipevat vio agaviCoiato Kata tig GBaddoong (Oxford edition). Possibly the Library also contained a copy of Hesiod. Plutarch, Theseus, 20.1. quoted Hereas of Megara, who accused Peisistratos of removing a line from Hesiod. The removal of a single line is of litde significance unless it involved a dispute of some sort which is otherwise unknown) or a written manuscript 70 Aristotle, „UA.Pol. 18: [Plato]. Hipparch. 228.b c: ).M. Edmonds, Flag and lambus Loch edition, 168), 25. 77 Gellius, Noles Aiticae, 7.17.1 2: Libros Athenis disciplinarum liberalium publice ad legendum pracbendos primus posuisse dicitur Peisistrates tyrannus. Deinceps studiosius accuratiusque ipsi Athenienses auxerunt: sed omnem illam postea librorum copiam Xerxes, Athenarum potitus, urbe ipsa practer arcem incensa, abstulit asportavitque in Persas. Eos porro libros universos multis post tempestatibus Seleucus rex, qui Nicanor appellatus est, referendos Athenas curavit. 74 Herodotus, 5.90. 1. Canlora, The Vanished Library. ans. M. Pyle (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1989), 123 31, 183 84, doubted the existence of a Peisistratid Library: his discussion primarily dealt with the late sources and the evidence for the end of the Alexandrian Library: he ignored the Herodotcan passage and the cultural policies of Peisistratos and Hipparchus. Compared to the Alexandrian Library the Peisistratid manuscripts might seem too few to be called a library, but in the sixth century B.C. the number of manuscripts considered a library were far fewer. 79 J.M.

Edmonds, Elegy and lambus, + 5. 104

55: Lyra Graeca (Loeb edi-

tion, 1959) HL 610 18. 638. "This is in contrast to carly Sparta, which appears to have had a strong literary tradition in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Terpander, ‘Pyrtacus, and Aleman are some of the more famous poets of archaic Sparta. 80 C.M. Bowra, Pindar (Ostord. 1964. 107 9. 8 For cultural policy of Peisistratos and his use of this policy an a means of uniting Athenians ch FÜ Frost, 1% 92 1988): 239 10: TLL. Shear. Jr. When Comes of Age. E19: Davison. Phoenix 1641962: 144. 82 Allen. Org and Transmission, 326 27, argued that the fixing of the ancient texts was a Hellenistic phenomenon. "This opinion was vigorously argued by R. Lamberton sper edd: and is generally supported by philologists whe are primarily concerned with the later histor and interpretation of the andient tests: cl. for example sunposium cited in

CHAPTER V1 Chapter VII note 55 and book by Lamberton cited in Chapter VII note

I11. The

existence of sixth-century libraries, (cf note

74 abovei

no matter how small or large such libraries were. presupposes written texts of some sort. These texts may have been changed or altered when they were copied in the succeeding centuries, but the existence of any written text automatically means a fixed text. Whether these early fixed texts survived and how closely they are reflected in our current texts pose another, more difficult question. 43 Gellius. Noctes Atieae, 7.17.10 2 (cf note 77 above): Isidorus, Eamalogiaram size origina, 6.3.3 5: Valerius Maximus, 2.10 ext. 1. The return of the Tyrannicides was also auributed to Antiochos (Pausanias. and

to Alexander

the Great

(Pliny, NA.

34.70:

Arrian, Anab.

1.8.5) 3.16.7,

7.19.2). IU scems unlikely chat Alexander had time to return the statues. Antiochos. the son of Seleucus, may have returned them as his father’s emissary: such a hypothesis reconciles the Pausanias passage with that of Gellius. Isidorus, and Valerius Maximus. Seleucus appears to have had a special fondness for Athens, among other favors, he sent them a live tiger. which caused great excitement, and he provided various political benefits: ‘TL. Shear, Jr... Hesperia, Supplement 17 (1978), 62 n. 184. The return of the statues and the Library can be seen as another manifestation of his generosity. For discussion of the statues cf. A. Stewart, Greek Sculpture (New Haven, 1990), 7, 60, 2-49: S. Brunnsäker, The ‘Tyrant-Slayers of kritios and Nesiotes, A Critical Study of the Sources and Restorations (Stockholm, 19715. and especially 41. 43, 44 45. 121, 125, 133 34 for the statues by Antenor taken by the Persians. Allen's fanciful idea that the Peisistratid manuscripts were the basis of the Pergamene Library. implied in Origins and Transmission. 247 (cf. Jensen, Homeric Question, 131 32), seems unlikely. In the earlier period, Pergamon was not important enough to attract the library. In the later period, when Pergamon was important. it is difficult to understand the circumstances that would have led Athens to give the manuscripts to Attalus, any more than she would have willingly given away the original statues of the Tyrannicides. 81 Plutarch. Pericles, 13.01. The existence of two separate groups of musical contests is reflected by the existing Panathenaic amphoras; one group of amphoras cates to the period of ca. 560 B.C. to the early fifth century and the second group began ca. 430 B.C., after a gap of almost fifty years. Davison, JAS 78 (1958): 36- 3B, 42; 82 (1962): I-41 42, listed the known amphoras. The first group is to be associated with Peisistratos and his son, the second group with Pericles. ‘The carly vases show two instruments, the cithera and the flute: the portrayal of two instruments suggests that the early contests were varied and consisted of different musical events. 85 “Corrected” manuscripts were made by Antimachus of Colophon (Schol. on ZL. 1.298), the younger Euripides (Eustathius on // 2.865), and Aristotle for Alexander the Great (Plutarch, Alexander, 7 and 26). The story of Alcibiades seeking a text from a school teacher who was only able to produce a text that he himself had edited (Plutarch, Aleibiades, 7.1: Strabo, 131.27), although probably spurious, indicates widespread use of altered texts in Athens by the end of the fifth century. Diogenes Laertius, Ziman, 9.113, also suggests extensive use of corrected text. Xenophon, Meanorabilia, 4.2.11, implies that partial texts were also current. 86 Jensen, Homeric Question, 106 Howes, HSCP 6 (1895); 153 237.

7: Davison, Companion, 221, G.E.

#7 Janko. Conumentary, vol. IV. p. 52: 8.R. West, The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer in Papyrologica Coloniensta, vol. 3 (Cologne and Opladen. 1967); Davison. Companion. 221.25: G.M. Bolling, The External Evidence for Intapolations in Homer ‚Oxford. 1025: 33: Allen, Origins and ‘Transmission, 271 301. Athough some scholars question the concept of carly, fixed, written texts, ch. note B2 above, their existence for the dhad and Odyssey is indicated by these Bey pti papyri.

„Votes: The Origins of the Written Text of the Iliad and the Odyssey 88 Bolling, Extemal Evidence, 36. For the library in general cf. P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), 420-464; Pfeiffer, History af Classical Scholarship,

196

212: Parsons,

Tie Alevandrian Library, for later his-

tory and destruction of the library cl.

Canfora, The Vanished Library.

80 Schol. on 1. 7.238, 11.104. 14.241. 21.363: Od. 1.52. CH. for example the text made by Aristotle for Alexander the Great; Plutarch, Adevander, 7. OL City editions were mentioned by Schol. on Od. 1.38, 1.424. Sinope and Massalia (Marseille) were also said to have had their own texts: Eustathius on ZU 11.1. 12 S.R. West, Odssur Commentary, vol. |, p. 40; Plolemate Papyr. 1? 13. 03 The most notorious “addition” was 4. 2.558 in the Salamıis entry of the Catalogue of Ships, which the Megarians accused the Athenians of incorporating into the tradition, but other “additions” were also said to have been made. Diogenes Laertius. Solon, 1.57, reported that Dieuchidas accused Peisistratos of changing the Athenian entry of the Catalogue of Ships, 4. 2.546--51. Plutarch, Theseus, 20, repeated the claim of the Megarian writer Hereas that Od. 11.631 was added by Peisistratos. Schol. on Od. 11.602 4 claimed that Onomacritus, who had collected the oracles of Mausacus for Peisistratos, inserted lines in the Odywey. Additional Peisistratid changes were reported in Schol. on Od. 7.80 81 and Schol. on Z. 10.1 (repeated in Eustathius on 7. 10.1}. ‘4 For the sion of the vol. I. pp. Commentary,

extensive bibliography on this subject and general discuswork of the Librarians cl. S.R. West, Odysser Commentary, 41 45: Kirk, Commentary, vol. I. pp. 35 43: Janko, vol. W, pp. 22 29: Davison, Companion. 215 33.

935 Apthorp. Manuscript Eridence, 9. 126; S.R. West, Plolemaic Paprri: Bolling. Athetized Lines, 5. Justification for the removal of lines by the Librarians can be found in the work done on the long Indian epic Mahabharata by a group of group of scholars led by V.S. Sukthankar: they observed in the course of editing this epic that the tendency was to add new

lines and at the same

Bolling, Alhetized Lines, 28

Companion, 222

texts rather than the establishment of a single, uniform text.

104 Davison, Companion, 223 25, reached this same conclusion, and in fact Eustathius’ introduction to Book | of the Jliad 1.9 implies a Prisistratid source for the Aristarchus edition. He remarked first that the various parts of the /liad were put together under the orders of Peisistratos and then stated that these were later corrected and divided into books by Aristarchus and Zenodotus: “Ott Ev pev tt capa cuvexés S6A0v Kat evappootov N tig IAıadog noinois ot SE cuvOépevor tadımv Kat émitayny, 6 daci, Meiootpatov tov tav Adnvaiav tupdvvou ypaupatiKol Kai Siopfwodnevor Kata TO EKEIVOLG ÜPEOKOV. ov Kopueaios 6 Apiatapyos xai pet Exeivov Znvodotos, 510 TO Exipnxes Kai SuceEi mtov Kai 51a tovto npocKopés KatéteEpov auto cic noAAG. CT. also Jensen, Homeric Question, 100 -10; B.A. van Groningen, Traite d° histuire et de critique des textes grees (Amsterdam, 1963): Bolling, ‚Ithetized Lines. 5.21 23.

time to keep all of the earlier lines;

30.

XVII/I, p. 607.

“ Bolling, „Ithetized Lines, 33 36, discussed in some detail the difficulties in understanding the meaning of these signs. 97 Cf. Davison,

227

103 Bolling, External Evidence, 5. ‘Vhe discovery of more papyri and further study of them by Apthorp, Manuscript Evidence. 1-10, reinforced the conclusions originally drawn by Bolling. ‘The view that our modern text is based on the Aristarchus edition is supported by S.R. West. Odyssey Commentary, vol. I, p. 45: Plolematc Papyri, 17. Davison, Companion, 223; and others. Allen. Origins and Transmission, 302 27. alone has seriously questioned the origin of this text as being the one edited by Aristarchus. He believed that the Hellenization of Rome, the decay of rhapsodic art, and the subsequent demand for written texts resulted in a brisk book trade. This trade, according to Allen, developed its own standardized text, which was completely independent of the Alexandrian editions. In a period when each papytus was laboriously copied by individual scribes, it is difficult to understand how the merchants were able to establish a single authoritative text. The book traders presumably had their own favorite set of scribes; since they were not scholars but merchants, they would not have felt the need to examine closely the variant manuscripts. If a great demand for the texts existed, then the Romans, not being familiar with the different manuscript traditions, would unwittingly have accepted whatever was available. Such a demand was more likely to have led to a variety of

24, for summary

of this evidence and

extensive bibliography on this subject. For later scholarship on this subject cf. J.l. Porter, “Hermeneutic Lines and Circles: Aristarchus and Crates on the Exegesis of Homer” in Homer's Ancient Readers: The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic's Earliest Exegetes, ed. R. Lamberton and JJ. Keaney (Princeton, 1992), 68-69. ‘I'Me signs with a Greek text were published by 'T.W. Allen in his 1931 Oxford edition of the Zliad and by the Fondazione Lorenzo Valla in their 1986 edition of the Odyssey. o8 Cf. Schol. Did/A. Arn/A and bT on A. 15.64 Janko, Commentary, vol. IV. p. 234.

77, discussed by

40 Richardson, Commentary, 22.74 -76. 100 Bolling, Adhetized Lines, 32, accepted by Davison, Companion, 222. 101 Cf. for example Schol. Arn/A and Did/T on A. 11.12. 102 These conclusions were drawn by Apthorp, Manuscript Evidence, 47 63, after a detailed study of those lines which had been questioned by the two Librarians and a comparison of lines in the Egyptian papyri to those found in the modern text. Some of the disputed lines noted by Apthorp, Manuscript Evidence, 9, 23. 126, are I, 13.731, Od. 10.315, 11.525. Janko. Commentary, 14.173. 15.56-77, 15.212 17, 15.240 41, 16.707 9, and Richardson, Commentary, 21.195, commented on specific changes made by Aristarchus. Friedrich, 47? 110 (198%: 395--99, discussed the difference of opinion between Aristophanes and Aristarchus over the reading of Od, 13.158.

Digitized by Google

106 The exact dates of the Librarians has been much debated. ‘The chronology being followed here comes from Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria. 330-33: for slightly different chronology cf. Parsons, Alexandnan Library, 262 -64. 107 For the history of this period cf. R.M.

Errington, in IH

(second

edition, 1989), vol. VIII, 244-74; P.S. Derow. CAA (second edition. 1989), vol. VIII, 301 2, M. Cary, A History of the Greek World, from 323 to 146 B.C. (London and New York, reprinted

1963}, 125 -205.

108 Cf. Bolling, External Evidence, 31 -37. In the reconstruction suggested here, lines which

were

athetized,

that is to say those lines with

a

mark put next to them, are not considered verses rejected by Aristarchus but are interpreted as verses whose reading was uncertain or problematic in some way. It is understandable that difficulties occurred in deciphering the original four-hundred-year-old papyrus, which must have been written entirely in capital letters. similar to an epigraphical text, without separation between words, accents, or iota subscripts. 109 Aristarchus’ reluctance to make simple changes in the texts, such as the use of the dual form in /liad Book 9, or to smooth over inconsistencies in the texts caused by the dictation process. discussed in Chapter VII, becomes understandable if he thought he had the carliest known manuscript of the epics. 110 This was quoted in two of the Lites of Homer, and V; Janko, Commentary, 13.195 97: Allen. Origins and Transmission, 24-4, 247; Homert Opera, ed. TW. Allen (Oxtord Classical Texts, 1912) 4. pp. 101, 244 247.

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

228

NOTES FOR CHAPTER

V1

111 GA among others Strabo, 1-4.1.35, 37. and 141.28, where he gave the added information that some say Homer came from Colophon.

be a man of astonishing skill. The clan, however, was also important since they had provided the raining and preserved the tradition.

112 Aristotle, „Ih. Pol. 14.1.4: Annotixadtatos 5 eivan doxav o MeioioTpatos Kai 0608P evSoxipnkds Ev 16 RpOs Meyapéas noAgpw.

120 For discussion of the linguistic features of the texts and their chronology ef. Chadwick, 748 110 (1990: 174 77; S.R. West, Odyser Commentary, 39 40: Janko. Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Jensen, Homeric Question, 167: Shipp, Studies in the Language of Homer, 10 15: L.R. ’ılmer, Companion, 75 178:J. Whatmough, 47.4 52 (1948): 45-50; P. Mazon, Introduction a Ulliade (Paris, 1942); P. Gauer, Grundfragen der

113 It is generally accepted that the Catalogue of Ships was a separate song not originally associated with the fliad, but the question has rarely been asked why the Catalogue. which appears to come from an earlier part of the Trojan Cycle, came to be associated with the Wrath of Achilles. which came towards its end. This question was discussed in Chapter V. The addition of the Catalogue to the Miad indicates that a single bard might sometimes include memorized material to an otherwise newly created composition, Although the question of memorized text as Opposed to newly created song has often been debated. cf note 61 above, the addition of a memorized Catalogue into a newly dictated fhad has not entered the discussion. 114 Davison, Phoenix 16 11962: 152. noted that the library established by the tyrant Cleisthenes of Sieyon was also politically motivated. Jensen. Homenc Question, 93. cited a modern parallel for the transcription ofan oral song to support a political aim: in her example a historical poem of the Bieng tribe in Zaire was wanscribed and then sent to the European authorities as proof of their precedence over the neighboring Kuba. 115 According to Schol. on Dionysius Vhrax: I. Bekker, ‚Ineedonta Graeca ‘Berlin, 1816) Il, 768: "Hv SE. Go gacıv. aroAöneva ta tov Oypipov'’ TÖTE yap ov Ypasyfı aapedidoto. GAAG povy Sdacxalia Kai as Gv uviyun pHovyn E4uAartero. Mevcictpatos SE 1g ‘A@nvainv tupavvos, Ev Gxaciv &v ElyEviK. Kai Ev tolto Bauactov EfovAetcatd NOEANGE yap Kai mv "Opnpov roincıv Eyypasov S:agvAdttec@ar. MpoSeic de ayava Smoredh cai enpvEas Kai Gédeivav toig eidocn xai Povdopévois ta “Opfipov exdeixvucGat, kai pr080v taEas atizou Exdatov OßoAöv, auvTrayev OAoayzepeics tag AcEeis Kai xapédoxev avOpaxoig cogoic Kal Extotpooiv: and Bekker, „Inerdonta Graeca, 11, 767: exnpufev Ev ran m EAAdd1 tov Eyovta “OpnpiKxots atixous ayayetv xpos avtov. Eri 11006 Hpıauevo xaß' Exactov otixov. Cf. also Eustathius on 1.32 35. 1.30

H,141

#2.

Hie Jensen, Homerte Question, 9 95, quoting 1..H. Jeflery, noted that a minimum day's wage in fifth-century Athens was two obols, the equivalent of two verses in Homer. A single sheet of papyrus cost cight obols in the fifth century; LH. Jeffery. Local Seripty of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1961), 57. Wages were probably somewhat lower in the sixth century but the cost was still enormous. The costs of such a venture were reflected in the other early libraries, which were predominantly sponsored by tyrants; note 74 above. 117 Pausanias, 7.26.13: Mevciotpatov SE. nvixa Exn ta ‘Opnpov d1e0raoyeva te Kai adAaxov pvmovevdpeva HOpoiCe. 118 As argued

by Whitman.

Homer and the Heroic

Tradition,

74, and

Apthorp, Manuenpt Evidawe, 66. Presumably the text that Janko, Gommentary, vol. IV, p. 32, suggested was first brought to the Greek mainland from Sonia by Peisistratos also came from the Homeridac. Had such a text existed, however, itis difficult to understand why this text was not consulted at the time of the Megarian controversy, 119 Hence the date given by Herodotus, 2.54. V. Edwards and “TJ. Sienkewiez, Oral Cultures Past and Prevent: Rapp’ and Homer Cambridge. MA and Oxford. 1990), 17.25.33. and Bowra, Herate Porter, 113 75. noted that oral bards often come from families of bards who look upon the oral tradition as a means

of preserving

history and

that all bards.

even from the same fanily. are not capable of comparable achievements.

[twas

our von

great

good

fortune.

gested here. thatthe particular bard who

in die reconstruction: sug:

went

to Athens happerted

to

Homerkritik.

I U (Leipzig,

1921-23).

Whatmough,

46, concluded

that

the Tonic language was not the latest element in the Homeric language and that linguistically che language could be as late as the sixth centuty. Chadwick, 174-75, also considered the latest linguistic features to be sixth century. This evaluation is in contrast to Janko, 228- 31, who claimed that the language of the /liad belangs to the period 750- 725 B.C. and the language of the Odyssey to 743-713 B.C. In view of the conflicting opinions, the linguistic dates are not as certain as is sometimes claimed: cf. for example I. Morris, (4 5 (1986): 93.

121 For the use of the digamma in the oral form and its absence in the written text cf. Janko,

Homer, Hesiod and Ihe Hymns, 42

69, Willcock, .1

Conmenlary on Homer’s Iliad, Books I-11, xii_ xiv, Shipp, Studies in the Language of Homer, 44 45: Kirk, Songs of Homer, 197 98;J. Chadwick, JHS 110 (1990): 175; JA. Scott, The Unity of Homer, 70 71. 122 For the work of the scribes cf. Endnote 9.

123 Whitman, Homer and the Heroic Tradition, 73, argued that the Ionian alphabeı was better suited to the writing down of the Homeric cpics than the Attic script and thus Peisistratos must have surely used the Tonian alphabet

if he had

made

a text. G.P. Goold,

TAPA

91

(1960):

272 91, also argued that the lonic alphabet was used to write the first written text of Homer.

Neither of these scholars, however, managed

to

explain why there is no trace of this hypothetical Ionian manuscript. Since the bard was lonian. the Ionic alphabet, which reflects the lonic dialect, was naturally better suited to convey his words. Peisistratos. however, merely ordered that the text be made. It would surely never have occurred to him to discuss with the scribes what alphabet was to be used, nor is it likely that he realized the potential superiority of the lonian alphabet. 124 So Powell, Homer and the Origin of the (sreck Alphabet: Wade-Gery,

The

Poet of the Mad, %. 125 Kirk,

Commentary, vol. I, p. xxv; Taplin, Homeric Soundings, 43.

126 J.A. Scott, The Units of Homer, 56-60, rejected the concept of any Peisistratid connection with Homer because Athenians lacked the influence in the sixth century to spread the text. In the reconstruction suggested here, the spread of the Peisistratid text resulted from the excellence of the text itself; Athenian influence, whether in the sixth century or later in the filth, was not an important factor. 127 Such a dependency is indicated by the Attic diction as well as the addition of all the so-called Athenian interpolations, including the disputed Eine in the Catalogue of Ships. which are to be found in all known editions of the epics. CE among others Janko, Commentary, vol. IV, p. 52: Bolling, „Ihetized Lines, 5, 23: Apthorp. Manuscript: Evidence, 65 67. Later additions made by individuals or cities, ef notes 85, 91 above, are not universally found in the preserved papyri, unlike the “Athenian additions.” 128 HER. Inmerwahr, Me Senpt 1 Maver :Oxford. (990), 15, having collected all known early Athenian texts. stated this conclusion most forcetully. 12004N. Parın.

FES 20

1966.

177286:

Lord. .17.152:1018%: 34

180 Lord. Companion, 193 97: Notopoulos. 17/773

+4.

1952 233 35. 241.

Notes: The Ongins of the Witten Text of the Wiad and the Odyssey 131 The popularity of the Homeric poems is illustrated by R.A. Pack.

‘The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt (Ann Arbor, second edition, 1965) who listed the Greek texts from Egypt; 680 are Homeric, the second largest group comprises the eighty-two works of Demosthenes, and third are the seventy-seven items written by Euripides. 132 This is contrary to the opinions suggested by Mazon, Introduction a UIliade, 276 -77, who emphasized Athens’ cultural importance, and Allen, Origins and Transmission, 225, 302-27, who emphasized her hypothetical domination of the book trade. 133 B. Knox, Jensen,

Homeric

Introduction

to Fagles'

Question, 60-61;

M.W.

translation of the Zliad, 20 Edwards,

Homer,

21;

Poet of Iliad,

7 10; Kirk, Homer and the Oral Tradition, 2; Bowra, 47.1 54 (1950): 189--90. The length of these epics is in sharp contrast to the length of the more normal narrative songs in the oral tradition which were reported by Kirk, Commentary, vol. I, p. 12, usually to last about one hour. In Od. 8.63 384, the banquet in the Land of the Phacacians. songs by the bard were intermingled with games, contests, dancing. and eating; this scene probably represents the more normal situation in antiquity; the songs in this scene were obviously fairly short. An early festival was described in the Homenc Hymn to Apollo: boxing, dancing. poetry, and songs sung by a variety of bards were included in the activities. A single bard occupying threc to four days for the recitation of his individual work cannot have been accommodated in such an event. 134 Wade-Gery, Poet of the Iliad, 14-17, suggested that the /liad was composed for one of the great Ionian festivals. He compared its presentation to the four-day Bayreuth Festival held in 1876 which presented the Wagnerian operatic cycle of the Ring. This cycle, however. started as a single opera which was followed by three independent compositions. The concept of performing the four operas at a single festival was a later development. A similar festival may have been organized at some later date for the recitation of the /liad, but it does not explain the original impetus for the composition of a lengthy epic. Kirk, Commentary, vol. I, p. 12, and Notopoulos, HSCP 68 (1964): 12-17, questioned Wade-Gery’s suggestion, whereas H. Lloyd-Jones. Greek in a Cold Climate (Savage, 1991), 5, supported his idea. 135 Aristotle, Poetics, 24.5: 1459 b 20. Cf. also Eustathius on /liad 1, who commented that the /liad was so long that it tended to be a little boring according to some tastes. 136 Wade-Gery, Poet of the Iliad, 14-16, estimated that three days are necessary for a complete recitation. Kirk, Commentary, vol. I. p. 12, estimated it needs at least twenty hours. Notopoulos, HSCP68 (1964): 12. believed that it needs a minimum of 26.9 hours to recite the Jliad and 20.7 hours to recite the Odyssey; he pointed out that the actual time spent during the whole recital has to be lengthened by the singer's need to pause for rest periods. For further discussion cf. Stanley. Shield of Homer, 265-66 and his n. 36 on pp. 401 2. 137 J.A. Scott, The Unity of Homer, 265, 268. The rest of the Trojan Cycle is also much shorter than the /liad and Odyssey. Cf. EvelynWhite, Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, and Homenca, 480 ff. and Lattimore, Introduction to /liad, p. 26. ‘The Cypria_ contained eleven books, less than half the length of the fliad, the Epigont and the Atthiopis each had five books: the Little Iliad consisted of four books: and the /lioupersis and the Telegony each had two books. 138 Answer made by Demo Zogi¢ to question put by M. Parry: Lord. Singer of Tales. 27. 139 Answer made by Sulejman Makic to question put by M. Parry: Lord, Singer of Tales, 27. 140 Answer made by Demo Zogi¢ to question put by M. Parry: Lord, Singer of Tales, 27.

229

141 Question and answer by M. Parry and Sulejman Makic; Lord. Singer of Tales, 27. 142 If all the Homeridae claimed to sing “line for line, word for word” the songs as they had learned them, then all the songs they sang were naturally considered to have originated with the original Homer who founded the clan. For works associated with the name of Homer cf. note 4 above. The original Homer quite possibly did sing versions of these epics and many of the hymns, but the surviving poems, in the written form we have today. vary in date. The differences in date represent the time the individual works were first written down and not the periods the songs were lirst composed. 1.13 Quote from Demo Zogic¢, Lord, Singer of

Tales. 27.

IH Quote from Makic, A.B. Lord and M. Parry, Serbocreatian Heraic Songs,

| (Cambridge, MA and Belgrade,

1954), 266.

145 A. Parry, 768 20 (1966): 188, emphasized that the Yugoslav bards did not understand the concept of verbatim accuracy and that their idea of accuracy was different from ours. Jensen, Homeric Question, 65 66, also observed that the bards may insist that they were recounting the “truc story” but their idea of “exactness” and “true” is quite diflerent from what we mean by the same words. These same observations were made by V. Edwards and Sienkewiez. Oral Cultures Past and Present, 36:

37.

146 Lord, 47.452 (1948): 41 +42, noted M. Parry’s experience that the process of dictation was unnatural to the bards, who were accustomed to rapid verse composition, and for some it was impossible. One of the bards whom M. Parry found to be most successful in dictating oral poctry was Avdo Mededovic: Lord, 47.41 52 (1948): +1: Serbo-Croatian Songs, 111, 7-9. When Avdo Mededovic was asked to sing an extended song, he sang for a week before his voice gave out; he then had to take a weck to rest before he was able to continue; finally after the third week he completed his song, which ran to 13,331 lines. M. Parry's assistants had been trained to write down a dictated text, which greatly decreased the time needed for the dictation. It must also be remembered that M. Parry was doing field research with a limited budget and a fixed period of time, which encouraged him to accomplish as much as possible in the time available and to reduce. the length of the rest periods during the dictation. ‘These restricting considerations are not applicable to the original dictated text of the Miad and Odyssey. 147 In true oral composition the length of a song was usually determined by the strength and endurance of the singer and by the amount of time available. In the Yugoslav tradition the average length of a song was

four thousand

to five thousand

lines; A.B.

Lord,

TAP.1

67

(1936): 107-8. Cf. also Singer of Tales, 16 17. 148 It was M. Parry’s experience that a receptive audience made for a better performance: cf. Lord, Singer of Tales. 148. 149 M. Parry found that the rate of dictation varied widely. In the case of the Yugoslav bard Avdo Mededovic, cf. note 146 above. 2,230 lines were transcribed on the first day, whereas only 731 were written on the second; Lord, 474 52 (1948): 41

42: Serbo-Croatian Songs, III. 8--9. “The

writing down of the /ltad must have taken considerably longer since the scribes, writing in capital letters, were unquestionably slower than M. Parry's trained assistants. 150 Lord, TAPA 67 (1936) 110 11: alter a rest period bards occasionally had trouble remembering where they had stopped in the dictation. 151 Avdo Mededovic. having been told to make a song as long as possible. used 744 lines to relate a trip which an carlier bard semic had related in thirty-six lines: Lord, Serbo-Croatian Songs, I, 21 22. See alsa Lord, Singer of Tales, 79 81: Finnegan, Oral Poetry, 174. 152 In the song sung by Avdo Mededovic. el. above note 1-46. at

230

NOTES FOR CHAPTER

added speech describing the treachery of the Vizier brought new concepts into the song concerning the relationship of the ruler to his subject and of one religion to another. When the bard was questioned about this speech, which did not eccur in other songs of the same tale, he did not remember from where he had received the information included in the speech, but he stated quite definitely that he had not made itup: Lord. Serbo-Croatian Songs, TIT 2122. 153 In the song sung by Avdo Mededovice, cf note 146 above. a long catalogue was added emphasizing the treachery of the Vizier: at this point in the song the hero was ignored and he did not reappear until the final scene: Lord, Serbo-Cratian Songs, III, 29. Scenes were also emphasized by the addition of descriptive details about the heroes. their equipment, or their homes: Lord, Singer of Tales, 35, 86 88, 106. 134 In his song. Avdo Mededovic. cf note

146 above, added a wile to

the song who is not found elsewhere. The addition of the wife gave greater emphasis to the banquet, thereby increasing the significance of the action following it, Lord, Serbo: Croatian Songs, II. 30. 155 Cf Lord, Singer of

Tales, 15, where the importance of a wide reper-

tory of songs was noted.

156 In the Yugoslav tradition tales were lengthened or shortened by adding or omitting similes, minor incidents, and descriptive details; the bards’ ability to do this varied considerably: Lord, 71PA 67 (1930): 110. Homer's expansive technique, which included many of the same techniques, was emphasized by MLW. Edwards throughout his commentary on the flad, cl. for example. Commentary, 17.360-425. 157 CL Jensen, Homeric Question, 34, where it was observed that the normal form of oral wadition was to sing of ane episode or a single incident and not the events of an entire war: the audience was expected to know the broad outlines of the story. 158 CE Herodotus, 2.53. and discussion of this passage in Chapter V.

VI

deliberate attempt to create variety in the greatly expanded epic which contained hundreds of lines describing fighting scenes. 162 It is frequently noted that there are there are in the Odsssey: Kirk, Songs of Homer, The Port of the liad, 102. The more had probably reflects the bard's attempt baule scenes and the inevitable sameness the Odyssey the episodes are more varied more frequently.

more similes in the flad than Homer, 161; M.W. Edwards, frequent use of similes in the to add variety to the lengthy of background in the /liad: in and the background changes

163 After M. Parry’s work the question was asked wherein lay the greatness of Homer's composition if the whole was based on oral tradition and formulaic phrases: cf. A. Parry,

1CS 21 (1966):

190 -99. Part

of the greatness comes from the juxtaposition of formulae, A. Parry. 199, but it can also be seen in his choice of additional material which incorporated information from other epics. the addition of a catalogue or series of similes that vary the tempo, the vividness of the description which differentiated one scene from another similar scene, and the fuller characterization of the gods and heroes. ‘These variations were controlled by the oral bard, and his handling of the different elements varied according to his ability and training. Cf. Fenik. Battle Scenes. 25, where he discussed one of the common sequences which was varied by the use of different details, and M.W.

Edwards,

Homer. Poet of the Iliad.

319, who noted that the personalities of the various epic figures as portrayed by Homer have an added richness. 164 Cicero, de Orat. 3.37. 165 Pausanias, 7.26.13. 166 For excavation report of this building cf. Thompson, Hesperia, Supplement 4 119401: 15 33. For its identification as the home of Peisistratos cl. TLL. Shear, Jr., Athens Comes of Age. 5 7; J.S. Boersma, Athenian Building Policy from 3617/0 ta 4035/4 B.C. (Groningen, 1970), 16 17: R. Martin, Lurbanisme dans la Grece antique (Pavis, 1950), 223: Recherches sur Vagora grecque (Paris, 1951}, 271.2.

150 Phe Doloneia, Book 10 of the Mad. was stated by a Scholiast on Z. 10.1 to have been inserted by Peisistratos. ‘The events in Book 10 coupled with the Embassy to Achilles in Book 9 portray too many events for a single night. ‘This is obvious to a reader of the text but it is less noticeable to an audience hearing the extended epic for the first time during the course of dictation taking place in separate segments over the course of many days. For discussion of other references to tales included in the dhad which were not closely associated with the action cl. Combellack, EP 71 (1976) 4455. and Braswell, CQ21 (1971): 16 26. who interpreted these additions as inventions of the poet. In the reconstruction ollered here these incidents are considered parts of independent songs.

169 Herodotus, 2.116: SiAov de ara |yap] Exoinoe Ev "IAıradı: Herodotus, 4.29: paprupée: SE pot th Yvopn Kai Opnpov eros Ev "Oduscein Exov d5e.

160 CE ZU 11.656 803. for one of Nestor’s long speeches where he recounted the actions of the bate between the Pylians and the Epeans: this speech appears to refer to an entirely separate epic that was originally independent of the Ziad. Fenik, Battle Scenes. 114. noted that the capture of sixty chariots was an exaggeration found only in this tale: this type of exaggeration is not found in the actual fighting scenes at Troy recounted in the Zliad. The bard's use of this exaggeration in Nestor’s speech gives added depth to the aging personality of Nestor. while at the same Gme revealing the poet's awareness that sto-

171 The early inscriptions written in hexameters can also be seen as part of this common heritage; there is no necessity for them to reflect a specific written text. For early inscriptions cf. R. ‘Thomas, Literacy and

res change

and

become

exaggerated

when

they have

been

repeated

many times. On the general subject of extended speeches in the Miad el. Kirk. Homer and the Oval Tradition, VO8 10: Commentary, LBS, 1.366 92, 161 Fenik. Batth Som, the

210

fighting scenes were

27: in Thad Book 8. the Eamiliar elements of combined

in such

a wav

that

dien

created

wv picabl sequences, Atypical details abo occurred at che end of Book 13: Fenik. 230. These unusual sequences probably represent the bard's

167 Xenophon, Symposium, 3.5.7. 168 CL. Tsocrates, Panegrricus, 159.

170 For example Plutarch, Z.ycurgos, 4 (Endnote Alexandria, Afiscellanies, 6.739. These those made

by Aelian,

11) and Clemens of

statements can be contrasted to

F.//. 13.14, who reported that Peisistratos hav-

ing collected {the various poems] brought out the /lad and Odysse: botepov SE Tleıciotpatog ouyvayayav axéonve thy lAid5a Kat Odv0oevav: here an fliad and Odyssey as distinct from the oral tradition were clearly intended.

Orality, 74-100;

Havelock,

The Literate Revolution in Greece,

191-97; Jef-

lery, Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1961). A certain Theagenes of Rhegium in the second half of the sixth century wrote an allegorical treatise on Homer's work: NJ. Richardson, “Aristotle’s Reading of Homer and its Background” in Homer's Ancient Readers, ed. R. Lamberton and J.J. Keaney (Princeton 1992), 31: MW. Edwards, Homer, Poet af the Iliad, 26. ‘Vhis might suggest a written Homeric manuscript already in existence by the end of the sixth century, but the reference is vague and possibly his work was based on the oral tradition of the Homeridae. 172 See Endnote

12 for discussion of these passages. JA. Scott, The

Notes: The Ongins of the Written Text of the Wiad and the Odyssey Unity of Homer, 221, noted that Pindar was strikingly independent of Homer and showed no hesitancy in contradicting him. This attitude is again quite different from the respect shown to Homer in later periods. On Pindar’s independence of Homer cf. also G. Nagy, Pindar's Homer, 437: FJ. Nisetich, CP 83 (1988): 1 -19. 173 Schol. on .Nanea 2.1: "Opnpidag EAeyov t6 pév apyatov tots ano tov Ounpov yéevous, of Kai tiv Roinarv avtotc Ex dradoxnis Noov, peta S€ tavta kai of payedoi oven TO yévoc Eig “Ounpov avayovtes. ERLeaveic SE EyEvovro oi repi KivarBov, ots gam ROAAG Tüv EXdv KOIHoavtas EuParetv eig tv ‘Ounpov roinarv. hv dE 6 Küvandos To yEvos Xios, 6g Kai tov Erıypa$opevav Oprtpov xoiniatov tov cic AndAAova YEypaoas Upvov avateßeıxev aut. obtos obv 6 Küvanßos npwtos Ev Lupaxoveats Eepayednce ta Optpou Exn kata tiv E68 OAyunıada, as “Inndotpatés ¢rjouv . . . RPOTEPOV pév of “Opnpou raidec, totepov BE oi repi Küvandov paywSoi. obtor yap mv Ounpou xoinov axedacheicav Envnuövevov Kal anııyyeikov. EAyunvavıo SE avty nave. For discussion cf. Janko, Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns, 102: Notopoulos, 47? 83 (1962): 337--68. 174 Allen. Origin and Transmission, 65, suggested that the date was incorrect, This solution was questioned and the 504 date was found to be acceptable by Notopoulos, 47?83 (1962): 343. A sixth-century date for Cynaethus has also been accepted by: W. Burkert, MusHely 29 (1972): 74-85; “Kynaithos, Polycrates. and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo” in Arktouros, Hellenic Studies presented to Bernard MW. Knox, ed. G.W. Bowersock, W. Burkert, and M.C,J. Putman (Berlin and New York, 1979). 53 62: Janko, Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns, 112 14, who have associated Cynaethus with the Hynin to Apollo and the court of the tyrant Polycrates on Samos; Stanley, Shield of Homer, 291-93, who suggested that Cynaethus was responsible for the sixth-century edition of the Homeric poems although he failed to explain why later in Syracuse Cynaethus seems to have been unaware of this edition. 175 H. Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Berlin, fifth edition,

1934), vol.

I, Herakleitos, frag. 42: tov te "Opnpov Eyaoxev GElov Ex tev aydvev ExPadcobat Kai paniCecBar cai ApxiAoxov dnoias. Cf. also K. Freeman, The Pre-Socratic Philosophers, A Companion to Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Oxford, 1946), 104-8. 176 Nenophanes, 9.18: Zewogavny 6 ürdatugov, Opnparaty exixo-xty. 177 Socrates, 2.46: Tovtw 11g, Ka6a @noiv “ApiototeAns Ev tpite Mepi ROLUNTUKTG, EGtdoveiKet Avtidozos Arpvios Kai ‘Avtigdv o tepatooxöros, 6; MuBaydpg KuAwv Kpoteviatms xai Lvaypos ‘Outipe Lovrı, anodavovrı

SE Zevogavng 6 Kodogaviog.

Xenophanes

died at

the age of ninety-two in ca. 478 B.C. which makes the first part of his carecr overlap with the tyranny of Peisistratos; cf. Diogenes Laertius, Nenophanes, 9.2.3, 9.18 19. For additional references cf. Freeman, Companion to Diels, 88 91. 178 Athenacus, 4.172.0: otta yap “Opnpos ndé Zracixopos deice Aaois. CE. also Diels, Pragmente der Vorsokratiker 1, Simonides, frag. 32. 179 Kirk, Homer and the Oral Tradition, 6 8, 15, attributed the extended

similes to the monumental composer of the /liad, whom he dated to the eighth century. I would like to suggest that the extended similes, which portray an isolated, self-contained image or event, were a reflection of lyric poetry and were the addition of a sixth-century Homer. The extended similes appear to exist fully developed almost exclusively in the Iliad and Odys cl. MLW. Edwards, Commentary, vol. V. p. 24 and n. 30. Ifthe /ltad and Odyssey belong in the eighth century, it is difficult to understand why other preserved fragments of oral poetry do not use the extended simile. If they were introduced for the first time into a sixth-century text when the oral tradition was beginning to decline, then their absence in other oral epics is understandable. For discussion concerning the origitiality of the similes and the use of extended similes ch WAG. Seon. The Oral Natne of the Homeric Simile, 5 6. 110 61. For

231

similarities between Homer and Iyrie poetry cf. Thalmann, Karly Epic Poetry, xiv. 180 Suda, s.v. @oxvaidng: Strabo. 1004.12; Athenaeus, 10.428b; Dio Chrysostom, 36.11. For the co-existence of various different types of traditions cf. G. Nagy, Pindar's Homer. 181 The addition of his name might be understood to mean that Phocylides wrote down his compositions, as might be expected of an elegiac port. In an oral rendition, the bard dors not need to identify himself, since he is present in front of the audience and hence his identity is known. Once a composition is committed to writing, however. the work becomes separated from the author and his identity is lost unless he names himself in some way. 182 Diogenes Lacrtius, Socrates, 2.43: ob povov 5 éxi Loxpatoug Aénvaioı renövwdacı tovto. GAAG Kai Exi KAciowy Gow. Kai yap “Ounpov. xada ono. 'Hpaxkeiöng, nevrmkovra Spaypyaics a> patvopevov €Cnniagav.

183 For the beginning of coinage in Athens during the sixth century cf. M. Price and N. Waggoner, -lrchate Greck Coinage: the Asyut Hoard (London, 1975): C.M. Kraay, . Numismatic Chronicle 16 (1956): 43 68. 184 Scholiast at Od. 23.296; S.R. West, Odrssey Stanford, Commentary, 23.296 IT. 185 Od. 1.11

Commentary, vol. I, p. 37:

15.

186 At Od. 23.247 and 23.269

84, Odysseus told Penelope that all that

remained to be done before he could enjoy a prosperous old age and a quiet death, according to the prophesy of Teiresias. was the appeasement of Poseidon. Since the bard did not mention this problem again. he must have assumed that the fulfillment of this prophesy belonged to some future action that lay outside the scope of this particular epic, just as earlier in the /liad the final conclusion of the action. i.e. the death of Achilles and the destruction of Troy, lay outside the scope of the [iad itself. 187 Between these two events Odysseus summarized his travels, a completely unnecessary duplication of the earlier narrative; Od. 23.310 41. 188 Before these events took place, at the beginning of Book 24 Hermes led the dead suitors to the underworld. ‘There they found the dead Achaean

heroes of the Trojan

War,

heroes who

likewise had already

been encountered and described at greater length; Od. 11.387-562, 24.1-204. The death and funeral of Achilles, Od. 24.36 -94, represent the only new information, but those events had no immediate bearing on the story of the Odyssey. Od. 24.120-90, the long speech by Amphimedon, is another repetitions of carlier events; contrary to the sequence related by the bard earlier, Amphimedon assumed that Odysseus had revealed his identity to Penelope before the trial of the bow. Stanford, Commentary, 24.167--69, found odd Odysseus’ restraint in identifying himself. For discussion of Odysseus’ behavior cf. also R.B. Rutherford, JAS 106 (1986): 145 62 and especially 161 62 for discussion of his relationship to Laertes. In view of Agamemnon’s fate upon his return, the restraint shown by Odysseus was surely intended to show his prudence. Amphimedon’s assumption emphasized Odysseus’ restraint, which differed from the behavior of the suitors and the impetuosity frequently demonstrated by Agamemnon in the /liad, 189 Kirk, Songs of Homer, 218 51. 190 Modern commentators have viewed an ending at Od. 23.296 as unheroic, cf. Stanford, Commentary, 24.537- 38, and it must be admitted

that such an ending is somewhat flat and anticlimactic. It may be that during the original dictation the bard added a more flamboyant conclusion during his last anticipated session. which was afterwards suppressed when he was forced to continue.

232

NOTES FOR

191 CE. R. Stroud, The .Inones and hyrbeis of Drakon and Solon (Berkeley and Los Angeles,

19701.3

6, 41

44; Drakon’s Law on Homicide (Berkeley

and Los Angeles. 1968), 63 83; A.R.W. Harrison. The Law of Athens (Oxford, 1971), 36 43. The writing down of the laws in an alphabet that could be read with minimal training as opposed to the syllabic writing of the Phoenicians (cf. Havelock, The Muse Learns to Write, 60--61, 88) was of course one of the more important developments of archaic times, but it also inadvertently led, in my opinion, to the end of the oral tradition as the means of maintaining the cultural traditions of the society. Before the laws were written, justification of disputed actions must have been based on the oral tradition which preserved the customs and history of the society. In that type of situation, as in the Athens-Megara controversy over Salamis discussed above, the question could always arise whether the oral tradition cited was correetly remembered. ‘The person of wealth or of greater prestige was in the position to insist that his view was “more correct” than that of the individual of lesser status and that “his” bard was better than that of his opponent. 192 Aristotle, Ath.Pol. 7.1. 193 Although the resolution of a blood feud by divine intervention was afterward used by Aeschylus to resolve the Oresteia, there emphasis was placed on the establishment of the Areopagus as a court of law to settle disputes. This is an obvious addition which associated the old tale with contemporary Athenian politics. ‘The portrayal of these same events in the Odyssey differs; Stanford, Commentary, 3.267, 3.307. 194 The settlement of blood feuds by law appears to have been a fairly new concept within the oral tradition. The end of the Odyssey is in sharp contrast to Eumacus’ attitude towards the disguised Odysseus, who claimed in a false tale to have slain Orsilochus; Stanford, Commentary, 13.259. The settling of vengeance as a private or family matter is also reflected in Od. 15.272 76; Stanford, Commentary, 15.273. The beginning of a changing attitude may perhaps be detected in I. 18.497 508, the description of the shield of Achilles, where a scene depicted a legal altercation involving the blood price to be paid for a slain man. The old view that the /liad and Odyssey represent an earlier stage in the development of justice than the one found in Hesiod has been questioned by Janko, Commentary, 16.384 93, and R. Friedrich, JHS 111 (1991): 16-28. For differing opinions on morals and values in Homer cf. CJ. Rowe, “The Nature of Homeric Morality” in Approaches

CHAPTER

V1

The support of the gods can been seen as a justification of Odysseus” actions. ‘The concept that a god had helped Odysseus had been stated earlier by the dead Amphimedon; Od. 24.182. Medon’s words were reinforced by Halitherses’ speech, which repeated in part what had been said before; Od. 24.454 62. Zeus also justified Odysseus’ actions in his specch to Athena: Od. 24.478 81 with 24.479 80= 5.23-24. At the beginning of the epic, Od.

1.33

34, Zeus had stated that mortals

sometimes brought suffering upon themselves because of their own excessive behavior, and throughout the Odyssey the outrageous behavior of the suitors was emphasized. ‘This by itself exonerated Odysseus without further need for comment. Lattimore, in his Introduction to his translation of the Odyssey, 5, pointed out that the slaughter of the suitors not only met with the approval of Athena, but all her actions and comments seem to suggest that she insisted upon that action. Cf. especially Od. 1.46, 253-66, 294 302, and events in Book 2 where Athena supported Telemachus, reaffirming both Telemachus’ position and his complaint against the suitors. For discussion of the justification of the vengeance on the suitors and general issues of right and wrong in the Odyssey cf. Dimock. The Unity of the Odysser. especially 19- 37, 213 15.225 29, 265 9.295 315, 244 45. 197 Concerning the death of Eupeithes, cf. Stanford, Commentary. 24.522, who noted that even though Eupeithes owed a special debt to the house of Odysseus. Od. 16.424 30, he failed to restrain his son. 198 "The earliest preserved representation of Zeus holding a thunderbolt found in the Greek world is on a Late Minoan clay sealing from Palaikastro on Crete: Sackeu and MacGillivray, Archaeology 42 (1989. September/October): 30. 199 Od. 24.545 48. This is, of course, counter to the earlier prophecy of Teiresias; Od. 11.118-37 with 11.122 37 almost = 23.269. #4. where Odysseus repeated the prophecy and penitence to Penelope. just before the line said to be the original end of the epic. 200 The bard's moral evaluation of actions and subsequent blame can be seen to be somewhat different from those of archaic Athens. "This is made clear by his portrayal of Clytemnestra and his evaluation of her behavior during Agamemnon's absence, Od. 3.263- 72, which was different from the same story repeated by Pindar, Priia 2, and Aeschylus, „Agamemnon; cf. Stanford, Commentary, 3.267. 201

M.W.

Edwards,

Homer,

Poet of the Iliad, 25, observed

the

Homeric quotations in Plato and Aristotle come only and Odyssey. Burkert, “The Making of Homer in the B.C.” in Papers on the Amasis Painter and His World, 56, trace of Homer’s famed .Margites nor of any of the large

A.A.

mentioned by Pindar have survived; he also questioned how it was that

Long,

JHS 90 (1970):

121

39.

195 First there was the repetition of his travels, next the undenvorld scene, and finally the testing of Laertes; Od. 24.226 360. Once again this can be seen as a duplication of earlier information, since Od. 11.187 96 and 15.352 57 had already served to reveal Laertes’ feclings. It is sometimes questioned why Odysseus did not reveal himself to his father immediately upon arrival, Lord, Singer of Tales, 179-81. This omission was presumably due to the fact that Luertes had not been involved in any of the events prior to this point in the narrative. Earlier in the Odyssey, Eumacus suggested that Laertes be informed that Telemachus had returned from Pylos, but the suggestion was not accepted and Laertes was excluded from the action: Od. 16.136 +45. This isolation of Lacrtes can be seen as a reflection of Penelope's determination to retain exclusively all the power until Odysseus had returned or, barring his return, Telemachus had come of age: ef. End-

from Sixth noted group

that

Studies in the Odyssey (Wiesbaden, 1974); A.W.H. Adkins, ZHS 92 (1972): 1-19: JHS 91 (1971): 1-14; Mert and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values (Oxford, 19601: H. Lloyd-Jones, The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley, 1971):

to Homer, ed. C.A. Rubino and C.W. Shelmerdine, 248: 75; B.C. Fenik,

the Jliad Century that no of epics

the Zliad and Odyssey became school texts in the fifth century. If Homer dictated only the flad and Odyssey but not the Afargites before he left Athens, then manuscripts of these two epics alone survived to become the basis of Athenian education and the source of quotations by Plato and Aristotle. It follows that traces of his other epics in written form did not survive because they had not been transcribed. 202 See Endnote 9.

203 Allen, Origins and Transmission, 241 44, was perhaps the most vocilerous advocate of this view but it has recently been upheld by Stanley. Shield of Homer, 281 82 and especially his n. 124 on pp. 416 17; it was supported carlier by J.A. Scott, Unity of Homer. 47 60. Both G. Murray. The Rise of Greek Epic (New

York,

193-4) and

Cauer,

Grundfragen der

196 When the relatives of the suitors meet in assembly, Od. 24.143 49. Medon cautioned that Odysseus had succeeded because it had been

Homerknitik. argued convincingly against Allen’s view, but their conclusions have been generally ignored. Cauer tried to show that the latest stratum of the language was Attic which should make the text itself! Auic. Murray cited the Athenian additions and he emphasized the importance of Athens and her goddess Athena. which again suggests

the will of the gods and that one of them

an Athenian origin.

note

2,

seemed

to have aided

him.

Notes: The Ongins of the Written Text of the Niad and the Odyssey 204 Whitman, Homer and the Hervic Tradition, 67-68; Bolling, Athetized Lines, 31, 36: External Evidence, 73--250; Apthorp, Manuscript Evidence, 126-65, 288. 205 Herodotus, 7.6.3: Notopoulos, UP 3 (1962): 347 n. 34. 206 ‘The absence of an important legendary figure in sixth-century Athens is aptly illustrated by the subject matter portrayed on her early temples and buildings on the Acropolis. ‘The subjects most often represented are drawn from the exploits of Heracles, a pan-Hellenic figure in the Archaic Period; cf. Shapiro in Goddess and Polis, 73. Stewart. Greek Sculpture, 114-15, 129-30. figs. 66 -75. 205 -7; K. Schefold, Gétter- und Heldensagen in der griechischen Kunst der spätarchaischen Cat (Munich, 1978). For discussion of the relative importance for propagandistic purposes of Heracles and ‘Theseus in sixth and fifth-century Athens cf. J. Boardman, JHS 109 (1989): 158-59; R.M. Cook, JHS 107 (1987): 167-69. 207 For the importance placed on the age of the city and the resulting prestige of never having been conquered cf. Herodotus, 7.161. 208 For the Alcmaeonidae and Paeonidae cf. Pausanias, 2.18.9. For the Philaidae and the Salaminioi cf. Endnote 12. For discussion of the sixth-century clans and their possible early forebears as well as the various important people associated with them cf. J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, 10, 81, 291, 294-313, 360-70, 444- 55. Davies ques-

tioned the historicity of the Mycenaean ancestors claimed these clans. Even if some of these claims appear dubious standards, nevertheless the fact that they were made by more prominent families of Athens indicates that ancient sidered such claims to be acceptable and important.

by some of by modern some of the society con-

209 Herodotus, 5.65. S.R. West, Odyssey Commentary, 3.36, noted that Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women (line 10 ff.) did not include Peisistratos in its list of Nestor’s sons. Pausanias, 2.18.9, claimed not to know the ancestry of the Peisistratids, which can be understood to indicate that he questioned the authenticity of the Peisistratid claim, but the fact that Peisistratos made the claim, even if it were not justified, indicates the importance he placed upon such ancestry. 210 CE. 4. 2.552-55 and note 183 in Chapter II. 211 D.G. Kyle, “The Panathenaic Games: Sacred and Civic Athens” in Goddess and Polis, The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens, ed.J. Neils (Princeton, 1992), 77, observed that Athena more than any other of the Olympians was involved in sports described in /liad Book 23 and Odyssey Book 8. This personal interest of Athena in sports may be another subtle compliment to Peisistratos and his sponsorship of the increased importance of games in the Panathenaic Festival. 212 In the oral tradition the importance the bards place on pleasing their audiences has repeatedly been stressed; V. Edwards and Sienkewicz, Oral Cultures Past and Present, 66-79; Finnegan, Oral Poetry, 54; Lord, Singer of Tales, 16 19; Bowra in Homer's History, Mycenacan or Dark Age?, ed. C.G. ‘Thomas, 11; Notopoulos, 47P 73 (1952): 240. 213 Cf. for example Od. 11.631, which was said to have been added by Peisistratos according to Plutarch, Theseus, 20, quoting Hereas of Megara. Other additions noted in antiquity are cited in note 93 above. Modern scholarship, cf. especially Leafs Commentary on the Zliad. has questioned additional lines. particularly ones that mention Theseus or Erechtheus. 214 Allen, Origins and Transmission, 241 +4, in his discussion of the “Athenian interpolations,” did not mention this sequence and it was almost entirely ignored in Companion, ed. Wace and Stubbings. Kirk, Commentary, 6.30 92, recognized that it was somewhat odd that Athena was the recipient of the sacrifice and be noted the peculiarities of the text. He felt, nonetheless, that the identification of the Temple of

Digitized by Google

233

Athena as an “Athenian interpolation” was existed in Homeric times. ‘The existence of is not the problem. ‘The oral tradition must Athena somewhere within Troy, since the formed part of the traditional tale and this housed in a temple or shrine of some sort.

not justified. since temples Athena's temple, however, have included a Temple of stealing of her Palladium Palladium was presumably

215 4.6.73 74. 216 1. 6.77 101 with 6.90 93 almost = 6.271 6.274 78 with 6.94 95 also = 6.309 10. 217

1.6.1111

15 with

6.111>=

9.233

almost

=

73 and 6.94 11.564

and

97=

6.112=

8.174= 11.287= 15.487= 15.734= 16.270= 17.185. 218 Cf. Kirk, Commentary, 6.86-98. ‘The speech by Hector occurred soon after the one made by Helenus which may have led the bard to revert to the traditional sequence in order to avoid a close repetition of lines, such as had been used earlier in /liad Book 2 during the Dream Episode where the close repetition of lines created a dull and monotonous sequence. The bard’s use of repeated lines within the [lad and Odyssey is discussed in Chapter VIII. 219 1. 6.269-85. 220 1. 6.309

10= 6.94 95= 6.275

76.

221 1.6311. 222 41. 7.22-54. 223 Diomedes as a warrior in action was not mentioned until the fighting started again the next day, when once again he would have caused havoc among the Trojans had he not been stopped by the gods. this time by Zeus; fl. 8. 130-36, 169-71. Cf Scodel, TAPA 122 (1992): 73 84 and note 223 in Chapter II. 224 The meeting of Glaucus and Diomedes took place after Hector left the batdefield and before he entered the city: 4. 6.119 236. Later after Hector had spoken to Hecuba he first sought out Alexander and then Andromache; /. 6.313-529. 225 An audience, listening to the epic for the first time and concentrating on the individual episodes as they were being presented probably did not notice the discrepancies, which become evident when the text is read and studied at leisure. Such discrepancies are important not only as an indication that the original was Athenian but also as an indication that the original text was based on an oral dictation that took place over the course of many days. The oral nature of the text is discussed separately in Chapter VII. 226 CE among others, Lorimer, Monuments, 443; Davison, JHS 78 (1958): 25 26. 227 This is suggested by the dress made in faience found in the Temple Repository at Knossos, PofAf 1, 506: textiles also appear to be among the many offerings given to the gods in the Linear B tablets, Chadwick. The Mycenacan World, 101. For discussion of elaborately woven textiles, their association with the Mycenaean Period and the possibility of a Mycenaean origin for the dedication of clothing to divinities cl. E,J.W’. Barber. Prehistoric Textiles, 380 82: “The Peplos of Athena” in Goddess and Polis, The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens, ed.J. Neils (Princeton. 1992), 103 17. 228 Lorimer, Monuments, 443 45, quoting Blinkenberg, Det Agl. Danskr Videnskabernes Selskab, 1917. 25- 32, cited terracotta figurines as evidence for an early wventh-century. seated, cult statue at Lindos; from this she extrapolated the possibility of an cighth-century seated statue. Her conclusion is contrary to the archaeological evidence. The earliest known free-standing seated statues are dated to the middle of the seventh century B.C.: BS. Ridgway. The Irchaic Strle uf Greck Sculpture

Original from

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

234

NOTES FOR

(Princeton. 1977), 121 39. [the seated statue of Athena is identified as a reference to a seated cult statue actually existing in Athens, then the date of this statue may be even later. Concerning the earliest cult statues of Athena there is still disagreement: Fowler, Phoenix 42 (1988): 112-13: JH. Kroll, Hesperia, Supplement 20 (1982): 63-76; P. von der Mühll, Antisches Hypomnema zur Ilias (Basel. 1952), 110 12,126 28. The philological approach to this problem had been somewhat different: cf. Stanford, Commentary, 1.267: J.A. Scott, The nity of Homer, 121 22. In Od. 1.267 the phrase was used that the fate of Odysseus was “on the knees of the gods:" this phrase occurred elsewhere in both the {had and Odyssey, Od. 1.267= 16.129= 4. 17.514= 20.435. ft has been argued, on the basis of this phrase. that the placing of the peplos on the knees of Athena can be interpreted to mean that the peplos had been offered and now the decision awaited the will of Athena, in other words it was now in her lap, or as we might alternately say, the decision was now in her hands. 220 1.6.88, 6.297,

CHAPTER

VI

do lie on top of the hill. but these were apparently constructed in imitation of the Iliad and therefore are not pertinent to the discussion. 245 The dates of the carly ‘Temples of Athena on the Acropolis are still a matter of debate, but it is clear that at least one of these temples had already been constructed by the second half of the sixth century B.C. For dates of these early temples cf T.L. Shear, Jr.. ldiens Comes of Age. 2 3. In Attica and thus associated with Athens, temples, such as those at Sounion, were also constructed on tops of hills but other temples, such as those at Rhamnous, do not follow this pattern: Sullwell, ed., Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, 753, 854. 246 Mycenae and Tiryns are frequently cited as examples of sites that had temples on the top of the hill. These sites. however, were of such minor importance after the end of the Mycenaean Period that it seems hardly credible that the location of their temples were known to an lonian bard. Cf. Stillwell. ed.. Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, 600. 926. The identification of the temple at ‘Viryns, furthermore, has been questioned; Blegen, Aorakou,

230 1. 6.317, 7.345. The phrase Ev röker axpn always occurred at the end of the line. The phrase ev xoAeu axpotat was used once at the beginning of the line to describe the location of sacrifices made to Zeus by Hector: 4. 22.172. These sacrifices presumably took place within the palace. like the sacrifices made in the palace of Peleus: A. 11.772 75.

248 Cl Janko. Commentary. 15.121 24, who stressed Athena’s role as an embodiment of realism and responsibility: Hainsworth, Commentary. 10.503 79.

231 TL 5.446. 232 Kirk,

133.

247 The bard's knowledge of the location of these temples is in striking contrast to his ignorance of the topography of the Peloponnese and of the area around Ithaca. Cf S.R. West, Odvsser Commentary, vol. 1. pp. 62.65, where she discusses the obvious mistakes made by the bard in his descriptions of those areas.

Commentary, 4.508.

233 Scully, Homer and the Sacred City. 7.

249 Od. 1.44 49. 1.67 71.5.5 27,5.282 89,

234 Chantraine, Dictionnaire, sx. Rbpyos, accepted by Kirk, Commentary, 4.508, and Scully, Homer and the Sacred City, 7.

250 Od. 1.326 27, 3.135 36. 5.108 -9: and cl. discussion by Lauimore in his Introduction to his translation of the Qdrsur.5 6.9.

235 CE note 1-46 in

251 Stanford, Commentary, 5.14, commented on Athena’s long delay. It may be possible to read a complex significance concerning the relationship of gods, men, and morality into Athena's position as suggested by Clay, Wrath of Athena, but in my opinion this is a later interpretation and not one originally intended by the bard. For discussion of the religious elements of the epics cf. W. Burkert, “Homer's Anthropomorphism: Narrative and Ritual” in Ara Perspectives in Early Greck Art, ed. D. Buitron-Oliver (Hanover and London, 1991), 81 91.

Chapter V.

236 Scully, Homer and the Sacred City, 7. 237 ML A508, 5.446. 5.160, 7.21. 24.700. The sixth time, 4. 6.512, Paris was said to descend from Pergamus. 230 ML 5.445 48. Apollo's adyton was mentioned a second time in AH. 5.512. The Temple of Apollo was also mentioned in /. 7.83, where it was located simply somewhere within Ihum. 230 If 4.508. 7.21, 24.700. 240 Scully, Hamer and the Sacred City, 42 44. 241 This is suggested by the phrase, Mepyaue äxpn. used in 4. 5.460. In J 24.700, Cassandra went up to it, eioavaßäaoa. and in /. 6.512, Paris came down from it, kata Tlepyapov axpng. 242 The location of the well-preserved, later, second megaron of the palace of Mycenae is in fact in a similar position, high up in the city next to the fortification wall. The carlier, badly preserved megaron lies still higher to the north at the very top of the citadel; fig. 147 nos. 15 16. If Pergamus is restored in such a position, high up in the city. next to the city wall, then Paris’ house can be located nearby between it and the palace of Priam, thus explaining / 6.512. where Paris lefi his house and descended cata Nepyapou axpng. 233 Pig. 147 nos. B 9; Rutkowski, Cult Places, 168° 199, and note 331 in Chapter I. 21ER. Stillwell, ed.. The Princeton Enevelapedia of Clavical Sites (Princeton, 19701. 107 8. 265 67.272 73.206 97. 306. 316. 107. 117. 150, 600, 617.617

38. 802

3.809,

854

55. OLE.

926,

and

references

there

cited. The early temples at Corfu and in southern Tialy are also located in valleys. The fitth-century temples of Apollo at Bassae and Aephaia at Aegina were built in elevated locadons but not on the very top of the hill that rises up behind these temples. The much

later temples at Troy

252 ‘The conflict between Athena and Poseidon was emphasized by Latimore, Introduction to his translation of the Odyssey, 5 6, 9. The Odyssey, no matter when it is dated, is the earliest preserved reference to this conflict. In Athenian art, the conflict was first portrayed in the second half of the fifth century in the west pediment of the Parthenon, where the contest between Athena and Poseidon over the land of Auica was depicted. These same events were mentioned by Herodotus, 8.55. 253 It was Hermes at the urging of Zeus who persuaded Calypso to allow Odysseus to depart, Od. 5.97 115. Athena’s role in the persuasion, although emphasized in the Odyssey, can easily have been the bard’s addition. Calypso showed Odysseus how to build the raft for his departure and she provided provisions for his jourmey, Od. 5.233 67. When

Poseidon

caused

the raft to disintegrate, it was Ino who

saved

Odysseus, Od. 5.201 4, 5.333 53. Earlier in his wanderings Acolus tried to help him, Od. 10.19 27. Hermes aided him against the spell of Circe, Od. 10.275 303. Circe urged him to seek the advise of Teiresias and later advised him concerning the dangers of the Sirens, Skylla, and Charybdis, Od. 10.563 65. 12.37 110. Teiresias warned him not to devour the catde of Helios and foretold of his homecoming, (Od. 11.100 37. During these many adventures Athena was absent. After having ignored him for years, Athena aided Odysseus only after he had arrived in the Land of the Phacacians in Book 5 when his travels were almost completed. and again later in Ithaca.

„Votes: Discontinuity and Dislocations in the Text 251 Cl. Burkert, “The Making of Homer in the Sixth Century” in Papers on the Amasts Painter and his World. 43 62. Burkert, using vase painting and the written records of early Greece, tried to isolate references to the Homeridae as opposed to the references to Homer the individual and to separate the overall tradition of the Trojan Cycle from the specific epics known as the Jliad and Odyssey. He concluded that there was a renewed interest in the oral epic form in the second half of the sixth century B.C. The /liad and Odyssey as specific songs were singled out at this same time and the name of Homer as an individual became famous. He further argued that before the end of the sixth century creative improvisation of epic song changed into the presentation of a fixed text. Burkert, however, did not question the traditional cighth-century date for Homer, nor was he able to explain why these changes took place in the sixth century. A sixth-century Homer brought to Athens by Peisistratos and the subsequent musical competitions in the Panathenaic Festival provide the impetus for the changes traced by Burkert.

DISCONTINUITY

CHAPTER VII AND DISLOCATIONS

IN THE TENT

1 Cf. for example Bellamy, C7 84 (1988. 89): 300 307: Heubeck, Odyssey Commentary. vol. I, p. 12: Shive, Naming Achilles, 139; Beye. Ancient Greek Literature, 12, Wender. AJP 98 (1977): 329 47: Lesky, History, 37. For a survey of different views concerning the writing down of the epics cl. Miller. Improvisation. Typology, Culture, and “the New Orthodoxy.” 99 - 102. 2 Comments by Pliny, Zp. 9.36, quoted in Endnote 9, reveal an attitude to the importance of writing as part of the creative process which is quite different from that of the scholars listed in note | above. 3 Cf. for example Kirk, Commentary, vol. 1, pp. 17 37, and references there cited. For general discussion of the oral tradition and the way it differs from written literature cf. V. Edwards and Sienkewicz, Oral Cultures, and R.P. Martin, The Language of Heroes. For a summary of changing opinions concerning the nature of the fliad and its bard cf. B. Knox, Introduction to Fagles’ translation of the fliad, 5 22. Contrary to the attitude shown

by most

scholars,

D.M.

Gunn,

47P 91

(1970):

192 203, tried to use the inconsistencies in the epics to illustrated their oral nature. In another article, Gunn, HSCP 75 (1971): 1-31, used the thematic composition in the epics to establish a single bard for both poems. Recent commentaries of the Iliad and Odyssey have largely ignored Gunn's conclusions. 4 V. Edwards and Sienkewicz,

110

Oral Cultures, 78; Lord, TAPA 63 (1936):

11.

5 G. Nagy. Poetry as Performance, 105 208; TAPA 122 (1992): 51, E.D.T. Vermeule in Troy and the Trojan War, A Symposium Held at Bryn Maver College. October, 1984, cd. Mj. Mellink (Bryu Mawr, 1986), 86-87. 6 Aristarchus (Arn/ Aj. cf, Kirk,

Commentary, 2.64 85.

71.2.5388. 8 1.2.76 83. 91.2.8,"Qs apa ewvnaas BovAns EE npxe veroden. 10 Similar to 7. 2.84. but expressed with different words are the repeated lines 4. 12.2513 13.833= Od. 2.113= 8.46= 8.104: "Qs apa Yaricaz nynoato. toi 5 ay Eruvto. The repetition of this line suggests that meetings commonly ended with someone who had just spoken leading the way out.

235

11 Hainsworth, Commentary, 9.182: B. Knox, Introduction to Fagles’ translation of the Ziad, 22: M.W. Edwards, Homer, Poet of the Iliad, 219 20. 12 1.9.168 69. 13 dL 9.173:° 18.422.

Qs gato, toicı SE racıv éaddta pudov éeixev which = Od.

14 di. 9.182: To SE Baty rapa Biva roAvedoiaBo1o Gaddoans. 15 Aristarchus tried to solve the dilemma by suggesting that Phoenix went first and was later followed by Ajax and Odysseus; Scholia A on 9.168, 169, 182, 192, 197; Scholia BT on 9.168: A.T. Murray, Loeb edition of fhad. vol. I. p. 394, a. 1. This explanation has many problems: Page, Aliston and the Homeric Iliad, 299 301. Aristarchus’ reluctance to substitute the plural form, thereby avoiding a convoluted explanation, may serve as another indication that he was using a source with an impeccable pedigree for his newly revised edition: cf. note 109 in Chapter VI. 16 The addition of Phoenix to the original embassy of two people was suggested by Page, History and the Homeric Iliad, 297 -98. His view was supported by Jensen, Homeric Question, 43. ‘The composition of an embassy of two men, sometimes accompanied by a herald, occurred in Ht. 3.205 6, 11.767 and Od. 9.90= 10.102, which suggests that two men were the standard complement of such groups. The addition of the normally laconic Ajax to the embassy seems somewhat surprising and it may be that Ajax was added to the original embassy of wo rather than Phoenix. For further discussion of the role of Ajax in the had cf. Endnote 12. 17 Dual in greeting used in Jf, 9.197 -98; the three, Ajax, Phoenix, and Odysseus mentioned together in // 9.223; Odysseus began speaking at 1. 9.225: Phoenix began his speech at 4. 9.434, Ajax appeared again at J. 9.622- 23, where he was portrayed speaking for the first ume in this scene. 18 K. Reinhardt, Die Ilias und ihr Dichter (Gouingen, 1961), 221 +2, argued that the ideas and personalities presented in Book 9 were so well-developed that they must have been the result of repeated renditions taking place over the course of many years. The subject matter of Book 9, however, should not be confused with the presentation. The complexity and depth of the Zliad clearly indicate an older bard of great experience who had carefully considered the various themes and personalitics portrayed in the epic. During the course of a long career the bard must have often sung about the heroes at ‘Troy, but each rendition need not have always contained the same speeches and discussions. For the modern view that there were a variety of different renditions of the Trojan War Cycle that could be brought together into a single song cf. J.T. Hooker, CQ 86 (1986): 32. The individual renditions probably differed in order to suit the audience for whom the epic was being sung: cf. note 40 below. 19 Such sessions may at first seem surprisingly short but they compare favorably in length with some of the Homeric Hymns and to the various Odes by Pindar, as they are preserved today. The Hymn to Aphrodite, hymn no. 5, is 293 lines, the Hymn to Delian Apollo is 178 lines and the Hymn to Pythian Apollo is 368 lines, making a combined total of 546 lines; the Hymn

to Demeter is 495

lines; and

the Hymn

to Hennes,

the

longest of the hymns, is 580 lines. All other hymns, as they are preserved today, are less than 100 lines. ‘The longest of Pindar’s Odes is Pythian 4 which is 299 lines in length. Of the remaining eleven Pythian Odes only five are 100 lines or longer. Six of the fourteen: Ofmpian Odes are 100 lines or longer: the longest, no. I, is only 116 lines in length. None of the Addimian Odes. as they are preserved today. are over 100 lines in length. 20 ff, 9.29= 9.4305 9.693: this same phrase also occurred in 4. 3.05=

236

NOTES FOR CHAPTER VII

7.92= 7.308= 8.28= 10.218= 10.3132 23.676= Od, 8.234= 11.333= 13.1= 16.393= 20.320 which are similar to Od. 7.156 The use of the same phrase twice in fad Book 10 at 218 and 313 suggests another break in the dictation. with the earlier session narrating the activities of

the Achacans and the later session the activities of the ‘Trojans. “The study of repeated lines and their patterns within the epics. discussed im Chapter VIEL suggests that repeated lines are often indicative of breaks in the dictation. 2t Breaks in the dictation probably also occurred between the end of one day and the beginning of the nest. These occurred between Books 7 and 8 of the Hiad and Books | and 2 of the Odreser, but chey also occurred in the middle of some books such as Od. 4.305 6 and Od. 15.188 89. 22 For further discussion and different views on length of the sessions of dictation cl. Endnote 9. 2% The preparations for the sacrifice started at Od. 3.450; Od. 3.46 H 69 relate the bathing scene: Od. 3.470072 report the feasting. Repetitions in this section of the Odruer ave Od. 3. H6 almost = 14.422, 3.447= 1. LAS8= 2.121: Od 3.958= 12.3615 A. 1.1613 2.424: Od 3.159 60= 1. 1.162 63: Od. 3.161 62= 12.364 65= AL 1.464 65= 2.127 28: Od. 3.162= 12.365= 14.430: Od, 3.166= 10.364. 3.1673 23.155= U. 21.488 and almost = Od. 8.155 and 10.365. Od. 3.468= 23.162: Od. 3.170= 3.65= 20.27% Od. 3.473= 1.150= 3.67= 4.68= 8.72= 8.185= 12.308= 1+.154= 15.113= 15.303= 15.501= 16.55= 16.4803 17.90= I 1.460= 2.132= 7.323= 9,92= 9.2222 23.57= 24.628. 21 For bathing of male guests by women cf. Stanford, Commentary, 3.464, and discussion of nudity in Chapter IIL. 25 Od. 3.4 5 and 3.396 403. Just before the end of Telemachus’ first day at Pylos a ten-year-old jar of wine was opened by loosening the string that held the lid; Od. 3.392.

Wace,

Alycenar Tablets I, 7, found

I..H. II B bottle-stoppers of this type in the House of the Oil Merchant at Mycenar. My Od. 3. EEE 47. 27 In another scene in the house of Circe, Od. 10348 74, Odysseus was bathed soon alter his arrival and at the same time a meal was prepared. The juxtaposition of the two activities appears to have been associated with the lighting of a fire over which the water for the bath was heated and the meal cooked. It may have been this association of ideas that caused the bard, on a momentary impulse, to introduce the bathing scene of Telemachus in Book 3 even though he had arrived the previous day. 28 The use of introductory remarks not directly related to the actions described was noted by V. Edwards and Sienkewiez, Oral Cultures, 78. 29 Between Od. 3.490 and 3.491. This makes an unusually short segment, but breaks did not necessarily occur at the end of the day's session: they can have occurred when the bard needed to pause for rest or the scribes needed to conter over the orthography of the written text. The addition of the bathing scene at the beginning of this segment may indicate that the bard was not performing at his usual high standard. This section was followed by the arrival of Telemachus at Sparta. discussed below. which also has problems. perhaps another indication of the bard's temporary lapse on this particular day. 0

7.16.1012

with

16.101=

183.368=

21.5113

Od.

16.321=

17.160=

17.2905

23,288= Wd

21.982

10.124.

„2.17.o

|

24.2032

5.274=

4.620=

54375

7.3312

18.243=

7.464=

8.212=

13%.81=

8.3533=

11.109=

15.103=

20.172=

20.240=

22.160=

24.383 and ZZ 16.102=

15.727.

33 1.6.119 236. 311.06.237 11. CH. Lord. 74P163 song where a break occurred just as hard later resumed, he started the duction before continuing with the location.

(1936: 111: he described a dictated the hero left for Istanbul: when the next session with a two-line introaction, which took place in a new

35 In the fliad, the abrupt change and unusual isolation of the conversation between Hera and Zeus in Book 18 (cf. M.W. Edwards, Commentary, 18.356 68} appears to mark another break in the dictated sessions. The earlier session seems to have ended with the lamentation for Patroclus: 4. 18.355. ‘The next session concerned ‘Thetis seeking Hephaestus and the making of the armor for Achilles: /. 18.369. The intervening thirteen lines of conversation between Hera and Zeus serve as a transition between the two sessions. the one concerning men and the other concerning the gods, The conversation reminds the audience of man’s mortality and at the same time it prepares them for the next session, which deals exclusively with the gods. Abrupt changes of scene and/or action which suggest breaks in the dictation also occur in the Odyssey at the end of Book 14 and the beginning of Book 15 (where the scene shilts from Ithaca to Sparta), between 15.300 and 15.301 (where the scene shifts from ‘Telemachus to Odysseus and Eumacus), between Books 17 and 18 (when a new subject, Irus, is introduced), and between Books 20 and 21 (when the bow of Odysseus is first mentioned and a new series of events is initiated). A break in the dictation

between Books 17 and 18 explains why Odysseus was seated in one doorway in Book 17 and in another doorway in Book 18; cf. Chapter I. Another break between Books 20 and 21 explains why Penelope at the end of Book 20, lines 387 89, appears to have been sitting in her thalamos at an upper level, whereas at the beginning of Book 21, line 3, she is portrayed going up the stairs to the upper level. 36 Od. 9.105

15.

37 Od. 9.170. 38 ‘This interpretation differs from the one suggested by J.S. Clay. CQ 30 (1980): 261 64; she identified this island as the original home of the Phaeacians, which they had been forced to leave because of harassment by their neighbors; Od. 6.4 6. Such a glowing account of the former home of the Phaeacians constitutes a type of rude behavior that is contrary to the expectations of a hero in the oral tradition. In Od. 0.125, furthermore, it was specifically stated that the Cyclopes had no ships and without ships they were not able to harass the inhabitants of an island, even one that lay close to their shore.

For additional argu-

ments against Clay's interpretation cf. J.N. Bremmer, CQ 36 (1986): 256 57. 39 Another possible addition of this type might be the last four events in the Funeral Games of Patroclus; 4. 23.798-897. The breaks in the dictation of the Funeral

Games

are difficult to determine,

since the

description is episodic and breaks could have come at any point between any two games. It has often been pointed out, however, that the last four events are much

briefer than the previous ones, the prizes

are very unequal and the text is difficult: A.T. Murray. Loeb edition of Iliad. vol. I. p. 555. n. 1. The differences beiween the last hundred lines and the preceding ones may have resulted from the bard's momentary decision to lengthen a session of dictation in response to the audience's enthusiastic reception of the recitation of the Games. 10 CL Natopoulos, 17? 73-1992 240. who quoted a modern bard's comment on this subject: if he were to be paid, the bard reported, he must please his audience: he could do this in different ways. depending on the nature of that audience and what it wanted to hear: he could include special parts for the young. or the ald. descriptions of clothing for the women, catalogues of local families. ete, CO also Lord. Singer of Fale, WW 17 and especially 14, where he cited a conversation with one

Notes: Discontinuity and Dislocations in the Text singer who told him that when he sang for Moslems, he only sang those songs in which the Moslems had won, whereas songs sung for the Serbs were chosen to reflect Serbian interest. In Lord, Serbo-Croatian Songs, U1, 25. a song was mentioned that could be sung in two different ways: the type of audience before whom the song was sung determined which form was presented. For additional references to the importance bards place on pleasing their audiences cf. Chapter VI note 212. 41 Cf. Chapter VI. 42 I. 2.484= 11.218= 14.508= 16.112: "Eorete viv por. Moveat ‘Odvumea Sapar Exovaan. This line is in direct contradiction to Pindar. .Nemea 2.1 3. For brief discussion of these lines and their implications concerning the date and the technique of Homer cf. Endnote 12. 43 11. 2.760 which almost = 2.487 from the introduction: the repetition of this line appears to have been a deliberate attempt to frame the Achaean segment of the Catalogue in order to set it off from the others parts. 41 1. 2.763

67. These same horses were later mentioned in the chariot

race held during the Funeral Games of Patroclus: //. 23.376 77. 15 Various horses were mentioned elsewhere in the flad. ‘The horses of Achilles, identified as Balius and Xanthus, were described as the immortal offspring of Podarge and the West Wind; //. 16.149 50. In A. 23.276 84 these same horses were described as a gift of Poseidon: Richardson,

Commentary,

23.277

78. Achilles had a third horse called

237

have also been suggested: cf. M.W. Edwards, Homer Poet of the Iliad, 244 and references there cited. 32 Od. 8.133 GA, 53 Od. 8.186 98. M4 Od. 8.401

5.

35 Homer's Ancient Readers. symposium held at Princeton University, October 6:7, 1989; the papers from this symposium were published under the tle of Homer's Ancient Readers: The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic's Earliest: Exegetes, cd. R. Lamberton and J,J. Keaney (Princeton, 1992). Unfortunately the remarks made by the commentators during the symposium were not included in the publication. 56 Richardson, Commentary on Book 24. observed that /liad Book 24 is not an obvious ending for the epic: he cited similarities between this book and the themes in the Odyssey which differentiated them from the rest of the /liad, he also noted the repeated use of an epithet for Priam

in Book 24 which had not been used carlier in the epic. These idiosyncrasies in Book 24, which Richardson noted, suggest the possibility that Book 24 was originally sung as a separate song that developed its own particular language reflecting its unusual subject matter; similar to Iliad, Book 10. Book 24 may possibly have been added to the other parts of the epic at the time the /liad was written down. 57 4. 14.159, followed by 14.166 291, ending with 14.292 311.

Pedasus, which he had captured as booty; //. 16.152. Agamemnon had brought to Troy a horse called Aethe which had been given to him by Echepolus; /l. 23.295: 97. Menelaus had a horse called Podargus: /l.

58 Cf. note 153 in Chapter VI.

23.295.

60 Janko, Commentary, 14.153-353. and M.W. Edwards. Homer, Poet of the Iliad, 249, noted that this catalogue has scandalized scholars both modern and ancient. Edwards suggested that Zeus’ speech was intended to be humorous, but in my opinion this type of humor is not worthy of Zeus as he was portrayed in the /liad.

Hector’s horses were named

in /l. 8.185, where we were told

they were called Aethon. Lampus, Podargus, and Xanthus. The horses of Tros, which Diomedes had captured from Acneas, also appear to have been of special renown; 4. 23.290-92. 46 fl. 2.780 85. 17 ‘This segment of the Catalogue consisted of only nineteen lines in contrast to the 277 lines forming the list of the Achaeans and the 112 lines of the Trojan section. Within such a lengthy catalogue, the nineteen lines could easily have been removed without harm to the text. A memorizer would have assumed that part of the text had been forgotten and he would have left out the nineteen lines so that he would not have been blamed for the abbreviated Catalogue. An editor would have logically assumed that lines had been dropped by a faulty memorizer or an incompetent scribe. If he had wished to retain as much as possible, he could have easily filled out the Catalogue of Horses by adding the names of the horses mentioned elsewhere in the epic. 48 J.A. Scott, The Unity of Homer, 137. 49 Od. 4.1

2, first arrival; 4.3

19, wedding; 4.20.22, second arrival.

30 It might possibly be argued that this shift in the subject matter represents a break in the dictation similar to the break in the sacrificial scene at Pylos already discussed. Scholars working with bards in the field observed that breaks in the dictation never occurred in the middle of a newly introduced subject: they normally occurred at the end of an episode or at the end of a speech. In the sacrificial scenes at Pylos, the preparation for the sacrifice had begun at Od. 3.418. and at 3.463, fifty-six verses later, the meat had been put over the fire. This forms a natural stopping place for a pause while the food was being cooked. At Sparta, the description of the wedding occurred at the beginning of an episode, ie. the arrival of Telemachus and Peisistratos, and there is no obvious break in the description of the wedding to warrant a pause in the dictation. 51 Fenik, Battle Scenes, that

the 401

156097. voted that the traditional explanation is

fines were

a later insertion.

Various

other explanations

59 ML 14.317 -28.

61 ff. 6.111 15 in contrast to 6.86-98 and 6.242 80. These speeches are discussed more fully in Chapter VI. 62 Hl. 11.437--3B. 63 Cf. Hainsworth, Commentary, 11.437 priate appearance of Athena.

38, who discussed this inappro-

61 1. 2.11-15= 2.28-32= 2.65 69 with 2.23 27= 2.60 64. Cf Chapter VII for fuller discussion of the repetitions in this sequence. 63 For general discussion of Book 10 and its inappropriate position within the fliad cf. Hainsworth,

Commentary, vol. III, pp.

151-55. ‘This

type of juxtaposition would also have been avoided if the fixed text resulted from a process rather than an event, as suggested by scholars cited above in note 5. The inconsistency of the type of sword held by Odysseus

when

he consulted Teiresias, discussed

in Chapter

Il, note

412, may represent another cxample of a momentary decision to introduce a new idea into Teiresias’ conversation, which any reworking of the text could have easily avoided by the substitution of one type of sword for another. Perhaps the description of Menestheus as second only to Nestor in marshaling foot soldiers and chariots in the Catalogue of Ships. A. 2.553-55. was the result of another momentary decision by the bard, who made this addition in order to compliment the leader of the Athenians. Once this impulsive statement had been made, however, Menestheus could not have been portrayed in this role because the role of advisor had already been filled by the more important, well known figure of Nestor; cf. Chapter Il, note 183. 66 7.7.3327 44.432 671.746 68 4. 3.340

41.

312. 80, For discussion

of the two duels cf Kirk in Homer, Trade

238

NOTES FOR CHAPTER VIII

tion and Invention, ed. Fenik, 1B 40. and especially 19, where he noted the difficulties of having both duels on the same day.

such a way that it is implied that they were Agamemnon’s own special heralds. Later in /L 2.184, a herald associated with Odysseus was also

69 1.4.85

called Eurybates; this herald was said to come from Ithaca. Lattimore.

140.

70 Cf. for example discussion of the geography of the Peloponnese by S.R. West, Odyssey Commentary, vol. 1, pp. 62. 65. 71 Heubeck, Odyser Commentary, 9.21 13.242, 15.29.

27; Stanford, Commentary, 9.25,

72 1. 2.649 and Od. 19.174: this problem is discussed more fully in Endnote 7.

73 Od. 8.266 320 and JI. 18.382 83. M.W. Edwards, Commentary, 18.382, noted that Hesiod, Theogony, 945. named Aglaie as Hepharstus’ wile. 74 Od. 16.95 98 and 19.4 +46, 22.101 -15. 75 At the beginning of Book Oceanus;

Od.

11, Odysseus was on the shores of

11.12 -22. After he had spoken

to the dead heroes from

Troy, he mentioned others, Od. 11.568 IT., who seem to be in Hades itself and not on the shores of Oceanus; Stanford, Commentary. 11.568 627. The men in this last group appear to have been added as a balance to the Catalogue of Maidens which had occurred earlier. Both sections ended with a statement that the dead were numerous, possibly in an attempt to meld the two different sources together: Od. 11.328-29 and 11.632. A break in the dictation at Od. 11.332 and 11.333, between the two parts of this scene, would have made the con-

flation of the two different sources less noticeable in the oral rendition. The existence of such a break is suggested by the actual break in Odysseus’ narrative that occurs in the text. The dialogue with the Phacacians, Od. 11.336-76, which occurred during this break, represent the bard's attempt to set the mood for the next session by establishing the respect the Phacacians had for Odysseus, hence the importance of the continuation time

of his tale which

it restated once again,

Od.

11.355-61,

was to come; Odysseus’

at the same

wish to return

home, a theme that united the various segments of the dictation. Apart from the two different locations in the scene with the dead in the Odyssey, Various peculiarities occur in the later part of this scene which suggest that it came from a tradition that differed from the Trojan Cycle. Among these can be listed: Od. 11.568 -70, Minos as son of Zeus should not have been in Hades (the great respect shown to him as king of Crete perhaps reflects early admiration of Mycenaeans towards Minoan culture, law, and possibly even Minoan epic); Od. 11.580, Leto is not the wife of Zeus in the Trojan Cycle; Od.

11.601

4, if Heracles

were among the immortals, his phantom should not have Hades; possibly two different traditions placed him in two places; Od. 11.604 = Hesiod, Throgony, 952, possibly reflecting ian source for some of this material. Heracles’ much-discussed

been in different a Bocotbelt, Od.

11.609- 12, like Odysseus’ broach, has often been identified as oriental-

izing, but it could also have been Mycenacan: the added lines Od. 11.613 14 were surely meant to indicate that it was unique. 76 IL 5.576 and 13.658. Mistakes of this type are very rare. Occasionally it is not clear whether the bard made a mistake or whether two different people with the same name were intended. as in the case of the charioteer Eurymedon. In /. 4.228, Eurymedon was associated with Agamemnon and was given a patronymic, which suggests a specific individual. Later in /L 8.114, a charioteer by the same name but without patronymic was associated with Nestor, Latimore, index following his translation of the dad. listed the two men as two different people whereas Kirk. Commentary, 1.228. was inclined to think that the bard had made a mistake. 77 Some of these apparent mistakes may have resulted from a lack of arie. in the bard's presentation. “Chis may have happened at 71 1.520 where the two heralds “Tatthy bius and Eury bates were mentioned in

in the index to his translation of the Zliad, suggested that the heralds were probably the same person; Kirk, Commentary, 2.184, suggested that two different heralds had the same name. The name Eurybates occurred on two other occasions and in both these references he was associated with Odysseus; 4. 9.170 and Od. 19.247. Possibly in the first reference to Eurybates in /. 1.320, the bard intended to imply that Agamemnon sent two heralds, his own Talthybius and Odysseus’ herald named Eurybates, in order to show that the action of collecting Briscis represented united Achaean opinion. If this was the intention, it was not made clear. The bard may have realized his omission and in order to clarify the situation he added the information that Eurybates came from Ithaca when the herald was mentioned at second time in Jf. 2.184. Under normal circumstances this information should have been unnecessary since Odysseus’ herald can be assumed to have come with him from Ithaca. 78 Once again the question might be asked why Aristarchus allowed Pylaemenes to reappear in Book 13 unless he was very certain of the source of his manuscript. CL note 15 above.

THE

REPEATED

CHAPTER VIII LINES AND THE PERSONAL

EPITHETS

I For general discussion of formulae in the Jliad cf. J.B. Hainsworth, Commentary, vol. Ml, pp. | -31: 745 90 (1970): 90 -98: WLM. Sale, 71P4 117 (1987): 21 -39 and note 4 on p. 21; Kirk, Commentary, vol. 1. pp. 24-37; Thalmann, Early Epic Poetry, W.A. Camps. An Introduction to Homer (Oxford, 1980), 46 54: M.N. Nagler, Spontaneity and ‘Tradition, A Study in the Oral Art of Homer (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 197-4: Gunn, ASCP 75 (1971): 1-31; AJP 91 (1970): 192- 203. For evolution of formulae and their changing forms in the pre-Homeric period cf. J.B. Hainsworth, The Flexibility of the Homenc Formula (Oxford, 1968); A. Hoekstra, Homeric Modifications of Fornulaic Prototypes, Studies in the Development of Greek Epic Diction (Amsterdam, 1965). What constitutes a formula in the oral tradition is not always clear: cf. for example J.B. Hainsworth, CQ 14 (196-4): 155 64, and arguments against this interpretation by J.A. Russo, PCS 20 (1966): 219: 40: New Companion, 238

60: Lord, Epic Singers and Oral Tradition (Ithaca and London,

1991}.

72 76. Whether the bard deliberately selected different formulae to create poetic effect or variety has also been debated; cf. D.S. Olson. Mnemosyne 47 (1994): 145 51 for summary and bibliography of different views on this subject. For individuality of Homer's language cf. Richardson, Commentary, vol. VI, p. xii and comments on 21.363, 22.491, 22.502 -3, 22.364, etc. This chapter assumes that the Jlad and Odyssey were composed by a single bard. Bowra, 47.1 54 (1950): 191. noted that comparative studies of later oral traditions have revealed that bards differed considerably one from the other in their use of formulac; he observed that the use of formulae in the liad and Odvsser shows a great consistency which separates them from the Homeric Hymns and the works of Hesiod. J.A. Scott, The Unity of Homer, 93, found a remarkable linguistic similarity between the /liad and Odyssey: a linguistic similarity was also noted by Janko, Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns, 82,91. The theory that both epics were composed by the same bard is not accepted by all scholars: cf. for example Heubeck, Odvsser Commentary, vol. I. p. 12. 2 According to my calculation based on the Thesaurus Linguae Graccae, the Zliad 13,052 complete lines out of 15,683 are unique and 2.630 lines are repetitions of some sort. In addition there are eleven other lines not included in this count which are usually given line numbers but are frequently left out of modern editions. In the Odsser. 9.331

‚Votes: The Repeated Lines and the Personal Epithets

239

lines out of 12.108 are unique and 2.777 lines are repetitions, not counting two lines frequently left out of modern editions. When lines were compared certain words or changes were considered equivalents: these included the change of tov to ty; third person verb ending made into first person, his into your, and the occasional addition of de. Phrases such as oixövde /oixov SE and SoupixAurds / Soupi KAutös were not always entered in the same way on the TLG disk but whenever these were noted they were considered equivalents. This percentage of repetitions is much less than the number usually quoted in earlier scholarship; cf. for example J.A. Scott, The Cnity of Homer, 264. who estimated that one third of the whole consisted of repetitions. ‘These same figures were given by B. Knox, Introduction to Fagles’ translation of the Iliad, 17, and Kirk, Songs of Homer, 60. An estimate of about one filth was given by Camps, An Introduction to Homer, 47. Interest in repetitions has overshadowed the fact that the majority of lines were not repeated, Many lines in both epics used words which occurred only one time. M.W. Edwards, Commentary, vol. V, pp. 53 55. estimated that hapax legomena on an average occurred every 9.4 verses in the iad and every 11.8 verses in the Odyssey. For further discussion of the hapax legomena in the epics ef. NJ. Richardson in Homer: Bevend Oral Poetry, ed. J.M. Bremer. LJ.F. de Jong. and J. Kalff (Amsterdam, 1987:, 165 84: M. Pope. CQ 35 (1985: 3 5: MLM. Kumpf. Four Indices of Homenc Hapax Legomena Hildesheim, 1984). Richardson, 183. pointed out that the existence of these Aapay fegomena in the epics indicates that the bard had much greater flexibility and choice in use of poetic language than is sometimes recognized.

10 Janko, Mnemosyne 341 (19811: 259. noted a similar alternation for phases of speaking associated with Hera in the dad. For other examples of a single idea expressed in a variety of formulaic verses cf. Bowra, Homer. 16 17.

3 A total of 248 verses are to be found in both epics. More than half of these duplicated verses or 166 lines from the fied were used only once in the Odyvser: other lines were used more frequently: the multiple usages of the verses repeated from the fliad form 637 lines of the

3.57=

Odysver.

+ The exceptions 2.509, 2.685; the the sixty ships of forty ships of the in these examples

are the fifty ships of the Boeotians and of Achilles, ZL twelve ships of Ajax and Odysseus. fl. 2.557, 2.637; Agapenor and Menelaus, 4. 2.610. 2.587; and the Epeans, /L 2.618. Unusual lines were probably used in order to set these entries apart from the others.

3 ML 2.516= 2.680= 2.733 which are similar wo /1. 2.602, the ninety ships led by Nestor. 6M 2.524= 2.534=2.515= 2.6305 2.6445 2.7105 2.7375 2,749= 2.759. In these lines the more frequent t@ was occasionally changed to toig, This verse is similar to /. 2.568= 2.652, the eighty ships led by Diomedes and Idomeneus. 7 Used forty-seven times in the fliad and twenty-four times in the Odyser. In combination with Bea yAauKenig Adrvn. it was used once in the Jliad and six times in the Odisser: HL. 5.825 and Od. 1.44. 1.80. 1.314, 13.329, 13.392, 13.420, 8 Used forty-two times in the /had and filty-seven dimes in the Odrsuer. In combination

with Gea yAauKa@nig Adrvn,

it was used

five times

in

the fliad and nine times in the Odrwer, I. 1.206, 7.33, 8.357, 22.177, 22.238 and Od. 1.178, 1.221, 3.25, 3.299, 3.356, 7.27, 13.236. 13.361. 20.44. For discussion of these uo phrases cf R. Janko, Unemosine 31 (1981: 251 6-6 In discussions of the use of repeated phases, [feel that greater consideration should be given to the number of lines occurring

between each usage. with special emphasis given to close repetitions, and the possibility should constantly be considered that repetitions separated by many lines could represent the bard merely saying dhe same thing in the same was. Pagree with Janko’s coneluston thatthe bard did have a choice

in his selection of formulae.

althoul

[believe

this

choice to have been greater and more deliberate than does Janko. The use of the fist phrase occurred in Od second phiuse was used in Od 1.1783 122t.

TE

E80]

1.51.

The

11 For discussion of the arming scenes el.

Chapter 11.

12 The opening line. 7. 1.457. was repeated elsewhere in /L 1.43, 16.527: this same line with Athena replacing Apollo was used in A. 3.121, 23.771 and Od. 3.385. 6.328: Zeus was the recipient in dL 16.249. 24.314 and Od, 20.102. The opening lines of the sacrifice are MH. 1.458 61= 2.421 24. 1.464 69= 2.427 32. Lines 1.462 63 and 1.470 74 of the first scene difler from lines 2.125 26 and 2.433 of the second scene. The last two repeated lines of the first scene, UL. 1.470 71, which do not recur in the second scene, were repeated in Od. 3.339 40= 21.271 72 with 4.4.4170 also = Od. 1.148. 13 Od.

12.360-615

1.1641

65=

2.127

1.

1.460

28 and

615

2.123

24:

Od.

abso = to Od. 3.-461:62.

12.364 Od.

65>

12.362

1.

63 do

not recur clsewhere. Ltd.

1.461

65=

Od. 3.458

15 Od. 14.130= 3.1625 16 JL 1.4662 2.4292 17 1. 1.167 18 ZU

32=

1.609=

2.431=

2.132= 3.173=

15.303=

7.318=

69= 2.130

1.168=

1.469=

62.

12.3655

7.323= 4.68=

7.319

9.22= 8.72=

15.5301= 16.55=

UL 1.465= 2.128.

241.62 1= Od. TEAST. 20 and 7.323.

7.320=

23.56=

9.2232 8.485=

16.180=

Od.

23.57=

16.179= 24628=

12.308=

14.4545

19.425. Od.

U.

1.150= 15.143=

17.99,

19 4.1.4170 71= 9.175 76= Od. 3.3309 -10= 21.271

72.

20 Od. 1.148. 21 Od. 9.551

55: the only repeated line in this scene is Od. 9.552=

13.25. ‘The scene in the Land of the Phacacians included a single other

repeated line which came from the banquet at Sparta: Od. 13.27= 4.17. 22 Similar conclusions were drawn by CR. Beye. in Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Fightielh Birthday, ed. KJ. Rigsby. 7 14. who felt chat the bard was “ambitious” in his use of repeated similes in the /liad, 12, whereas the bard was “clearly intrigued with repetitions” in the Odyssey 9. CL also NJ. Richardson, CQ 30 (1980): 276: Gunn, HSCP 75 (1971): 14 31. 23 Such breaks came when either the bard or the scribes needed a rest. A continuation of the dictation could then be taken up later in the same day or on the following day. 2t The use of these repeated lines appears to have caused a certain amount of discussion in ancient times, as indicated by the statement that Peisistratos paid an obol for each line even when the lines were duplicates: cf) note 115 in Chapter VI. Concern over duplication of lines may be seen as another indication that bards varied in their use of such verses and that there was no fixed doctrine. 51.28

15.

26 7.2.23 3-4 with 2.28 32= 2.11

15.

27 1. 2.56 75. with 2.60 69= 2.23 32 and 2.70 almost = to 2.33. I. 2.27 also = 24.174. It is frequently said that this (ype of repetition where someone repeats something they have been told, is a characterisic of the oral tradition: ch. for example Finnegan, Oral Port. 102. While this may be true of lesser bards. Homer's Ziad and Odyser are so superior to most of the other existing oral compositions that his use of more subtle oral techniques is not surprising. 212.83

seems to be the end of a dictated

Chapter VIL

session: cf discussion:

in

240

NOTES FOR CHAPTER VII

20 The repetitions that occurred between /. 2.84 and 2.156 are il 2.91= 2464 2.1103 6.675 15.733= 19.78. Then there is a fairly long passage. 1.2.1011 18= 9.18 25 and 2.139 41= 9.26 28 where Book 9 repeated the earlier and longer passage of Book 2: 1, 2.139 also = 9,704= 12.75= 14.370= 18.297= Od. 13.179 and UL 2.140 also = 9.47 and almost = 7.160 which = 15.499. Excluding the passages repeated in Book 9, only four lines in this section occurred elsewhere and all theses lines except for 2.9] were used in later books separated from the first usage by hundreds of verses. 30 Phe first two lines were repeated later: ZL 2.157= 5.71 b= 21.110 which almost = 8.352= 8.127: ML 2.158= 2.1745 Od. 5.204. These were followed first by a non-recurring line and then by six more lines which were repeated almost immediately by Athena when she spoke to Odysseus conveying to him the essence of Hera’s speech: I. 2.160 65= 2.176 8) with 2.160 also = 4.173. Athena changed ‘Agatay yadxoxttevev of Hera’s speech into “Ayatev und ET Epwei, lines 163. 179. and she added 6 in line 180 which was not used in the varlier line 164. In che lines following the repeat, A. 2.166= 5.719= 7.41% N. 2.167= 4.74= 22.187= 24.121= Od. 1.102= 24.488 and almost = 7.1% 4. 2.167= 2.17: 2.172= Od. 15.9. 1. 2.173: Stoyeves Ageptiadn. roAyungav © OdSvcced. was repeated seven times in the had and fifteen times in the Odrwert 1. 2.173= 1.358= 8.93= 9.30B= 0.624= LOIS 23.723= Od. 5.203= 10.101= 10.156= 10.488= 10.5005 11.605 11.92= 11.105= 11.173= 11.617= 13.375= 14.486= 16.167= 22.164= 24.542. 31 After Athena’s speech au /. 2.181 and the beginning of the sacrifice at ff. 2.421. there are only seventeen lines out of the 341 that were repeated elsewhere in contrast to Athena's speech of twenty-five lines, which contained twenty repeats and the sacrifice of thirteen lines that were all repeated somewhere else. The seventeen repeats are II. 2.187= 2.47, 2.206= 9.99, 2.240= 1.3565 1.507, 2.242= 1.232, 2.257= Od. 2.187= 17.229= 18.82: I. 2.271= 4.81= 22.372= Od. #.328= 10.37= 13.167= 18.72= 18.100= 21.396: ML 2.283= 1.73= .253= 2.78= 7.326= 7.367= 9.95= 15.285= 18.253= Od. 2.160= 2.228= 7.158= 16.399= 24.53= 24.453, /1. 2.288= 2.113= 5.716= 9.20. 2.313= 2.327, 2.3545 16.277. 2.34= 4.150, 2.352= Od. 4.273= 8.513: 4. 2.369= 1.130= 1.285= 4.188= 10.42. 2.371= 4.288= 7.132= 16.97= Od. 4.341= 7.311= 17.132= 18.235= 24.376: A. 2.373 74= 4.290 91 with 2.374 abo = 13.816, 2.381= 19.275. 32 11. 6.90 97= 6.271 78. In Hector’s speech to Hecuba he also repeated his earlier line in the same speech, 4. 6.269, at 2. 6.279. 33 Hector's speech to the Trojans, 7. 6.111 15, has repeats that come from other parts of the epic; these are Z. 6.111= 9.233 and almost = 11.564, 6.112= 8.174= 11.287= 15.487= 15.734= 16.270= 17.185. Theano’s prayer to Athena, 4. 6.305 310, repeated the carlier lines 4. 6.93b 95 and 6.274b 76. In the preparations for the dedication, J. 6.286 304, the repeated lines are (6.294 95= Od. 15.107 8 and A. 6.303 which almost = 1.6.92. 3EUL 3.59

75.

45 7 3.86 94 with 3.00b 94 = Paris’ words at 3.69b 74 with a few minor changes.

39 CFL note 110 in Chapter I. 40 Ct. Od. 2.420 and ff 1.479. 41 JL 1.480- Bl and Od. 2.424 26. 42 /L 1.481b 83= Od. 2.127

9.

43 Od. 2.420= 15.292, 2.422 15.217, 2.424 26= 15.289-91.

23a=

15.287

88a with 2.422 also =

4 0d. 15.497 99= If 1.435 37. 45 Od. 15.548 49= 9.178-79= 9.562 63= 11.637 38= 12.145 15.547 almost = 9.177.

46. Od.

16 For Priam the phrase used was Tov 5 qeifet Ereıta yépov Mpiapos Seoer dn. fl. 24.372= 24.386= 24.405. For Hermes the phrase was Tov 5° atte xpocéeine biaKtopos ‘Apyeigovme: fl. 24.378= 24.380= 24.410.

47 I 24.432 which = 24.378= 24.389= 24.410. 48 1. 24.440, 24.459, 24.468. 49 11. 24.552= 24.659 which = phrase used when Priam spoke to Hermes, 24.372= 24.386= 24.405. The third time Priam spoke in 24.634 the phrase used was TOV RPÖTEPOG RPOGEEIRE yEpev MMpianos Gece dic: this is a variation of a phrase used earlier at /l. 24.217 by Priam himself. Reinforcing the concept of age and tiredness, the formula yépev Tipiapog Beoeıöng was used seven times and the short TIpiapog Geoe1öng was used twice (once in the accusative, /. 24.299 and 24.483) but these epithets for Priam were used only in Book 24 of the Miad and not in the earlier hooks. 50 The first time Achilles spoke he used winged words, /. 24.517: the last time this line was used was at 4. 23.625. The second time Achilles spoke, //, 24.558. the phrase used had occurred earlier in the epic but not in Book 24, 4. 24.588= 1.148= 22.260= 22.344. His concluding verse at fl. 24.571= 1.33, is a variation of a phrase used with a change of name at Jf 1.568, 3.418, 10.240, 24.689. Achilles next spoke at Jl. 24.591, using a phrase that had occurred earlier at fl. 10.522= 23.178. He was said to speak at 24.596, 24.598, 24.649: and finally in /. 24.668, he spoke in a formula that was a variation of ff. 20.177= 21.149, with a concluding phrase at f/. 24.671. 51 Thetis’ speech to Achilles, 4. 24.128 37, repeated only two lines, Z. 24.135 36= 24.114 15, from the instructions given to her by Zeus, I. 24.104-19. ‘Twelve lines from Zeus’ speech to Iris, ff. 24.144-58, were repeated by Iris at 24.176 -87; the repetition was preceded by a new introduction of five lines which replaced the first three lines of Zeus‘ speech, and it contained a slight change in line 182. 52 For discussions of messenger scenes in Books 23 and 24 in the /liad cf. F. Létoublon in Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry, ed. J.M. Bremer, 1,J.F. de Jong, andJ. Kalff, 123-44: 1J.F. de Jong. JHS 108 (1988): 188-89; LJ. Coventry, JHS 107 (1987): 178-80. 53 Od. 9.62 63. In contrast to the scenes of setting up the sail, discussed above, these departure scenes contain repetitions only from within the Odysser itself. 34 Od. 9.62= 9.105.

36 1. 3.1300 38.

35.0d.9.103

37 UL 3.250 58 with 3.251= 3.131 and 3.253 55a= 3.136 38a Cris" speech: 3.256= 3.73= 3.94 speeches by Paris and Hector: 3.357 58=

56 Od. 103 -4= 9.179. 80 with addition of 9.178. "These same three lines were repeated in Book 12. when Odysseus and his comrades left

3.71.75

speech by Paris .

ir CE for example Stanford. Commentary, 23.296 1 who noted that when Odysseus related his adventures to Penelope in 04. 25.310 41, the sequence of these events dillered from: thase in Books 6 13 where the same events were related at much greater length to the Phiaeacians.

4.

the Island of Circe for the second

time. "The beginning two lines were

repeated in Od. 15.518 10. when the ship that took "Telemachus to Ithaca departed. and the last two lines recur in Od. 11.637 38, when Odysseus left the ends af the earth. V7 OWNS

420.179

BOS 9.171

72= 1563

64 with 9.178= 9.562.

Notes: The Repeated Lines and the Personal Epithets 63= 9.565

66 with 9.62 also = 9.105.

39 The first The second couplet, Od. 9.177 also =

couplet, Od. 9.62 63= 10.133 34 with 9.62 also = 10.77. couplet, Od. 9.103 4= 4.579 80= 12.146 47. The third 9.178 79= 11.637 38= 12.145 46= 15.518 49 with line 15.517.

60 Od. 9.68 69= 12.31-4 15. This couplet was used earlier when Odysseus was sailing away from the Island of Calypso, Od. 5.293b 94. 61 Od. 9.75 76= 10.143 44. Od. 9.76 also = 3.390. 62 Od. 9.77= 12.402. The next line. Od. 9.78 was repeated later in one of Odysseus’ false tales, Od. 14.256. 63 Od. 9.85

87=

10.56

tb Od. 9.88

90=

10.100

65

Od.

241

73 Od. 3.477. used six times Od. and seven times ZZ, was repeated in

>38 Od. 9.62

58. 102.

1.431= 4.576.

66 Od. 9.152= 9.170= 9.307= 9.437= 9.560= 10.187= 12.8= 12.316. Od. 9.152 also = 2.1= 3.404= 3.491= 4.306= 1.431= 4.576= 5.228= 8.1= 13.18= 15.189= 17.1= 19.428 and A. 1.477= 24.788.

Apollo, 502.

74 Od. 3.210 used twenty-four times Od. and forty-seven times 77. but in the Hymns only in slphrodite 5.107, 191. 75 Od. 1.178 used fifty-seven times Od. and forty-two times //, but only in Demeter, 22:4: Hermes, 333; Hesiod, Theagony, 546; Shield of Heracles, 102.

76 Od. 1.44: Apollo, 314, 323: Aphrodite 3.8, 94; Hephaestus, 2: Athena 2.10: Hesiod, Theogony. 13. 573, 888. 924: Works and Days, 72: fragment 4.33a.31; Shield of Heracles, 325. 134, +55. 470. This combination was used fifty-one times in the Od. thirty-two times in the Jf, six times in Hesiod, seven times in the Amy and four times in the Shield of Heracles, 77 Od. 1.63: Demeter. 78: Apollo. 9%. 312; Hesiod, Theogony, 558: Works and Days, 53: fragment 4.43a.79. ‘This formula was used nine times in the Od., twenty-two times in the /L, three times in Hesiod and three times in the Fymns. 78 Od. 9.161: Demeter, 434. Hesiod, Theagany, 558: Works and Days. 53: fragment 43a.78. ‘This phrase was used six times in the Od. and once in

67 At Od. 10.541 between Od. 10.187 and Od. 12.8.

the I.

68 At Od. 12.142 between Od. 12.8 and 12.316. The phrase, Od. 10.5+41= 12.1442, was later repeated at 15.56= 20.91. The repeated use of phrases for speaking such as tov 8° alte xpoogerne in the Ode. noted by Janko, cf. note 8 above. probably represents this same kind of repetition consciously used by the bard for emphasis. In Book 19, for example, this phrase was used for Penelope in quick succession first in lines 308 and 349 and later in lines 559 and 588, thereby emphasizing the argumentative nature of the conversation between Penelope and Odysseus. Odysseus answered with the phrase tov 5° Grape Popévoc

79 Specific lines used more rarely, such as JL 1.265. were occasionally repeated as in the Sueld of Heracles, 182, but such repetitions are few and unusual.

Rpoceon noAüunng

Odvacets,

Od.

19.41.

106,

164, 220.

261.

335.

382. 499, 554. 582. This is the most often repeated verse of the Ody: it occurred forty times in the Odyssey. frequently in situations where Odysseus’ veracity was questionable: in the fliad it was used six times. The repeated use of this phrase serves to emphasize the clever, manipulative personality of the hero as portrayed by the bard. 60 This verse occurred twenty-eight times in the Odruer and seventeen times in the Miad. Od. 1.122= 2.269% 4.550= 5.117= 5.172= 7.236= 8.346= 8.407= 8.442= 8.460= 10.482= 11.56= 11.209= 11.396= 12.296= 13.58= 13.227= 13.253= 13.290= 14.114= 15.259= 16.180= 18.10-4= 20.198= 22.410= 23.34= 24.372= 24.399= I. 1.201= 2.7= +.312= 4.369= 8.101= 10.163= 13.750= 14.138= 15.35= 15.89= 16.6= 17.74= 20.331= 21.73= 23.601= 23.625= 24.517. In the Odyssey the final apoonüßa of the phrase was changed to Kpoonvbev in five of the verses; this variation docs not occur in the Jliad. It should also be noted that Od. 1.122 was not used in book 9, the Book that related so many of the disastrous adventures of Odysseus and his comrades. This same phrase with ogéas instead of piv occurred twice in the Odyssey and four times in the Aliad: Od. 4.77= 10.430= Il. 4.284= 4.337= 10.191= 15.145. In the Odyssey Exe are always winged, a phrase used sixty-one times: in the Mliad &rea was used sixty-five times, sixty-one times it was winged. 70 ‘The whole line is to be found in Demeter, 320: Hermes, 435: Apollo, 451; the phrase is in Demeter, 112, 247; Apollo, 50, 111: Aphrodite 5.184; Shield of Heracles, 117,326. 445. 71 CL note 68 above.

72 Apollo, 474, with tovs replacing the tov or mv found in the flad and Odyssey, where the first half of the line was used more than a hundred times:

it occurred

in combination

Agamemnon, Zeus, Diomedes. Eumacus. and Odysseus.

with

the

names

of Achilles,

Hector. Ajax, Priam, Menelaus,

80 Od. 5.214 used forty-five times Od. and six times JL; Od. 4.620 used sixtcen times Od. and eight times ff; Od. 2.1 used twenty-one times Od. and twice /L; Od. 5.203 used fifteen times Od. and seven times Il: Od. 1.149 used eleven times Od. and three times ff; Od. 1.169 used thirteen times

Od. and

four times

J;

Od.

1.150 used

fourteen

times

Od. and

seven times Hf. Three of the lines pertain to people saying something. two concer eating, one refers to dawn and one is a name and epithet. Lines frequently used in the Odyssey but not found in the Miad are: Od. 1.213 used forty-three times; Od.

1.329 used ten times; Od. 4.375 used

fourteen times; Od. 14.55 used thirteen times: Od. 17.498 used cighteen times; four of these are people speaking and one is a name plus epithet: except for Od. 4.357, the others include the names of Telemachus. Penelope. or Eumaeus. #1 Od. 1.178 used nine times Od. and five times A: Od. 11.454 used seven times Od. and seven times /L.: Od. 15.204 used five times Od. and three times /l.; Od. 8.165 used seven times Od. and twice Il: Od. 2.160 used six times Od. and nine times //.; Od.

1.63 used six times Od. and

eight times H.; Od. 3.477 used six times Od. and seven times JL; Od. 8.328 used six times Od. and three times JL; Od. 14.148 used six times Od. and twice Il: Od. 1.44 and 9.161 used six times Od. and once Hl. In addition Od. 8.234 used ten times /l. and five times Od.; Od. 3.210 used eight times /L and three times Od.: Od. 11.397 used eight times Hl. and twice

Od.; Od. 5.298

used seven

times /l. and

four times

Od. One

of

these referred to time, one was a name and epithet, and the remainder concem people speaking or thinking. 82 Od. 2.1 and 9.161. 83 Od. 5.203 and 11.397, + Od. 1.149 and 1.150. 85 Gunn, ASCP 75 (1971):

1

31. studying the thematic composition of

the two epics, reached the same conclusion. A single bard is also indicated by the similarities between the Odyssey and the end of the iad: many of these were noted by Richardson. Commentary, 23.199 652, 23.558 62, 23.832 5. 23.653 99, 23.695 -97, 23.784. 24.5 11, 24.20 21.21.33 34, 2440 +1. 24.77 119, 24.80 82, 24.229 37, 24.260 62,24.281 321. ete. 86 CH PL Vivante, The Epither af Homer, A Study in Poetic Values (New

242

NOTES FOR CHAPTER VIII

Haven and London, 1982), who cited various different views concerning the use of epithets in his discussion of this subject; he argued that the epithets were not simply a repetition of traditional language, but that they represented the bard’s attempt to give added meaning to the action, object, or person. R. Sacks, ‘The Traditional Phrase in Homer, Tivo Studies in Form, Meaning and Interpretation (New York, 1987) responded to Vivante's thesis and supported the view that the use of epithets and adjectives were based primarily on traditional forms and that they were not deliberately selected by the individual bard. 87 Cf. for example the repetitive nature of the lines listing the number of ships in the Catalogue of Ships. The variation of techniques and of ability among oral ports, although often ignored by Homeric scholars, is recognized by scholars of other oral traditions; cf. V. Edwards and Sienkewicz. Oral Cultures, 17 18: Notopoulos, .{7P83 (1962): 344. 88 In the /liad he was mentioned 123 times; fifty-seven times without an adjective. 80 The phrase xoAvtias Siog "Odvoceüs was used thirty-seven times in the Odyssey and five times in the fliad, Od. 5.171, 5.354, 5.486= 24.504, 6.1, 6.249, 7.1, 7.133, 7.139, 7.177, 7.329= 8.199= 13.250= 18.281, 7.3-44, 8.446, 13.353, 14.148= 16.90= 16.225= 16.258= 16.266= 17.560= Il. 9.676= 10.248: Od. 15.340= 16.186= 17.280, 18.90. 19.102, 21.414, 22.191, 22.261= 24.490, 23.111. 24.176. 24.232, 24.348, 24.537: 4. 8.97, 9.676, 10.248, 23.729, 23.778. The shortened phrase $iog Odvoceis was used an additional forty-two times Od. and eighteen times //.; Od. 1.196, 1.396, 1.398, 2.96= 19.141= 24.131, 3.121, 3.126, 4.280, 5.269, 6.117. 6.127, 6.217, 6.224, 6.322, 7.21, 7.230= 19.1= 19.51, 8.381. 8.494, 13.56, 13.63. 13.187, 14.4, 16.5, 16.164, 17.506, 18.117= 20.120, 19.225, 19.430= 19.437, 20.1, 20.92. 20.104, 21.38, 21.190, 22.81, 24.241, 24.424, 24.482 and with the words reversed in Od. 2.27; Il. 1.145, 2.244. 3.205, 3.314, 5.669. 5.679, 7.168, 9.169, 9.192, 9.223, 10.460, 11.449, 11.767. 19.48, 19.141, 19.310, 23.759, 23.765. 90 Used sixty-six times in the Odyssey and fourteen times in the Iliad: forty-five times in the Odyssey and five times in the fad, the phrase was used in the line thv/tév 5° axape Pope vos xpoceon KoAvEHTIC "Oövooeüc. This is the most frequently repeated line in the epics; cf. note 68 above. The second most repeated line is xai piv ¢e@vijoas Exea

ntepdevta xpoonvéa, which was used twenty-eight times in the Odyssey and seventeen times in the /liad; this same phrase with ogeag replacing piv occurred twice in the Odyssey and four times in the /liad. On the importance

the bard placed on having ping cf. Richardson,

tary, 23.301

5, 23.768: 79.

Commen-

91 Used five times in the Odyssey and once in the dhad, Od. 2.352, 2.366, 5.387, 15.485, 23.306 and JL. 10.340. 92 Used twenty-four times in the Odyssey and three times in the iad. 93 Used twice in the Odyssey. 94 Used cleven times in the Odyssey and once in the Zliad. 95 Used nine times in the Odyssey. 96 Always in the same repeated line: Od. 1.83= 20.329= 20.329= 21.204.

14.4245 20.239=

97 Used five times in the Odyssey. 98 Used fifteen times in the Odyssey and seven times in the had. 40 Used twelve times in the Odysser. 100 Used owice in the Odyser. 101 Used once in the Odrsver. rtodindpOiov

iwice

103 ‘The sixteen combinations consist of twenty-one different adjectives. Some of these such as Gvaxta and roAuunigav were always used with other adjectives, whereas others such as noAutAag and Stog were used sometimes in combination and sometimes alone. Telemachus had a wider assortment of epithets than Penelope though fewer than those used for Odysseus. In the Odyssey his name occurred 246 times, seventy-live times with an epithet. He was most often called TnA£paxog xenvupévos (forty-six times) but forty-three times this adjective was used in a repeated phrase (Od. 1.213). He was also called TnA&pnaxog $iAog vidg "Odvaonog BeioLo (five times). TnA£paxov HiAov vidv “OSucatos BeioLo (once) changed to 'Oöveanjog gitog vidg without his name nine times, $iAog viög alone (cight times) and once as OSveatos neyadünov gaid:pov viöv. He was called iepn ig TnAepaxoro seven times, TnAepaxos Beoeıörg five times, TnA£naxog 8° fipas twice, and once each TnA£payov Beoeıdea, TnAépaxov Geoeixedov, neyaßüpov TnAepaxoıo, TnAepaxou neyadüuov, TnAenayou...peyadttopoc, TnAgpay ipus, TnAeHaxos .. . iadBE0s cdc, and TnAepaxoro Saigpovos. 104 Cf, Shive, Naming Achilles, who noted the same phenomenon in the formulae used for Achilles, but the conclusions he drew from this observation are quite different from those being suggested here. The possibility chat the bard had a great flexibility in his choice of formulae, diction, and themes has become increasingly clear; cf. L.M. Slatkin. The Power of Thetis, Allusion and Interpretation in the Iliad (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford. 1991), 1-16 for general discussion. A bard deliberately selecting a specific epithet to enhance the meaning of an individual scene is central to the thesis presented by Scully, Homer and the Sacred City, cf. especially 69 80. For further discussion cf. also Hainsworth, Commentary, vol. UI, pp. 13 :16, 22-31; R.P. Martin, The Language of Heroes: 1,J.F. de Jong, CQ,42 (1992): 1-11; JAS 108 (1988): 188 89; Narrators and Focalizers, The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad (Amsterdam. 1987), 135-48; Griffen, JHS 106 (1986): 36-57: N. Austin, Archery at the Dark of the Moon, Poetic Problems in Homer's Odyssex (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1975), 11-80. 105 Another indication that the bard was male can perhaps be seen in the observation made by Hainsworth, Commentary, 9.557; he noted that the epithets for heroes reflect their stature and their accomplishments, which are much more interesting than the epithets used for women, which usually concern their appearance. In recent years there has been a tendency to sce a deeper meaning in the characterization of women in the Homeric epics: cf. for example, essays in The Distaff Side: Representing the Female in Homer's Odyssey, ed. B. Cohen. As each generation of bards sang these tales, they no doubt changed and enriched the personalities of some of the figures, including the women, but in my opinion the bards did not deliberately seck to add many of the nuances that recent scholarship has tried to read into the female personalities. For further discussion of Penelope and her role in the Odrud cf Endnote a.

to? These are rtodinop@os ‘Oducoerts -three times Od and wice AL: ‘Odvoeona

"Odvoonji xt0A1Rd6p8o (once in Od.). EaOAd¢ Odvaoeüg (three times Od.): “OSver Satgpovi (three times Od.); 'Odvona Satgpova noLKıAourimv (four times Od. and once in Jl); "Oövona avaxta Saigpova xo1K1Aoanmv (once in Od.); OSveoni peyaAnrop (three times Od. and once in IL); "Odvocnog neyalntopa (three times Od.); "Odyoonog peyaA topos (once in Od.); avnGé@ ‘OSveni (five times Od. and once in JL); avnGéov 'Odvoijog (twice Od.); "Odvocnog neyaßünov (once in Od.): ... KvSadiporo (twice in Od.); and finally “OSvaets *l6axh0106 (twice in Od.). In the Iliad he was also called SoupixAutds (four times): Att ¢idov (twice), and Att $iAog (once); TAmpev (once); Au piv (three times), adjectives not used in the Odyssey; in addition at I. 9.673= 10.544 and Ji. 11.430 he was addressed in the vocative and several additional adjectives were used.

Ode

“OdSucona

ntoAınöpber

itwice

Od..:

106 This epithet was used thirty Gmes in the /lhad and thirty-three umes in the Odyvver.

„Votes: The Repeated Lines and the Personal Epithets 107 ff. 1.264 and Od. 1.21, 1.70. For discussion of possible moral and religious aspects of the confrontation between Odysseus and Polyphemus cf. Friedrich, JHS 111 (1991): 16 28. 108 Stanford. Gonmentary, 1.70: cf. also AT. Murray. Odysser, Loch editon: Lattimore. translation of the Mad: Cunliffe, Lexicon, s.v. avtideos. 109 CL Chantraine, Dictionnatre, s.v. üvta. 110 For example

Odysseus

1.1.45, 2.244, 3.205,

5.669, 7.168, 8.97; etc., Od. 1.196. 2.27, 3.121. 4.280, 5.171, 6.1. 7.1, 8.381, 13.56, 14.4, etc. and avrideog in /. 11.140, Od. 1.21= 6.331, 2.17,

13.126.

19.456,

20.369,

21.254,

22.291.

Sarpedon

was called

Siog in ZI. 15.67, 16.638, 16.678 and avtideog in /l. 5.629. 5.663, 3.602.

Agenor

was called öiog in A.

11.59,

13.490,

14.425,

15.340,

16.535. 21.545, 21.579, and avrideog in fl. 21.595. ‘Mhrasymedes was called Sog in 4. 17.705 and avrideog in A. 16.321: Od. 3.414. Nestor was called Stog in 4. 2.57,

10.54,

11.510:

Od.

1.284, and avrideos in

Od. 11.512.

Angeles, and London,

1986),

179 n. 57.

112 4. 4.88= 5.168.

76.

127 Od. 9.224 29. 128 Od. 14.18. 129 Od. 4.571; the absence of sacrifice was mentioned in Od, 4.351 Cf. also the Phaeacians,

who

were

called avti@eot,

Od. 6.241;

53. their

later action of ferrying Odysseus back to Ithaca angered Poseidon and brought misfortune to their comrades on the ship. 130 41. 9.623.

Mestor, son of Priam, was identified once after he had been killed, I.

29.

Agenor was called avrideos in fl. 21.595, when

115 4. 5.663= 5.692.

117 ft 12.408.

118 71. 16.421. 119 72. 16.649. 120 ‘This epithet was used six times for Sarpedon; the five examples given above and /l. 6.199. In the /kad no other hero was given this epithet so frequently. Sarpedon and the Lycians were not Trojans but Trojan allies: they had come to honor their alliance and not because they themselves had quarreled with the Achaeans; this alliance led to disaster for the Lycians. The avtideog Pandarus was also an ally, and similar to Sarpedon, he was to die at Troy. 121 A similar sequence can be seen with Polydorus. who was mentioned in four passages, in two of these episodes he was called avtißeog. Achilles first sought him out in /. 20.407 Gust as Pandarus and Sarpedon were sought out), where he was identified as being avrideog. In that same passage we were told that Priam had tried to keep him from the baulefield. but in his folly he insisted on rushing forward among the foremost fighters. He was next mentioned without epithet he was

killed by Achilles.

In /l. 21.91,

Priam

referred to his death and once again he was identified as being avtideos. He was last mentioned in fl. 22.46. where no epithet was used. 122 Od. 1.21= 6.331, 2.17, 4.741, 13.126, 19.456. 20.360, 21.254, not by name: 144.247, 14.385. 19.216, 24.300. which refer to the avtideor comrades of Odysseus: 11.117= 13.378, which refer to Penelope who had been put in a difficult position because of Odysseus’ long absence: 14.182, which refers to the family of Arceisius, father of Odysseus, which would have become extent if the suitors had succeeded in their plot to kill "Velemachus. ‘The use of avtißrog in the above passages account for cighteen usages of this word in the Oder. Tt was used fourteen dimes ebewhere in the epic. es Od. L210 = 06.331.

Achilles attacked him

and he would have died on the batdefield, if Apollo had not interfered; what happened to Agenor after Apollo's interference was not revealed in the epic. Somewhat similar, though far less drastic, was the Achacan Leonteus who was called avti®eog; he was one of the unsuccessful participants in the Funeral Games of Patroclus; /l. 23.837.

116 1. 12.307.

where

132 Od. 11.543 51. 133 ‘Teuthras was mentioned once in 4. 5.705, where he was first to be named of those killed by Hector; Lycophontes was mentioned only in ll. 8.275, among those killed by ‘Teucer; Molion, chariotcer of ‘Thymbracus, was killed by Odysseus in his single appearance at fl. 11.322; 24.257. Possibly the Trojan Polyphetes, who was mentioned only once in fl. 13.791 where he was called avti@eog, can be understood to have been killed; he was not portrayed fighting in the later part of the epic.

113 dL 5.172.

in Ht. 20.419,

125 Od. 9.82 -104.

131 Jf 10.112.

111 ‘Fhe interpretation of avtißeog to mean “contrary to the gods” was suggested by Proclus, én Rep. 1.104, but his view has not been generally accepted; cf for example R. Lamberton, Homer the Theologian: Nenplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition (Berkeley, Los

114 7. 5.627

124 In the counterattack, six men from cach ship were lost: Od. 9.39-61.

126 0d.9.172

was called ötog in 4.

243

when Odysseus as a young man acting impetuously attacked a boar by himsell'and was wounded.

13.126. Od.

19.456 referred to an earlier occasion

134 Possibly for 16.865; he had he was unlucky survived, he had

a similar reason Automedon was called avrideog in II. been serving as charioteer when Patroclus was killed; to have been placed in this position and although he to face Achilles’ anger.

135 4. 23.360. 136 41. 23.361; translation by Lattimore. 137 Hf. 4.377 (reference to Polynices who sought aid from the Mycenacans to fight against Thebes; aid was not given because of the interference of Zeus); 11.140 (reference to Odysseus who took part in an unsuccessful embassy to the Trojans); Od. 11.371 (reference to the Achaeans who died at ‘Troy); 24.116 (reference to Menclaus going on embassy to Odysseus which took a long time and succeeded only with difficulty). In Od. 17.54, Telemachus referred to his companions as av-

tideor during his conversation with Penelope, possibly in an attempt to deceive her by implying that his comrades were unworthy and thus providing him with an excuse to bring Theoclymenus to the palace. 138 Od. 15.237. 139 CE Od. 11.287 97 and AT. Murray. Odyssey, Loeb edition, vol. II, p-%n.. 140 ‘To be compared to avtideog Rhexenor, Od. 7.146, who had died young, slain by Apollo, Od. 7.64-65, presumably for some action that had angered Apollo; what this action may have been was not related in the Odyssey but possibly these events were narrated in another epic. In Od. 11.308, Otus was called avrideog, probably because he was said to have been shortlived, although once again the circumstances were not related in the Odyssey. Mygdon was mentioned only once in Hl. 3.186, where he was called avrideoc: he had been in Phrygia when the Amazons attacked, probably taking part in events that formed yet another

244

NOTES FOR CHAPTER

VII

epic cycle no longer preserved. In ff. 14.322, Rhadamanthys was called avtideog for no apparent reason but other sources inform us that Rhadamanthys had to flee into exile because he had killed a kinsman and this information plus other details of his life may have been preserved in another epic; for Rhadamanthys cf. Diodorus Siculus,

149 Telemachus in Od. 16.461 and 22.157; Penelope in Od. 17.508: Odysseus in Od. 21.234, Cf also Od. 16.56 and 17.507 where first Telemachus and then Penelope questioned the 8tog veopfdc about the stranger, whereupon Eumacus repeated the false tale of Odysseus, contrasting the role of the Siog retainer and that of the ROAUTPOROS Master.

4.60,

150 Od. 14.3 4. CC. also Od. 16.333 and 17.589, where Eumacus as Siog veopfdg went to speak to Penelope showing the same special devotion for the mistress that he had shown for the master and 21.80. where Eumaeus as Siog veopdc carried out instructions given to him by Penelope.

5.79; Strabo,

9.11.30,

10.4.8;

Pausanias,

8.53.2; Apollodorus,

24.11. 3.1.2. Ganymedes was called avrißeog in 4. 20.232; because of his beauty he was not allowed to live a normal life; in his youth he had been seized by the gods and made to serve them as their cupbearer: ZI. 20.232 35. The existence of information known to the audience but only casually mentioned in the epics themselves was made clear by K. Reinhardt,

Tradition und Geist (Göttingen,

1960),

16--36. For subsequent

discussion cf. Slatkin, The Power of Thetis, 1-16: M. Davies, JHS 101 (1981): 56 62. 111 Od. 8.119 and 123. 142 4. 16.321, where he successfully killed Maris and Od. 3.414, where he was listed with the other sons of Nestor; this epithet was used despite the fact that in /. 17.705 he was called Siog when he fought over the body of Patroclus. 143 Od. 11.512. Nestor was also called Stog in 4. 2.57. 10.54. 11.510, HAN. 145 Ajax in Z. 9.623 Ajax was also called Menelaus was called 10.43. 17.12. 17.34, Sios.

151 Od. 14.48, 14.401, 14.413, 15.301, 16.1. 16.20: cf. also 16.452, where eating in Eumaeus’ hut was again mentioned. 152 ‘To be contrasted to the actions of avtißeog Polyphemus, in Odrun Book 9. 153 Od. 22.129. 22.162. 154 Od. 17.183. 17.260. 155 Od. 17.219. 156 Od. 21.362. 157 Od. 21.359. 158 Od. 15.413

and 10.112; Menelaus in Od. 8.518 and 24.116. Stoyevig in ff. 4.489, 7.234, 7.2.49, 9.644. 11.465. Stoyevig in /l. 23.294, and öiotpegeg in I. 7.109, 17.652. 17.679. 17.702. Neither were ever called

146 725.796 813 and 5.855 59. 147 Cf Od. 4.219 21. 148 Four times as diog, always in the vocative at the beginning of a speech, and eighteen times as ötog veopBds.

14.

150 Od. 15.427 29, 15.482 -83, cl. also Od. 1.429-31. 15.452 53. where slavery was also mentioned. In an ellort to separate Homeric society from the society of the Linear B tablets, it is sometimes implied that slavery was not part of Homeric society and the difference between Homer and the many slaves listed in the tablets has been emphasized: cf. for example Page, History and Homeric Iliad, 183. Eumacus’ tale of his youth makes it plain that Homeric society did include slaves. References in the /had to women being captured as booty, women such as Briseis and the daughter of Chryses, or to people being waded, JL. 7.475, also indicate slavery.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS WITH

CHAPTER

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I

fig. I. Restored drawing of megaron in the palace at Pylos. by Piet de Jong. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. C.W. Blegen in Companion, 422 29: Pylos 1. Fig. 2. The Panagia Houses at Mycenae during the course of excavations with citadel of Mycenae in the background. Photograph by I.M. Shear. Panagia Houses. For Mycenaean domestic architecture cf. I.M. Shear, MDA; @idta Exn eig Tedpyiov 'E. Mudevay, I, 85 98; Panagia Houses, 150 54: Sinos. Die vorklassischen Hausformen in der ‚igäis, Darcque, L'architecture domestique mycenienne: P. Darcque and R. Treuil, ed., /.’Habitat egem préhistorique, Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CU niversité de Paris et UEcole francaise d'Athénes, BCH Supplement 19 (1990); S. Hiesel, Spathelladische Hausarchitektur. Studien zur Architek-

turgeschichte des gnechischen Festlandes in der späten Bronzezeit (Mainz am Rhein, 1990), Werner, The Megaron during the .tegean and Anatolian Fig. 3. Plan of Panagia House I, drawn by RJ. Rothman and K.W. Schaar. Fig. 4. Restored plan of House I, drawn by I.M. Shear, based on plan drawn by RJ. Rothman and K.W. Schaar, from Panagia Houses, plan and fig. 2. Fig. 5. Plan of Tsountas House at Mycenae, drawn by I.M. Shear, based on plans published by Wace, .Mycenae, fig. 25. and C. Tsountas, Praktika 1886: pl. 4.

Tsountas, Praktika 1886: 59 -79; Wace, Mycenae, 66-67, fig. 25: MDA,

226

34; for house

and

surrounding

area, cf. Mylonas,

76

Opnoxevrinöv Kevtpov tev Muxnvav: Mycenae Rich in Gold, 127 50; lakovidis, LHC, 44-50. Fig. 6. Restored plan of West House at Mycenae, drawn by I.M. Shear, based on plan published by N.M. Verdelis, Archaeology 14 (1961): 13. Verdelis, Archaeology 14 (1961): 12--29: Alyeenar Tablets III. 13-29; Mylonas, VALI, 81 83; WDA, 131 43; Tournavitou, The “son Houses”at Mycenae, 1-16, 285. 87. Fy. 7. Restored plan of House of Columns with Palace Workshop to the west at Mycenae, drawn by I.M. Shear, based on plans published by Wace, ‚Mycenae, figs. 32-34. and Mylonas, Hespena 35 (1966): fig. 1. Wace, Mycenae, 91-97; Mylonas, Hesperia 35 (1966): 420 25; MDA, 249 62; lakovidis, LHC, 64-66. Fig. 8. Plan of palace at Tiryns, from Mylonas, \fAEA, fig. 51, based on plan in Tuyns Il, drawn by H. Sulze. Courtesy of German Archaeological Institute in Athens. Tiryns Wt; S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kprim xai Muxnvaixn "ERas, 111--12, 115, pl. 154; Mylonas, MALI, 46 52; K. Kilian, Ad 103 (1988): 105 51. Fig. 9. Plan of palace at Pylos, from Mylonas, AMA. text fig. 13, based on Pylos 1. plan. Blegen, Companion, 422 29; Pylos I; Mylonas, MALA, 52 58. Fig. 10. Restored plan of palace at Mycenae, drawn by Tl. Shear, Jr., based on plans published by Wace, Mylonas. and Lakovidis. work done by Mylonas and T.L. Shear, Jr. in 1963 and 1965. and work of I.M. Shear and T.L. Shear,Jr. in 1995. Wace. Mycenae, 69.90, Companion. 386 98; G.E. Mylonas. Praktika 1965: 85 96: MAMA. 58 70. text figs. 14- 15. 18: Mycenae Rich in Gold. 91 116. dien. 74-75: Takovidis. LHC. 55 57. plan 12.

Fig. 11. Palace at Mycenae as seen from the southeast. Photograph by T.L. Shear, Jr. Fig. 12. Restored plan and cross section of Northwest Propylon of the palace at Mycenae, drawn by R. Rothman and G. Compton, from Mylonas, ALVA, text fig. 17. Fy. 13. Restored drawing of west front of propylon at Tiryns. by H. Sulze, from Tinns III, fig. 62. Courtesy of the German Archacological Institute in Athens. Fig. 14. Palace at Mycenae, entrance to the megaron. graph by T. 1.. Shear, Jr.

Photu-

Fig. 15. Restored drawing of courtyard of palace at Tiryns. by H. Sulze, from Tiras I, pl. 42. Courtesy of the German Archacological Institute in Athens. Fig. 16. Restored dra of courtyard of palace at Pylos, by Piet de Jong. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Fig. 17. Courtyard of palace at Mycenae with porch, vestibule, and megaron in background. Photograph by T. L. Shear,Jr. Fig. 18. Drawing of Mycenaean wall construction showing use of timbers, by H. Sulze. from Terns Il, fig. 83. Courtesy of the German Archacological Institute in Athens. Fig. 19. Lilies Fresco from Thera, decorating walls of room in which

remains

of bed

were

found,

from

Building Complex

Delta, Room 2. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. South wall, height: 2.50 m.; width: 2.22 m. West wall, height: 2.50 m.; width: 2.60 m. North wall, height: 2.50 mı.: width: 1.88 m. Santorini Prehistoric Museum. Thera IN’, 20:25, 41-42, 49 51, pls. A, 104 5: S. Marinatos, Treasures of Thera, 3+ 35, 36-41; S.A. Immerwahr, Aegean Painting. 13, 46-48, 60, 78, 135. 165 Ak No. 2, pls. VH, 14-15: Doumas, The VWall- Paintings of Thera, 99 107; Hollinshead. 474 93 (1989): 339 54: Foster, 474 99 (1995): 409-24. Fig. 20. Restored drawing of prehistoric bed, by K. Iliakis. based on remains found in ‘Thera. Courtesy of C.G. Doumas. Dimensions of bed, ca. 1.60 m. by 0.70 m. For remains of beds from Thera cf. Thera IV. 41-42, pls. 104 5: Doumas, Ergon 1993: 84 85. Fig. 21. Plan of MH House F at Korakoa, drawn by IM. Shear. based on plan published by Blegen, Aorakou, fig. 110. Blegen, Aorakou, 76-79; MDA, 296 300. Fig. 22. Plan of LH House L at Korakou, drawn by IM. Shear. based on plan published by Blegen, Aorakou, fig. 112. Biegen, Aorakou, 80 83; DA, 296 300. Fig. 23. Isometric reconstruction of LH II house in the Menelaion near Sparta, drawn by David Smyth, from Catling, JHS Archacologuwal Reports for 1976-77: fig. 5. Courtesy of H.W. Catling. Catling. JHS Archaeological Reportsfor 1973 74:14 15: JHS Archaevlogical Reports for 1974 75: 12 15: JHS Archacological Reports for 1976 77:24 42. Fig. 24. Plan of Panagia House II, drawn by RJ. Rothman and K.W. Schaar, from Panagia Houses, plan. lig. 25. Restored plan of Panagia House Il, drawn by I.M. Shear, based on plan drawn by RJ. Rothman and K.W. Schaar, from Panagia Houses, fig. 4. Fig. 26. Cross section DD of Panagia House II. drawn by R.]. Rothman and KW. Schaar. from Panagia Houses, cross section.

246

TALES

fig. 27. Plans of main megara at Mycenae, Pylos, and Tiryns showing variation in the arrangement of doorways, by G. Compton, from Mylonas, VAVEL, text fig. 16. Fig. 28. Conglomerate threshold at entrance to House of Columns at Mycenae. Photograph by T.L. Shear,Jr. Fig. 29. Wall painting of figure-of-eight shield, from Cult Center at Mycenae, dated ca. 1200 B.C. Photograph by J.-L. Shear. Part of a frieze of shields similar to frieze found at Tiryns, cf fe. 61. Portions of three different shields found. Preserved height of fragment: ca. 0.90 m.; preserved width: ca. 0.70 m. height of shield: ca. 0.72 m. For second shield found in the same area cl fig. 53. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 11672. G.E. Mylonas, TO OpnoxXeunxöv wevipov rev Murnvarv. 30 31: Ergon

1970: 94-100;

Mycenae Rich in Gold,

150, S.A.

Immerwahr,

Aegean Painting. 99, 121, 140, 193 My No. 14; Guida, Le ani difensire, no. 19 bis, pl. V111.2. Fig. 30. Mycenaean bronze ax head, from bronze hoard found in citadel of Mycenae. Photograph by 'T.L.. Shear, Jr. For short sword found in same hoard cl. fig. 77. Hoard contained three short swords,

six knives,

four bronze

ax heads.

one spear head, one

chisel, and fragments of gold and oxhide ingot. Mylonas, Ergon 1959: 98 99; Praktika 1959: 141 15: ANA. 77. lig. 67. For other hoards found at Mycenae ef Schliemann, re: nae, 167, fig. 221: Tsountas, Ephemers 1891: 25 26: Catling, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society for 1956. vol. 22: 109 -10: Demakopoulou, ed.. Troy, Micenae, Tirens, Orchomenos, 323. For hoard found on the Acropolis in Athens cl. Kavvadias, Deltion 1888: 83. Fig. 31. Panagia House I with courtyard in foreground, vestibule and megaron with central hearth behind. Photograph by LM. Shear. Fiy. 32. Painted floor of main megaron in palace at Tiryns. restored drawing by G. Rodenwaldt, from Tinns Il, pl. XIX. Courtesy of the German Archacological Institute in Athens. fig. 33. Wall Painting from Panagia House II. Photograph by

OF HEROES CHAPTER

II

Fig. 41. The so-called Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae, the burial place built for a late Mycenaean raler. Photograph by T.L. Shear, Jr. Wace,

BSA 25 (1921

23): 350: Afycenar, 28: 33, S. Marinatos and

Hirmer, Kprjm xai Muxnvaixn “BdAds, 111, figs. 27 30, pls. 148 51; Mylonas, A441. 120 22. Fy. 42. LH II A sherd from Tiryns showing warriors with body shields and boar’s tusk helmet. Photograph Courtesy of the German Archacological Institute in Athens. Catling. JHS Archarological Reports for 1979-80: 29; Vermeule and Karageorghis, \fycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting, pl. X.19.1. Fy. 43. Fragments of wall painting from the palace at Pylos portraying warrior wearing greaves and part of ox-hide shield, found in area northeast of the palace. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Preserved height of fragment portraying warrior: 0.065 m.; preserved width: 0.04 m. Preserved height of fragment portraying shield: 0.055 m.: preserved width: 0.035 m. Chora Museum. Pyloy 1, 79, no. 39 H

ne, pls. 26, Cy Guida,

Fig. 44. The Lion Hunt Dagger, from Shaft Grave IV, Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archacological Receipts Fund. Length: 0.238 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 394. Karo, Schachtgräbrr. 95 97, no. 394, pl. 93: H.-G. Buchholz and V. Karageorghis, „Altägäis und Altkyprus (Tübingen, 1971), no. 682: Guida, Le armi difensive, no. 4, pl. ILL. Fig. 45. Gold Ring portraying warrior holding tower shield, from Shaft Grave IV, Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy

of the National

Archacological

Museum,

Karo, Schachigraber, 74, pl. 24: Sakellariou.

Dimen-

CALS I. 27- 28, no.

16:

Buchholz and Karageorghis, .Utägäis und Altkrprus, no. 1383: Guida, /z armi difensive, no. 9, pl. 1.2.

ig. 34. Basement corridor of House of Columns with horizontal and vertical slots in wall where wooden beams originally stood. Photograph by T.L. Shear, Jr. Fig. 35. Gold ring from LH Chamber Tomb 91 at Mycenae illustrating hypaethral altar. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archacological Museum, Athens. Dimensions of bezel: 0.015 m. by 0.0255 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No. 3180. PofM ill, 464, fig. 324; Sakellariou, CMS I 142 43, no. 127; 8. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kpnm cat Muxnvaixi EAAas. 122, pl. 206, third row. left. hig. 36. Lion Gate at Mycenae. Photograph by TLL. Shear,Jr. Wace, Mycenae, 49 54, Mylonas, " "H axporodts tav Muxnvev. Oi rnepißoron. ai rvAat Kai ai avodoı.” Aphemeris 1962: 1 199. For survey of Mycenacan lortifications el. Mylonas, MAL IT 6:

Fig. 16. Gold ring from Mycenae, from citadel. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archacological Receipts Fund. Dimensions of bezel: 0.034 m. by 0.025 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens. ‘No. 992, S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kpnm

fy. 38. East end of fortification wall at Mycenae with sally port leading from citadel to area immediately outside the fortifications. Photograph by VL. Shear,Jr. Photograph by Tl.

hi, 10. The Northwest Bastion of the citadel at Mycenae. Photograph by TI. Shear,Jr.

cai Muxnvaixn

Elias.

122, pl.

207, bottom; Schliemann, Mycenae, 402, fig. 530; Sakellariou. CMST, 30, no. 17; Guida, Le armi difmsive, no. 31, pl. V.4. Fig. 47. Gold ring from Tiryns, from late hoard. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archacological Receipts Fund. Dimensions of bezel: 0.057 m. by 0.035 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens. No. 6208.

G. wai 202 no.

221: LHC.

Fig. 37. Postern Gate at Mycenae. Photograph by ‘IL. Shear,Jr.

Fie, 39. Detail of sally port at Mycenae. Shear,Jr.

Athens.

sions of bezel: 0.035 m. by 0.021 m. National Archaeological Muscum, Athens, No. 241.

0.009 m.; preserved width: 0.009 m. Mycenae. Panagia Houses, 136 41, 143, no. 298, pl. 44.

lakovidis, Archllom (1977) E: 161

Lr amt difensirve, no.

27, pl. XXL5.

Karo, 141 55 (1930); 121: S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kprm Muxnvaixn EAAds, 122, pl. 207, top: Sakellariou, CMS 1, 3, no. 179; Buchholz and Karageorghis, dgdis und Altkyprus. 138b.

Fin. 18 & 19. Gold cups from Tholos Tomb at Vapheio. Photographs Courtesy of the National Archacological Museum, Athens. Height: 0.078 0.081 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, Nos.

175859.

Tsountas, Aphemens 1889, 120, pl 0S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Apijm nat Moxnvainn Täiag. 119 20, pls. 178 85: Buchholz and Karageorelin. fava und Ada prs. nos. 1104 5: EN, Davis. The Vaphaw Cups and Sleecan Gold and Sica Ware nos, 103 4.

List of Illustrations Fir. 50. Landscape in Miniature Fresco from Thera, found in West House, Room 5. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archacological Museum, Athens. Originally decorated east wall of room. Height: 0.21 m.; preserved length: 1.75 m. For other parts of same wall painting cf. fig. 52, 110, 111, 112, 120. Santorini Prehistoric Museum. Thera V1, 38 -57, colored pl. 8; Morgan, The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera, 17 67, 160-61, pls. 4-7, C; S.P. Morris, 174 93 (1989): 511-13, 529-30; S.A. Immerwahr, Argean Painting, 13. 17, 63, 70-75, 140, 163, 167, 187 Ak No. 12, figs. 34 ¢ d, 38 a, pls. NIV,

25

29; Doumas,

The

MWall-Paintings of Thera, 47

49, 64

67;

C.A. Televantou, ‘Axpanipt Gripas. Oi toıyoypapies mc AunKng Oixiag, (Athens, 1994). For possible religious implications of these wall paintings cf. N. Marinatos, -LVf 98 (1983): 1-19; Art and Religion in Thera, For view that they represented scenes of an ancient epic cycle cf. A. Sakellariou, Thera and the Aegean World, II, ed. C. Doumas

(London,

1980),

147--53;

S.P.

Morris, 474

93 (1989):

511-35; S. Hiller, Thera and the Aegean World, III, ed. D.A. Harday (London, 1990), I, 229 36; Doumas, Mall-Paintings of Thera, 47. For extensive bibliography and the most complete illustrations of the wall paintings thus far restored cf. Doumas, The Wall-Paintings of Thera. For current interpretation of the paintings from Thera cf. forthcoming publication of papers presented at conference “The Wall Paintings of Thera. The First International Symposium” held in August-September,

1997.

Fig. 51. Wall painting portraying dogs from palace at Pylos, from dado in Room 64 in the Southwest Wing of the palace, restored drawing by Piet de Jong. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Restored height of wall painting: 0.66 m. Chora Museum. Pylos 11, 103-4, 119 22, 214, nos. 38-39 C 64, pls. 62-66. 137 G, P, S.A. Immerwahr, -fegean Painting, 134, 137, 141, 167, pl. 80.

Fig. 52. Warriors carrying tower shields in battle scene from Miniature Fresco from Thera, found in West House, Room 5. Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Originally decorated north wall adjacent to “Meeting on the Hill.” Height: 0.45 m.: preserved length: 0.86 m. For other parts of same wall painting cf. ‚fies. 50, 110, 111, 112, 120. Santorini Prehistoric Museum. Fig. 53. Wall painting of figure-of-eight shield, from Cult Center at Mycenae, dated ca. 1200 B.C. Photograph by J.L. Shear. Part of a frieze of shields; fragments of three shields preserved. For second shield found in the same area cf. fig. 29. Preserved height of fragment: ca. 0.80 m.; preserved width: ca. 0.65 m.; height of shield ca. 0.72 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No.

11671.

Fig. 54. Wall painting of hunter with double spears from Tiryns, from Boar's Hunt Fresco, composite drawing by G. Rodenwaldt based on fragments found in west slope rubbish deposit. Photograph from Tiras Il, fig. 54. Courtesy of German Archacological Institute in Athens. Estimated height of scene: 0.355 m. For other parts of wall painting cf. figs. 69, 82. For earlier wall painting from Tiryns with similar subject matter cf. fig. #/. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Nos. 5878-80. Tinns I, 96 135. fig. 40, pl. N1.5: Guida, Zr anni difmsire, no. 22, pl. AN. S.A. Immerwahr, -legean Painting, 129 30, 202 3 Ti No. 6, pls. 68 70. Fig. 55. Silver Battle Krater from Shaft Grave IV, Grave Circle A at Mycenae. restored drawing by K. Iliakis. based on his earlier drawing published by A. Sakellariou, AnfAL 17 (1974): fig. 1a. Restored height: 0.50 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Nos. 605 7. Karo. Schachtgräber, 119 20, pls. 129 31: Sakellariou, ‚Inch, 17 197bh: 3 20: Guida, Ze ann difense, no. 6, pl. 11.2: EN. Davis, Ihr Vapheto Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware. 223 27,10. 8b.

247

Fig. 56. Ivory plaque portraying warrior carrying figure-ofeight shield and wearing boar’s tusk helmet from Delos. Photograph Courtesy of the French Archacological School in Athens. Height: 0.118 m. Archaeological Museum AJA 51

in Delos, No. B 7069.

(1947): 273; 53 (1949): 366; Demargne,

The Birth of Greck

Art, fig. 311; Guida, Le armi difensive, no. 114, pl. XXVIHL1; Hampe and Simon,

The Birth of Greek Art, 215, fig. 333.

Fig. 57. Gold ring portraying figure-of-eight shield held by warrior, from Shaft Grave III, Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Photograph from slide collection of G.E. Mylonas. Dimensions of bezel: 0.018 m. by 0.012 m. National Archacological Museum. Athens, No. 35. Karo, Schachigraber, 49. no. 35, pl. 24; Sakellariou, CALS 1, 22, no. 11; Guida, Le armi difensive, no. 1, pl. 1.5.

Fig. 58. Miniature gold shield, from Tholos Tomb IV near Pylos. Photograph from Pylos III, pl. 190 no. 20. Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Height: 0.04 m.; maximum width: 0.025 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 7989. Pylos III, 114, fig. 190 no. 20: S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kprim Kai Muxnvaixn “EdAdg, 124, pl. 223, top right: Guida, Le armi difensive, no. 122, pl. X1.4. Fig. 59. Miniature ivory shield, from citadel at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Height: 0.143 m.; width: 0.095 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No. 1027. S. Marinatos, and Hirmer, Kprjrm xai Muxnvaixn "Eiiäg, 124, pl. 223, bottom right; Demakopoulou, ed., The \ycenacan World, 86. Fy. 60. Bronze fragments from shield, from Late Cypriot III tomb at Kourion. Photograph published with permission of the Director of Antiquities and the Cyprus Museum. 18 fragments of edging strip recovered; width: 0.025 m.; minimum length of all pieces combined:

1.40 m.; diameter of larger boss: 0.162 m.; diameter of wo

smaller bosses: 0.084 m. Cyprus Museum. G.H. McFadden, 474 58 (1954): 131 42, pls. 25 26; Catling, Cypnot Bronzework, 142-45, pls. 17-18; Guida, Le ani difenswe, pl. XXXI.2. Fig. 61. Wall painting of shields, from inner court of older palace at Tiryns, restored drawing by Emile Gillieron. Photograph from Tiryns Il, pl. V. Courtesy of the German Archacological Institute in Athens.

Height of scene: 0.645

m.; height of shields: 0.31

0.35 m.

National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No. 5881. Tiryns 11, 34

40; Guida,

Le anmi difensive, no.

16a, pl. IV.1, S.A.

Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, 16, 139, 165, 202 Ti No.

10.

Fig. 62. Detail of Silver Siege Rhyton, from Shaft Grave IV, Grave Circle A at Mycenae, restored drawing by K. Iliakis, based on his earlier drawing published by A. Sakellariou, RA 1975: 195 208. Restored height of rhyton: 0.229 m.; diameter: 0.111 0.113 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Nos. 477, 504. Karo,

Schachtgräber,

natos and Guida, Zr 195 208; are, 227

106-8,

nos. 477, 481, 504, pl.

122; S. Mari-

Hirmer, Kprim xai Munnvainn ‘EdAds, 118, pl. 174: armi difensive, no. 7. pl. UL; Sakellariou, RA 1975: E.N. Davis, The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver 30, no. 87.

Fig. 63. Fragmentary krater portraying warriors carrying small round shields from Tiryns. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Height: 0.27 m.; restored diameter: 0.46 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Nos. 1511, 10549. Schliemann, Tinns, WB, fie. 152, pl. XIV; Guida. Lz anni difensir. no. 77, pl. ANXAWV.2; Vermeule and Karageorghis, Vircenaean Pictorial Vase Painting, \O8 9, 215: Demakopoulou. ed., Trey, Micenae. ‘Tovas, Orchomenos, 300 62.

248

TALES OF HEROES

Fig. 64. Wall Painting portraying warriors going into battle, from Room 64 of palace at Pylos, restored drawing by Piet de Jong. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Height of figures in wall painting: ca. 0.23 0.25 m.: restored height of scene: 0.64 m. Chora Museum. Pylos 11. 73, 214. no. 26 H 64, pls. 18, 123: S.A. Immerwahr. elegean Painting, 128, 130 32. 134, 197 Py No. 10, fig. 38 d, pls. 66 67, For discussion of chariots in the Mycenaean Period cf. Mylonas, 17.155

(1951:

13+

47: VELA,

200, pl. 151. a. b; Wies-

ner, ArchHom (1968) F: 40 63: Läuauer, 474 76 (19721: 145 57: Spruyette, Etudes eyperimentales sur Vattelage. Äkerström. OpusAth 12 (1978): 19 37: Crouwel, Chants, 129 34: Piggott, Earliest Wheeled Transport. Littauer and Crouwel, Antiquity 57 (1983): 187-92; 07. 15 (1996): 297 305: Drews, The Coming of the Greeks. For portrayal of chariots in Mycenacan art cf. also Schliemann, Mycenae, 80. 85. 88-90;

Rodenwaldt,

.LV/ 26 (1911): pl. XL

‘Tiryns II. 99, fig. 40;

PofM AV, figs. 795, 797. a, b. c, 799, 804; Karo, Schachigraber, pls. 5 10; Sakellariou, CMS I. 26. 262 nos. 15, 229-30: V.E.G. Kenna,

CMS VIL The English Museums, part Il, ed. F. Matz and

H. Biesantz (Berlin, 1967) 125, no. 87; Pylos IL, pls. 18 19, 111; Karageorghis, The Civilization of Prehistoric Cyprus, figs. 121, 123, 127 29; Vermeule and Karageorghis, \ycenaean Pictorial Vases, 121 31.181 87. Fig. 65. Stele portraying warrior in chariot, from Shaft Grave V, Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy ofthe Greek Archaeological Receipts Fund. Height: 1.33 m.; width: 1.06 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No. 1428. Schliemann, .Mycenae, 80-85, 88-90; Karo, Schachigraber, 168--69, pls. 5 7: Wace. Mycenae, 60 61: Mylonas. 47.4 55 (1951); 134 47; MALAI 93 94; S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kpym kai Muxnvaixcn "Bias, 111, pl. 147. Fy. 66. Seal stone portraying warrior in chariot from Tholos Tomb at Vapheio. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Drawing by A. Papailiopoulos, Courtesy of I. Pini, editor of GAS. Dimensions: 0.031 m. by 0.03 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No.

1770.

Tsountas, Ephemens 1889: 164. pl. 10,1: S. Marinatos and Hirmer. Kpnm xai Mucnvaixn Bids. 123, pl. 211, top row: Sakellariou, GAST, no. 229. Fig. 67. Gold ring portraying man hunting with bow and arrow in a chariot, from Shaft Grave IV, Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archacological Museum, Athens. Dimensions of bezel: 0.0345 m. by 0.02!

m. Nation-

al Archaeological Museum, Athens, No. 240. Karo,

Schachtgräber, 73, 306,

no. 240, pl. 24; Sakellariou,

CAS

1,

26-27, no. 15.

Fig. 68. Linear B Tablet, from “Armoury” of the palace of Knossos, No. Sc 257. Photograph by Jo Ann Polley. Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum in Heracleion. Name which precedes chariot on first line also found on Pylos tablet Vn 865 and may possibly be associated with name in //. 2.672 or IL 11.426. Length: 0.06 m.; width: 0.03 m. Archaeological Museum in Heracleion. PofM IV, 786-89, 803 7; Ventris and Chadwick, Documents, 361 -80;J. Chadwick, L. Godart. J.T. Killen, J.P. Oliver, A. Sacconi, and I. Sakellarakis, Corpus of the Mycenacan Inscriptions from Anossos, 1 (Cambridge. 1986), 109 no. 257 (Se 257). For discussion of chariots in the tablets ef.J. Chadwick, BSA 52 (1957) 147 531: Moycenacan Warld. 167 70: L.R. Palmer. ‘The Interpretation of the Arcenacan

Greek

Texts,

96 110: Arms and Armor, 10 Pd: Luce, Flamer and Killen, and J.P. Oliver. 271: Akerstrom, One 102 134

1978:

25

35: Drews.

39% Ze

314

36:

Snoderass,

Aadmas

131965:

222% Greenhalgh, Kar Greek Warfare, the Heroic Age. Vs J. Chadwick, IT. The Anovoy Tablet. (Cambridge. 19711 121978: $2033: Vandenabcele, BEH

Crouwel,

Charts,

Comune of the Grecks.

67 163

69. 86 68.

89,

121

29.

Fig. 69. Wall painting portraying women wearing long chitons riding in a chariot from Tiryns, from Boar’s Hunt Fresco, composite drawing by G. Rodenwaldt based on fragments found in west slope rubbish deposit. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archaeological Receipts Fund. Permission from the German Archaeological Institute in Athens. For other parts of wall painting cf. figs. 54, 82. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Nos. 5878 82. Fig. 70. Bronze corselet and boar’s tusk helmet, from chamber tomb at Dendra. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archaeological Receipts Fund. Skeleton buried in chamber tomb who presumably originally owned the cuirass has an estimated height of 1.749 m. Archaeological Museum in Nauplia. Cuirass Tomb, 7-50; Guida, Le armi difensive, 51: 67, pl. XV: Catling, ArchHom (1977) E: 74-118; Vandenabeele, BCH 102 (1978): 32; Crouwel, Charts, 126; Hampe and Simon, The Birth of Greek Art, fig. 179: Connolly, The Greek Armies, 12-13; D.E.H. Wardie in Problems in Greek Prehistory, ed. French and K.A. Wardle, 469-76. Fig. 71. Bronze greaves, from LH III C chamber tomb in Kallithea. Photograph by J.l.. Shear. Courtesy of N. Yalouris and Ephoria of Antiquities in Patras. This same tomb contained a bronze sword, fig. 78, fragments of a boar's tusk helmet, parts of a bronze cuirass and a bronze spear head. Restored height of greaves: 0.255 m. Archaeological Museum

in Patras, No. PMX

317 a and b.

N. Yalouris, BCH 78 (1954): 124-25, fig. 25; E.D.T. Vermeule, AJA 6+ (1960): 13-14, fig. 35, pl. 5; Guida, Le armi difensive. pl. XVII: TJ. Papadopoulos, Mycenaean Achaea (Göteborg, 1979), 160 62, 165. For greaves of the Mycenaean Period cf. Guida, Le armi difensive, 69 78; Catling, Cypriot Bronzework, 140-42; ArchHom (1977) E: 143--61. For greaves of the later periods, which diflered in shape, cf. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour, 86-87. Fg. 72. Wall painting portraying hunter wearing greaves, from palace at Pylos, Room 43, fallen from floor above, restored drawing by Piet de Jong. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Height of figures: ca. 0.20 m.; restored height of scene: 0.52 m. Chora Museum. Pylos II, 68, 205-7, no. 16 H 43, pls. 12, 121, B: Guida, Le anni difenswe, pl. XX.1: S.A. Inınerwahr, ‚legean Painting, 132--33, 197 Py No. I, pls. 73-74. Fig. 73. Mycenaean short bronze sword with elaborately decorated handle, from Shaft Grave IV, Grave Circle A at Mycenae. From slide collection of G.E. Mylonas. End of sword now missing. Length of handle: 0.054 m.; preserved length of blade: 0.25 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, nos. 294, 504. Karo, Schachigraber, 12, nos. 294, 405. For types of swords used in the Mycenaean Period cf. Catling, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society for 1956, vol. 22: 102-25; Antiquity 35 (1961): 117; Cypriot Bronzework, 110-15; Sanders, 47.1 65 (1961): 17 29; 67 (1963): 117-53; The Sea Peoples, 91 92: Snodgrass, Anns and Armour, 15-22, 27 28: Foltiny, ArchHom (1980) E: 231 75; Papazoglou-Manioudaki, B84 89 (1994): 177 81. Fig. 74. LH III B-C bronze sword, from bronze hoard found in citadel at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Length: 0.60 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No, 1017. Schliemann, Aycenae, 167, fig. 221: Catling. Proceedings of the Prehistone Societyfor 1936, vol. 22: 199, Demakopoulou, ed., Troy, Mycenae, Liryns, Orchomenos, 323. fw. 75. Bronze sword with gold handle, from Shaft Grave Delta, Grave Circle B at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Length of sword: 1.025 m. National Archaeological Museum. Athens. No. 8710. Mylonas.O ragindg wuxdos B tav Munnvov, 85. 8b. no, A 277. pl. 67.

List of Illustrations Fig. 76. LH III A bronze swords, one long and one short, with gold rivets, from chamber tomb on the north slope of the Areopagus in Athens (Agora deposit M 21:2). Photograph by C.A. Mauzy. Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies, Agora Excavations. Length of longer sword: 0.74 m. Restored length of shorter sword: ca. 0.50 m. Agora Excavations, Inv. No. B 778, B 781. Thompson, Hesperia 17 (1948): 154-58; S.A. Immenwahr, .fgora XII, 170- 77, nos. HI- 17, 11-18, pl. 36. Fig. 77. LH III B-C bronze short sword or dagger, from bronze hoard found in citadel at Mycenae. Photograph by ‘I.L. Shear,Jr. Cf. fig. 30 for bronze ax found in same hoard. Fig. 78. LH III C bronze swords, found in graves at Kallithea. Photograph by J.L. Shear. Courtesy of N. Yalouris and Ephorate of Antiquities in Patras. Longer sword, found in same grave as bronze greaves, fig. 71, has preserved length of 0.82 m.. Archaeological Museum in Patras, No. PMX 318. Shorter sword has preserved length of 0.52 m., Archaeological Museum in Patras, No. PMX 319. Yalouris, BCH 78 (1954): 124; Vermeule, 47.4 64 (1960): I4: Catling, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society for 1956, vol. 22: 112: Papadopoulos, \fycenacan Achaea, 165--68. Fig. 79. Short LH III B-C bronze spearhead, from Old Epidauros.

Courtesy

of National

Archaeological

Museum,

Athens.

Length: 0.155 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, 4887. V. Aravantinos, Deltion 29 (1974): 83, pl. 4y: Demakopoulou. The Mycenaean World, 234. For spearheads in the Mycenaean od cf. Catling, Cypriot Bronzework, 117 24, Snodgrass, Early Armour,

174; Arms and Armour,

16-17;

O.

Höckmann,

(1980) E: 275-318; Agdische Bronzezeit, ed. H.-G stadt,

1987), 329

ed., periGreek

ArchHom

Buchholz (Darm-

58: R. Avila, Bronzene Lanzen- und Pfeilspitzen der

griechischen Spätbronzezeit (Munich, found

No.

in excavations

cf. Evans,

1983).

For specific spear heads

Prehistone Tombs

of Anossos,

105;

PofM IV, 842-44; Hood and de Joung, BSA 47 (1952): 256: Mylonas,O tagixdg ruxdog B tiv Muxnveéy, pl. 155; Immerwahr. The Athenian Agora, XI,

105; Xenaki-Sakellariou. Oi @aAayeroi

ragot tev Muxnvav, 119-25, pls. 98, 112; Iakovidis, Mepatn. 337-59; Demakopoulou, ed., The Alycenaean World, 234. For representations of spears in the Mycenaean Period cf. Morgan, Miniature Wall Paintings, \06--7. Fig. 80. Long LH III A spearhead, from chamber tomb in the Agora bencath Middle Stoa in Athens (Agora deposit N 12:4). Drawing Courtesy of the America School of Classical Studies, Agora Excavations. Second longest spearhead known from Mycenaean world, to be used for thrusting, not throwing. Preserved length: 0.54 m. Agora Excavations, Inv. No. B 1287. E.D.T. Vermeule and J. Travlos, Hesperia 35 (1966): 74 75, pl. 24; S.A. Immerwahr, Agora XIII, 105, 244-45, no. XL. 5. Fig. 81. Wall painting of huntsmen carrying two spears, from earlier hunting scene decorating courtyards of the older palace at Tiryns, restored drawing by G. Rodenwaldt. Courtesy of German Archaeological Institute in Athens, Preserved height of fragment: 0.10 m.: preserved width: 0.18 m. National Archaeological

249

Fy. 83. LH _ TI B ivory figurine wearing boar’s tusk helmet from Chamber Tomb 27 at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy of the Greck Archaeological Receipts Fund. Preserved height: 0.08 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No. 2468. Tsountas, Ephemeris 1888: pl. 8: S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kprim Kai Muxnvaixn

EARac.

123, pl. 214; Guida,

Lz anmi difensive, no.

Illa, pl. AXVILI; Xenaki-Sakellariou, Oi @aAaueroi rapoı tov Muxnvov, 98, pl. 22; Demakopoulou, ed., The Mycenaean World. 236. For general discussion of Mycenacan helmets cf. Snodgrass. Early Greek Armour, 3 4; Arms and Armour, 18 19: J. Borchhardı. Homerische Helme, Helmformen der Agais in ihren Beziehungen zu orientaltischen und europäischen Helmen in der Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeite (Mainz

am

Rhein,

1972); ArchHom

(1977)

E: 57-74:

Catling.

Cypnot Bronzework, 137 39; Ducrey, Warfare in Ancient Greece, 26 28. For remains of helmets from the Mycenaean Period cf. B. Haussoullier, BCH

2 (1878):

185; Evans, Prehistoric Tombs at Anos-

sos, 67; Wace, Chamber Tombs at Mycenae, 212 14, pl. XXXVIILBSA 25 (1921 1923): 283-402; Cuirass Tomb. 49 50; Hood and de Joung. BSA 47 (1952): 256.58: Guida, Le armi difensive, pls. XV. XXNV.

XXVI5,

XXX,1

3; Nenaki-Sakellariou,

Oi Gadaparoi

rapoı av Muxnvev, pls. 28, 93, 129. Fy. 84. LH III B boar’s tusk helmet from chamber tomb in Spata. Restored. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archacological Museum, Athens. Restored height: 0.19 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 2097 -98. Haussoullier, BCH 2 (1878): 185;J. Borchhardt, ArchHom (1977) E: 57 74; Demakopoulou. ed.. The \fycenaean World, 237. Fig. 85. Seal portraying horned helmet from Tholos Tomb at Vapheio. Photographs Courtesy of I. Pini, editor of CALS, drawing by A. Papailiopoulos. Dimensions: 0.016 m. by 0.015 m. National Archacological Muscum, Athens, No. 1781. Sakellariou, CALS I, 293, no. 260; Guida, Le anni difensive, no. 28. pl. XXVIL3. Fig. 86. Bronze helmet from Agios Ioannis, found in one of the “Warrior Graves” near Knossos. Photograph by Jo Ann Polley. Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum in Heracleion. Restored height without cheek pieces: 0.17 m.; with cheek pieces: 0.386 m. Archacological Museum in Heracleion. Hood and de Jong, BSA 47 (1952): 256 58; Stubbings, Companion, 515, pl. 31, b; 8. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kprim cai Muxnvaixn "Eddas, 104, pl. 113, bottom; Guida, Ze anmi difensive, pl. XXX.2. Fy. 87. LH I B bronze arrowheads from area of Panagia Houses at Mycenae. Photograph by 'T.L. Shear,Jr. Length: 0.052 0.054 m. Mycenae. Panagia Houses,

120,

122, pl. 37 no.

198 -99. For discussion of the

type of bow used in the Mycenacan period cf. Stubbings, Companton, 518 20; G. Rausing, The Bow: Some Notes on its Origin and Development (Bonn and Lund, 1967), 95-99; McLeod, Studies Presented to Dow, 205 6; Snodgrass, Arms and Armour, 23, 30, 40; Early Greck Armour, 14456. For specific examples cf. H.G. Buchholtz, JD/ 77 (1962): 1 58: Pylos I, 234, fig. 295: Panagia Houses, 120 nos. 198--200; Xenaki-Sakellariou, Oi GaAauertoi

rago

tav Muxnvov.

pls. 46, 83, 94, 109. drawing I; Demakopoulou, ed.. The Mycenacan World. 234-35.

Museum, Athens, No. 5878.

Tinns 11, 5-8 no. I, pl. 1.6; Guida, Le anni difensue, pl. XNI,1. no. CHAPTER

17; S.A. Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, 129, 165, 202 ‘Ti No. 2.

Fig. 82. Boar’s Hunt Fresco from Tiryns showing use of singie spear in action, from west slope rubbish deposit, drawn by G. Rodenwaldt. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archaeological Receipts Fund. Permission from the German Archacological Institute in Athens. For other parts of wall painting cf. figs. 34, 69. National Archacological Museum, Athens, Nos, 5878 BO,

III

Fig. 88. Ivory group from palace at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Height: 0.075 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No. 7711. Wace, BSA 25 (1921-23): 83 84. pls. 101 3: Mycenac, 83. figs. 101

3:8.

Marinatos and

123 24. pls. 218

Himier.

Apnm

19; Mylonas. 4A,

vai Moxnvaixn

70,155

56.

“Eds.

250

TALES OF HEROES

Fy. 89. Wall painting portraying men wearing short chitons and greaves from Corridor 48 of the palace at Pylos, probably fallen from room above, restored drawing by Pict de Jong. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Possibly part of same hunting scene as no. 16 H 43. Height of men: ca. 0.20 m.; restored height of wall painting: 0.52 m. Chora Museum. Pylos 11, 70 71, 212, no. 21 H 48, pls. 15, 116, 122; S.A. Immerwahr, -legean Painting, 132 33, 197 Py No. 11, pls. 73- 74. Fig. 90. Wall painting of man wearing animal skin from Pylos, composite drawing by Pict de Jong based on numerous fragments found in plaster dump on northwest slope, probably from renovation of palace at Pylos. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Life-size figures. Chora Museum. Pylos Ul, 93-94,

217

18, no.

58

H

nws,

pls. 43,

129,

D; S.A.

Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, 114, 118, 165 197 Py No. 7. Fy. 91. Male figure wearing long chiton from wall painting portraying procession of men, from Room 5, vestibule of main megaron in the palace at Pylos, restored drawing by Piet de Jong. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Restored Height of figures: 0.30 m. Chora Museum. Pylos II, 66,

193, no.

Painting, 114,117

7 H 5, pls. 7, 120; S.A. Immerwahr,

egean

18, 197 Py No. 8.

Fig. 92. Wall painting of Lady from Cult Center at Mycenae, dated ca. 1200 B.C. Photograph from slide collection of G.E. Mylonas. Preserved height of fragment: ca. 0.55 m.: preserved width: ca. 0.75 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No.

11670.

Mylonas, Ergon 1970: 99- 100, colored plate; 76 Opnoxeutixév xévtpov tév Muxnvav, pl. X; S.A. Immerwahr, Aegeun Painting, 119-20, 165, 166, 191 My No. 3, fig. 32 h, pl. XX. Fig. 93. Two female figures from wall painting portraying procession of women from palace at Pylos. composite drawing by Piet de Jong based on numerous fragments found in dump on northwest slope, probably from renovation of palace. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Height of women: 1.53 m. Chora Museum. Pylos IT, 86 -89, 218, no. 51 H nws, pls. 34

38, E, O: S.A. Immer-

wahr, Aegean Painting, 114, 118, 165. 196 97 Py No. 6, pl. 57. Fig. 94. Female figure sion of women from composite drawing from in procession by Emile National Archaeological

from wall painting portraying procesTiryns, found in west slope rubbish deposit, fragments of frieze portraying life-size ladies Gillieron fils. Photograph Courtesy of the Museum,

Athens.

Permission

from

the Ger-

man Archacological Institute in Athens. Parts of at least 8 women found. Restored height of women: 1.49 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No. 5883. Tinns 11, 69 94, figs. 27-28, 33 34. nos. 71-111, pl. VII N: S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kom cai Muxnvaixn "Elias. 124. pls. 226, NL; S.A. Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, 114 17, 129, 148, 165. 202 Ti No. 4, figs. 26 g, 32 g. 33 b, pls. 55 56. liv. 95. Seal stone from Tholos Tomb in Midea. From slide collection of G.E. Mylonas. Diameter: 0.04 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 7332. Persson, The Royal Tombs at Dendra. 32. pl. 19.4: S. Marinatos and Hirmer,

Kpnirn

xai

Munnvaixn

“EAAas,

123,

pl. 210,

center:

Sakellariou, CVIST. 211, no. 211. Fin. 96. Seal stone from House M at Mycenae. Photograph by T.L. Shear.Jr. Mycenae. Unpublished: for House Min which seal was found cf G.E. Mylonas. Praktika 19040 99 TOE MAL. text fig. 6: MD 235 18.

Fig. 97. Minoan snake goddess from palace at Knossos. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archaeological Receipts Fund. Height: 0.343 m. Archaeological Museum in Heracleion. PofM

1, 500,

figs. 359 -62. 377,

382; S. Marinatos

and

Hirmer.

Kprim xai Muxnvaixy Elias, 99. pl. 70; D.E.H. Wardle, Problems in Greek Prehistory, ed. French and K.A. Wardle, 469-71: S.A. Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, 53 61. Fig. 98. Early Minoan pendant, from tomb in Mallia dated ca. 2000 B.C. Photograph from slide collection of G.E. Mylonas. Widest dimension: 0.047 m. Archacological Museum in Heracleion. Pof\f 1, 96 98; IV, 75, fig. 48; S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Konm xai

Muxnvaixn

‘EdAdc.

Bl, pl.

13, bottom:

Higgins,

Greek and

Roman Jewellery, 64, fig. 48, pl. 3 a. Fig. 99. Gold “earrings” from Shaft Grave III, Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Photograph from slide collection of G.E. Mylonas. Diameter of “earrings”: 0.075 m. National Archaeological Museum. Athens, No. 61. Karo,

Schachigraber,

62, no. 61, pls. 20.

Hirmer, Kpnm kai Muxnvainy EAiac.

32: S. Marinatos

and

121, pl. 201, bottom; Hig-

gins, (Greek and Roman Jewellery, 72, pl. 5 D: lakovidis, AJA 83 (1979): 101. Fig. 100. Wall painting of “La Parisienne,” from palace at Knossos. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archacological Receipts Fund. Preserved height: 0.216 m. Archacological Museum in Heracleion. PofM IV. 385, fig. 319, colored pl. XXXI; S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kprim xai Muxnvaixn ‘Eads. 89, pl. XV; Demargne. The Birth of Greek Art, fig. 183; S.A. Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, 84, 89, 95, 100, 103, 149, 162, 164, 176 Kn No. 26, pl. 44. ly. 101. Gold ring, from Chamber Tomb 91 at Mycenae. Photograph from Slide Collection of G.E. Mylonas. Dimensions of bezel: 0.255 m. by 0.015 m. National Archaeological

Museum,

Athens, No.

3179. S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kpnm

xai Muxnvaixn

"EAAac,

122, pl.

206 second row right; Sakellariou, CALS I, 142, no. 126; Hampe and Simon, Birth of Greek Art, fig. 280. Fig. 102. Male figure wearing abbreviated loincloth from wall painting portraying life-sized men in procession from Pylos, composite drawing by Pict de Jong based on numerous fragments found in plaster dump on northwest slope of palace, probably from renovation of palace. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Chora Muscum. Pylos 11, 9-4, no. 59 H nos, pls. 44, 129, D: S.A. Immerwahr, „legean Painting, 114, 118, 165, 197 Py No. 7. Fig. 103. Wall painting of river battle showing fighting warriors wearing fuller loincloths from Rooms 5 and 64 of palace at Pylos, drawing by Pict de Jong. Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Height of figures in scene: 0.30 m. Chora Museum. Pylos 11, 71

73, 214, nos. 22 H 64 and 25 H 64, pls. 16, 19, 117,

A, Mi S.A. Immerwahr, legean Painting, 114, 117: 18. 197 Py No. B. Fy. 104. Boxer Rhyton from Aghia Triada. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archaeological Receipts Fund. Restored height: 0.498 m. Archacological Museum in Heracleion. K. Müller, 7D/ 30 (1915): 247: Poff. 20- 21:8. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kprim xai Mucnvaixn 'EAias, 103, pls. 106 7: S.A. Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, pl. 20. Fig. 105. Harvester Vase from Aghia Triada. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archacological Receipts Fund. Greatest preserved diameter: 0.115 m. Archacologieal Museum in Heracleion. K. Muller, /DI 30 (19152 251: PafME IV, 218: S. Marinatos and Hirmer. Kpity xai Munnvainn “Edda@s, Demarene. Bath of Grek Art Ves. 233 35.

102

3, pl.

103

5:

List of Illustrations Fig. 106. Prince’s Cup from Aghia Triada. Photograph Courtesy of the Greck Archaeological Receipts Fund. Height: 0.114 m. Archaeological Museum in Heracleion. K. Müller, JD/ 30 (1915): 242 336; PofM UL, 790: 92: S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kprjm xai Muxnvainn Elias. 102, pl. 100-2. Fig. 107. Lady with elaborate headdress from Pylos, restored drawing by Piet de Jong based on numerous fragments found in plaster dump on northwest slope of palace, probably from renovation of palace. Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Figure may represent a goddess. Height of preserved fragment: 0.37 m. Chora Museum, Pyls 11,83 85. 218 -19, no. 49 H nws, pls. 33, 116, 127-28. D: S.A. Immerwahr. -legean Painting. 118, 197 Py No. 9, pl. 58. Fig. 108. Wall painting from Cult Center at Mycenae with lady wearing fringed tunic in center, second figure with elaborate dress on right, and smaller lady with elaborate headdress on left. Photograph from The University of Birmingham. Courtesy of E.W. French. Archacological Museum in Mycenae. French, Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. R. Hise and N. Marinatos (Stockholm, 1981}, -Hl 48, fie. 12: S.A. Immerwahr. slegean Painting, 109, 115, 119.120 21, 165, pls. 59 61.

251

Fig. 114. Wall painting of young from Thera, from Xeste 3, Room 3, East Wall, detail from Wall Painting of Women Gathering Crocuses. Photograph Courtesy of C.G. Doumas and the Thera Foundation. Height: 2.44 m.: length: 2.66 m. CT. fig. 113 for second figure in this same scene. Santorini Prehistoric Museum. Thera VII, 32-38, pls. A 1. 59-66: S.A. Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, 3-4, 41.59 62, 117. 161, 166, 186 Ak No. 6. figs. 20. 26 a-c. 32 a and c; Doumas, The Wall Paintings of Thera, 128, 152 73, pl. 120. Fy. 115. Wall painting of seated lady wearing e Thera, from Xeste 3, Room

from

3, East Wall, detail from Wall Painting of

Women Gathering Crocuses. Photograph Courtesy of C.G. Doumas and the Thera Foundation. Cf. fig. 7/4 for another figure from same scene. Santorini Prehistoric Museum. Doumas, The Wall Paintings of Thera, pl. 118. Fig. 116. Wall painting of lady from Thera, from House of Ladies, Room I, South Wall. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum,

Athens.

Height: 2.20 m.; width: 2.05 m. See

‚fie. 117 for second figure from same wall painting. Santorini Prehistoric Museum, Thera V 38 41. pls. H, 96; S.A. Immerwahr, .legean Painting, 46. 49, 5-4 58, 61,

186 Ak No. 5, fig. 17, pls. XI

AI;

Doumas,

The

Mall Paintings of Thera, 32 43, pls. 6,9. 11. CHAPTER

IV

Fig. 109. Peninsular site of prehistoric settlement on island of Keos. Photograph by T.L. Shear, Jr. J.L. Caskey, Hesperia 31 (1962): 268-83; 33 (1964): 314 35; 35 (1966): 363 76; 40 (1971): 359-96; 41 (1972): 357-401. Fig. 110. “Departure Town” and sailing ships in Miniature Fresco from Thera, found in West House, Room 5. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, From south wall, adjacent to sailing ships and “Arrival Town.” For other parts of same wall painting cf. figs. 30, 52. 110, 111, 120. Santorini Prehistoric Museum. Fig. 111. “Meeting on the Hill” in Miniature Fresco from Thera, found in West House, Room 5. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. From north wall adjacent to Scene of Warriors. For other parts of same wall painting cf. figs. 30, 32.110, 112, 120. Santorini Prehistoric Museum. Fig. 112. “Arrival Town” and sailing ships in Miniature Fresco from Thera, found in West House, Room 5. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum,

Fig. 117. Wall painting of lady from Thera, from House of Ladies, Room 1. North Wall. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Height: 2.25 m.; width: 1.19 m. See Sw. 116 for second figure from same wall painting. Santorini Prehistoric Museum. Thera V, 38-41. pls. G, 97: S.A. Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, 46. 49, 54 58, 61, 186 Ak No. 5, fig. 17, pls. XI-XIII; Doumas, The Wall Paintings of Thera, 32

+3, pls. 7. 10, 12.

Fig. 118. Early Cycladic lyre player. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Height: 0.225 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 3908. Demargne, Birth of Greek Art, fig. 77; Andronikos, Chatzedakes and

Karageorghis, Ta EAAnvixa Movoeia, 46. Fig. 119. Gold ring from Tiryns. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archacological Receipts Fund. Dimensions of bezel: 0.034 m. by 0.02 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 6209. Sakellariou,

CM/S I, 204-5,

no.

180. For remains

of excavated,

prehistoric ships cf. Bass, Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck: AJA 90 (1986): 269 96; National Geographic 172 (1987): 692-733; Bass and Pulak, 474 91 (1987): 321; Pulak, 47.4 92 (1988): 1-37;

Athens. From south wall

Bass, Pulak, Collon, and Weinstein, 474 93 (1989): 1- 29. For rep-

adjacent to sailing ships and “Departure Town.” Height: 0.43 m; preserved length: 3.90 m. For other parts of same wall painting ct. fig. 50, 32, 111, 112, 120. Santorini Prehistoric Museum.

G: part 1, 140 57; Morgan, Miniature Wall Paintings, 121 42: Doumas, Itall-Paintings of Thera, figs. 26. 48. For representations

Fig. 113. Swallow Vase from Thera, Room B |, Room of Wall Painting with Boxing Boys and Antclopes, Building Beta. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archacological Museum, Athens. Height: roughly 0.18 m. Santorini Prehistoric Museum. Thera 1, 12 14, fig. 5: Thera IV. 28 33: Hollinshead, 47.4 93 (19801: 339 5. Vase to be compared to similar one found on Keos, Demakopoulou, ed.. The Mycenaean World. 154 55, and fragmentary vase from Shalit Grave Ganıma, Grave Circle B at Mycenae. MylonasQ rages wixdos B rev Munnvov. 36, pl. 4h: Takovidis. 17.1 83 510979: 108: Hollinshead, 17.193 (1989); 339 3-b Foster, 17199519951 109 note 3. For additional similarites between Vhera and other areas of the Aegean ef. lakovidis, 47.185 1979. 101.2. For brief summary of the finds from Thera and extensive bibliography cf JL. Davis, 217.196 19026 73239.

resentations of prehistoric ships cf. S. Marinatos, ArchHom (1947)

of ships

in geometric

Schweitzer,

art cf.

Greek Geometric Art,

Kirk,

BSA

12, 33-36,

44 39

(1949):

93

153;

40, 41, 48, 56, 59,

205 9, figs. 14. 115, 120-21, 124 25, pls. 27, 34, 37 39, 59-60, 62, 72, 76. 233. For general discussion of ships from the Bronze Age to the sixth century cf. D.H.F. Gray, ArchHom (1947) G: part 1, 1-139; Morrison and Williams, Greek Oared Ships, Casson, Ships

and Seamanship; 1. Basch, Le musée imaginatre de la marine antique (Athens, 1987), 76-204; Wachmann in The Age of the Galley, Mediterranean Oared Vessels since pre-classical Times, ed. R. Gardiner. 10 35. fig. 120. Ships in Miniature Fresco from Thera, from West House, Room 5. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. From south wall located between to “Departure Town” and “Arrival Town.” Santorini Prehistoric Museum. For other pares of same wall painting cf fies, 50.32.

110.111.

112.

252

TALES OF HEROES

CHAPTER V

Fi. 131. View of the remains at Troy. Photograph by J.L. Shear.

Fig. 121. The fortifications at Troy. Photograph by J.l.. Shear. Troy IU and IV; CW. Blegen, Companion, 362 86: ‘Troy and the TroJans; Korfinann ef al. Studia Trotca, passim: Korfmann, Politeia 1, Aegacum 12 (1995), 173 82.

Fig. 132. Ivory pyxis. from LH III A Tomb on the North Slope of the Areopagus in Athens (Agora deposit N 21 22:1). Photograph by GA. Mauzy. Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies,

Fig. 122. Seal stone portraying male head from Mycenae. Irom Shaft Grave Gamma, Grave Circle B. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Diameter: 0.009 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 8708. Alylonas, MAMA, 102, fig. 98:°O tagixdg xuxdog B av Muxnvov. 77. 78, pl. 60: Sakellariou, CLS 1, 13, no. 5.

deposit. Height of pyxis: 0.16 m.: diameter: 0.112 m. Agora Excavations, Inv. No. BI 511. T.L. Shear, Hesperia 9 (1940): 274 91: S.A. Immerwahr, Agora NIT, 158 69, no. I 16, pl. 32; Hampe and Simon, The Birth of Greek Art, fig. 337 38,

lig. 123. Silver cup from Chamber Tomb 24 at Mycenae. Plıotograph Courtesy of the National Archacological Museum, Athens. Height: 0.06 m.: diameter: 0.162 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 2189. Tsountas, Zphemeris 1888: pl. 7.2: BN. Davis, Ze Vapheto Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware, 297 300, no. 130. Fig. 124. Gold mask from Shaft Grave V, Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archacological Receipts Fund. Height: 0.26 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 624. Karo, Schachtgräber. 121, no. 624. pl. 52: S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kprim xai Muxnvaixn EAMas. 117, pls. 162. XXXIV: Mylonas, ALLA, 92. Fig. 125. Warrior Vase. found inside citadel at Mycenae in a house near the Lion Gate (No. 7 in fig. 147). Photograph Courtesy of the Greek Archacological Receipts Fund. Height: 0.41 m. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, No. 1426. Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, 190, pl. 18; S. Marinatos

and

Hirmer,

Kprirn cai

Muxnvaixn

"EARas.

125.

pl.

232 33; Guida, Lr armi difensive, no. Bl, pl. XXXL: XXXIL2: Vermeule and Karageorghis. Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting. 133 34,222, pl. N1.43: S.A. Immenvahr, .legean Painting, 1.49 51. pls. 85 87. Fig. 126. Staccoed stele from Mycenae. carlicr grave stele stuccoed for reuse in late LH IL Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Preserved height: 0.91 m.:; width: 0.42 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens. No. 3256. Tsountas, Ephemens 1896: 2 22, pl. 1: Karo, Schachtgräber. 29 36, pls. 5 10: Mylonas, 17455 (1951): 134 37: Guida, Le armi difensive. no. 162, pl. XXX]: Vermeule and Karageorghis, Mycenacan Pictorial Vase Painting, 132 34, 222. pl. N1.42: S.A. Immerwahır, legean Painting, 18. 106, 148, 149, 151, pl. 84. Fig. 127. Silver Bull-Head Rhyton with gilded horns, from Shaft Grave IV, Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archacological Museum, Athens. Height without horns: 0.155 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 384. Karo, Schachtgräber, 93, no. 384, pl. 119: S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Konm

xai Muxnvaiwn

'EMas,

119, pl. 175: EN.

Davis.

The Vaphrıo Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware. 187 WW. no. 64. Fig. 128. View of Argolid from Mycenae. Shear,Jr.

Photograph by ‘TL.

fig. 129. The fortifications at Tiryns. Photograph by V1. Shear, Je. fig. 130. The Mycenaean fortifications on the Acropolis in Athens, with Parthenon in background; and adjacent to the southwest wing of the later Propylaea. Photographs by T.L. Shear,Jr. For Mycenaean fortifications on Athenian Acropolis cf S.E. Takovidin. H puxnvainn Wright. 6101.

axporodry

Zepera 63100:

trav

32360.

Excavations.

Gold

ornaments

in fig.

135 came

from

same

Fig. 133. Linear B Tablet no. Py Ta 721 with idiogram for footstool on right matching footstool portrayed on gold ring from Tiryns. Photograph Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum,

Athens.

National

Archacological

Museum,

Athens,

No.

12601, Ventris and Chadwick, Docunents, 332

47.

Fig. 134. The Laconian plain, home of Menelaus. Photograph by TLL. Shear,Jr. hig. 135. Gold ornaments, from LH HI A ‘Tomb on the North Slope of the Areopagus in Athens (Agora deposit N 21 22:1). Photograph by C.A. Mauzy. Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies, Agora Excavations. Tomb contained 128 gold omaments varying in size at widest dimension from 0.049 m. to 0.012 m. Came from same deposit as fig. 132. Agora Excavations, Inv. No. J-H6 02. T.L. Shear, Hesperia 9 (1940; 274 91; S.A. Immenvahr, Agora NIT,

158

69, nos. I- 27,1- 28, 1-29, pl. 33.

fig. 136. Fortifications at Mycenae with view of plain below. Photograph by T.L. Shear,Jr. Dromos (entrance way) of “Treasury of Atreus” visible in center background. Mountains of Arcadia in background.

CHAPTER

VI

Fig. 137. Wall painting of bard playing lyre megaron of the palace at Pylos, restored drawing by Photograph Courtesy of Cincinnati University. Height fragment: 0.61 m.; width: 0.71 m. Chora Museum. Prlos 11, 79 80, 194, no, 43 H 6, pls. 27, 125. 126, Ac wahr, Aegean Painting, 122, 133 34. 136, 198 Py XVII, 78.

from the Piet de Jong. of preserved S.A. ImmerNo. 14. pls.

Fig. 138. Folding tablet from Late Bronze Age shipwreck. Photograph by Donald A. Frey/INA. Courtesy of G.F. Bass. Shipwreck off coast of Turkey at Uluburun. Consists of two wooden leaves, each 0.062 m. by 0.092 m., with inner faces recessed to received wax surface on which letters were written: wooden leaves joined by cylindrical ivory hinge. Bodrum. Bass, Pulak, Collon, and Weinstein, 47.193 (L989): 10 11. fig. 19: Bass, Aadmos 29 (1990): 099

106: LM.

Shear,

JHS

169; R. Payton, „Inatolian Studies 41 (1991): 1 8 (1998):

187

89.

Fig. 139. “Nestor’s Cup,” from Shaft Grave IV, Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Photograph Courtesy of the Greck Archacological Receipts Fund. Height: 0.145 m. National Archacological Museum, Athens, No. 412. Karo. Schachtgräber. (OO. no. 412. pl. 109, S. Marinatos and Hirmer, Kpnm xai Muxnvaixn EAAds, 120. pl. 188: E.N. Davis, The Vapheio Gups and Aegean Gold and Silerr Ware. 183 86, no. 63. Fig. 110.Geometric lyre player. Photograph Courtesy of the

Athens,

1962: JC.

Archacological Museum

Shear, 748

119 1900;

cal Museum in Heracleion. No. 206 4. Schweitzer, Grok Geometries „bt pl. 203.

Adnvor EM.

Agora

in Heracleion.

Height: 0.055 m. Archacologi-

List of Illustrations Fig. 141. Frangois Vase. Photograph Scala/Art Resource. NY. Height: 0.66 m. Date: ca. 570 B.C. Museo Archeologico, Florence No. 4209. Beazley, ABV. 76. 1: Friis Johansen, Early Greek Art, 86 92: Kakrides, “EAAnvixn pv@odoyia I, 174 76, figs. 54 55: Robertson, Greek Art, 124-29, 238, pl. 35 b. Fig. 142. Exekias Amphora. Photograph Scala/Arı Resource. NY. Height: 0.61 m. Date: ca. 540 B.C. Museo Gregortano Etrusco, Vatican Museums Vatican State No. 344. Beazley. ABV, 145, 13: Frits Johansen, Karly Greek Art, 225; Boardman, 17.1 82 (1978): 11-25: Moore, 174 84 (1980): 417 34: Kakrides, ‘EAAnvinn pv@odoyia V, 93, fig. 71. Fig. 143. An early edition of Homer, printed in Florence, 1488. Courtesy of the Director of the Gennadius Library. American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Greece. A recent acquisition of the Library, reported in 1994 Fall Newsletter of American School of Classical Studics. Fig. 144. Restored model of Building F in the Agora of Athens, the probable home of Peisistratos in the sixth centary, from model of late Archaic Agora in Athens made by P. Demetriadis and K. Papoulias. Photograph by C.A. Mauzy. Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies, Agora Excavations. For description and illustration of model cf. The Birth of Democracy. An Exhibition Celebrating the 2500th Anniversary of Democracy at the National Archives, Washington D.C... ed. J. Ober and C.W. Hedrick, 33. For excavation report of this building cf. H.A. Thompson, Hespera Supplement 4 (1940): 15 33. For its identification as the home of Peisistratos cf. R. Martin, Recherches sur l’agora grecque (Paris,

1951),

271

n. 2; L'urbanisme dans la Grrece antique (Paris.

1956), 223; J.S. Boersma, Athenian Building Policy from 361 /0 to 4035/4 B.C.

(Groningen,

1970),

16

17; T.L.

Shear, Jr., Athens

Comes of Age, 5 7. fig. 145. Late sixth-century statue of scribe from the lis in Athens. Photograph by J.L. Shear. Preserved height (before addition of head): 0.615 m. Acropolis Museum,

No. 629.

Payne, -lvchaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis, +7, pl. 118; Raubitschek, B£4 40 (1939. 40): 17 18; Brouskari, The Acropolis ‚Museum, G1, 104, figs. 112, 207; Alford, The Seated Figures in Archaic Greek Sculpture, 396- 408. For restoration of head to statue see Trianti in The Archaeology of Athens and Attica, ed. Coulson, Palagia, T.L. Shear, Jr., Shapiro and Frost, 83--86.

Fig. 146. The megaron of Pylos being excavated. Photograph by G.E. Mylonas. Fig. 147. Citadel at Mycenae. From slide collection of G.E. Mylonas. 1: Lion Gate; 2: Addition to citadel made in the second half of LH

HI

B (For fortifications at Mycenae

cf. Wace,

Alycmar,

49-54;

253

(Wace. Mycenae. 64 65: MDA, 199 205: Mylonas, MALL 79, text fig. 19; lakovidis, LHC, 43): 7: House of Warrior Vase (Wace. Miycenae, 65 66; MDA, 205 11: Mylonas, VLA, 79, text fig. 19; Takovidis, LHC. 13): 8: Cult Area (Mylonas. 7é @onoxeunxov xevipov zev Muxnvev: French, “Cult Places at Mycenac” in Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. Hägg and N. Marinatos. 41 48; Takovidis. LHC. 44 51: Rutkowski. Cult Places of the Aegean World, Renfrew, The Archaeology of Cult, the Sanctuary at Phylakopi. BSA Supplement 18 [1985]: 393 444: 9: The Tsountas House (Tsountas, Praktika 1886: 59 79; Wace, Alrenar, 66 67, fig. 25: AM1DA, 226- 34: for house and surrounding area. cf. Mylonas, Tö Opnoxevrıxov Kevipov tiv Muxnveév. Mycenae Rich in Gald. 127-50; [akovidis, LHC, 44 50): 10: Southeast Residential Quarter tMylonas, Té Opnoxevurixov xevipov tév Muxnvodv, Mycenae Rich in Gold, 127 50; lakovidis, LHC, 44 50): 11: Deep ravine protecting south side of citadel just below palace; 12: Grand Staircase leading to palace (Wace, Mycenae, 73 75) 13. Northwest Propylon, carlier entrance to palace (Mylonas, \/\L4, 66 68): 14: Courtyard of palace ‘Wace,

Mycenae,

69

90;

Mylonas,

MAMA,

58-73;

Iakovidis,

LHC.

55 57% 15: Lower better preserved megaron of palace: 16: Top of citadel, location of earlier megaron; 17: House of Columns and adjacent workshop (Wace, Alrcenae, 91 97: Mylonas, Hesperia 35 [1966]: 420--25; MDA, 249 62: lakovidis, LHC, 64 66.); 18: Northeast extension of citadel, location of sally ports and underground cistern (Wace. Mycenae, 98-100; Mylonas, “ "H axporoAıs av Muxnvov. Oi repißoror, ai xbAai Kai ai Gvodoı,” Ephemenis 1962: 144 66: ALMA, 31

32;

lakovidis,

LHC,

29--30);

19:

Postern

Gate

(Wace.

\Mycenae,

100-101; Mylonas, “ "H axpöroAıs töv Murnvöv. Oi xepifodot, ai nvAai Kai ai Avoßdoı,” Ephemeris 1962: 27 50; ALMA, 18; Takovidis. LHC, 26); 20: Storage Area (Mylonas, Praktika 1961:

155

60): 21: Area

of fortifications containing casements built into wall (Mylonas, Ergon 1962: 95 97, fig. 113 14: MALA, 29 31, text fig. 6); 22: M House (Mylonas,

W441,

31, 79, text fig. 6; VDA,

235

48; lakovidis,

LHC

51 53); 23: Barracks (Mylonas and lakovidis, Praktika 1984: 233. 40: Ergon 1984: 59-61; 1985: 48 49: 1986: 100: Takovidis. LHC. 30 31).

CHAPTER VII Fig. 148. Portrait of blind Homer. Boston. Museum of Fine Arts No. 04.13. Height of head: 0.41 m. For discussion of the different portrait types of Homer cf. G.M.A. Richter, The Portraits of the Greeks, vol. | (London, 1965) 45 56; P. Zanker, The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity, trans by A. Shapiro (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford, 1995), 14+ 22,166 71.

Mylonas, “"H axpéxoAtc tav Muxnvev. Oi repifodot, ai rbAat Kai ai dvoSo1," Ephemeris 1962: 1-199; MAIA, 15.35; lakovidis, ArchHom {1977]

E:

161- 221; LHC,

24

37), 3: Granary (Wace, Afycenar, 55

58:

Mylonas, 444144, 79, text fig. 19; Iakovidis, LHC, 42); 4: Grave Circle A

(Karo, Schachtgräber, Wace, Mycenae, 59 63; Mylonas, IMA, 89--97; ~ "H axponodtc tav Muxnvav. Oi repißoioı. ai xvAat Kai ai avoéo.” Ephemeris 1962: 110 53; lakovidis, LHC, 38-39); 5: ‘The Great Ramp leading from Lion Gate to top of citadel (Mylonas, “ "H axpoxoAicg tov Muxnvov. Oi xepifoAot. ai xvAat Kai ai dvoSo1.” Ephemens 1962: 101 43; 14, 25 26. 73: lakovidis, LHC, 39 -40): 6: Ramp House

Cuapter

VIII

Fin. 149 & 150 Roman statues of the Iliad and Odyssey. Photograph by J.S Philobiblos. Preserved height of the Iliad: 1.46 m. Preserved height of the Odyssey: 1.30 m. Agora Excavations, Inv. Nos. S 2038-39. Richter, Portraits of the Greeks, 53: H.A. Thompson and R.E. Wycherley. .igora XIV, 115, pl. 63.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOURCES CITED, EXCLUDING ANCIENT ‘TEXTS

Abramovitz. K., “Frescoes from Ayia Irini, Keos, Parts II

IV," Hespe-

ria 49 (1980): 57 85. Adkins, A.W.H., Merit and Responsibility, A Study in Greek Values ‘Oxford, 1960}. ---, “Homeric Values and Homeric Society.” JHS 91 (1971: 114. --, “Homeric Gods and the Values of Homeric Society,” JHS 92 11972): 1-19.

>. "Odysseus and the Cyclopes: Who is Who” in Ipproaches to Homer, edited by C.A. Rubino and C.W. Shelmerdine (Austin, 1983), 3 37. Autenrieth, G., .f Homenie Dictionary. translated by R.P. Keep: revised by I. Flagg :New York,

1895).

Avila, R., Bronzene Lanzen- und Pfeilspitzen der griechischen Spätbronzezeit

(Munich. 1983).

Akerstrom, A., “Zur Frage der mykenischen Dacheindeckung.” Opus-Arch 2 (1941): 164 73.

Bannert, H., “Versammlungsszenen bei Homer” in Homer: Bevond Oral Poetry, Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation, edited by J.M. Bremer, 1J.F. de Jong andJ. Kalff (Amsterdam, 1987), 15 30.

-

Barber, EJ.W.. “Aegean Textiles and ‘Textile Trade.” 474 95

, “Mycenaean Problems. |. On the Mycenaean Chariot.” Opus-lth 12 (1978): 19-37. ‚ “Cultic Installations in Mycenaean Rooms and Tombs” in Problems in Greek Prehistory, Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, edited by E.W. French and K.A. Wardle (Bristol, 1988). 201 206.

Alford, H.L., The Seated Figure in Archaic Greek Sculpture (Diss. for the University of California at Ios Angeles, 1978). Alin, P., Das Ende der mykenischen Fundstätten auf dem griechischen Festland (Studies in Mediterranean Archacology, vol. 1, Lund, 1962). Allen, T.W., The Homeric Catalogue of Ships (Oxford, 1921). -, Homer, the Origins and the Transmission (Oxford,

1924).

Amandry, P., La Mantique appolinienne ä Delphes (Paris, 1950). Anderson, J.K., Ancient Greek Horsemanship (Berkeley. 1961). - —-, "Greek Chariot-Bome and Mounted Infantry,” 17.1 79 (1975):

175-87. Andrews, A., “Phratries in Homer,” Hermes 89 (19611: 129-40. — -, “The Tyranny of Pisistratus” in III, part 3, 372-4, 392 416.

(AH (second edition, 1982), vol.

Andronikos, M., Chatzedakes, M., and Karageorghis, V.. Ta EAAnvıra povoeia (Athens, 1974). Antonaccio, C.M., “Lefkandi and Homer” in Homer's World, edited by ©. Anderson and M. Dickie (Bergen,

1995}, 5: 27.

Apthorp, M.J., The Manuscript Evidence for Interpolation in Homer (Heidelberg, 1980). Arend, W., Die typischen Scenen bei Homer (Berlin, 1933). Arias, P.E., and Hirmer, M., A History of Greek Vase Painting, translated and revised by B.B. Shefton (London, 1962). Armstrong, C.B., “The Casualty Lists of the Trojan War,” GER 16 (1969): 30-31. Armstrong, J.I., “The Arming Motifin the fad.” AJP 79 (1958): 337-54. Aravantinos, V., “Muxnvaira ex Tladaıag Ervdavpov.” Deltion 29 (1974): 83. Astrom, P., with contributions by N.M. Verdclis, N.-G. Gejvall and H. Hjelmquist,

The Cuirass Tomb and Other Finds at Dendra, | (Studies in

Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 4, Göteborg, 1977). Atkinson, ‘T.A., Bosanquet, R.C., Edgar. C.C.. Evans, AJ.. Hogarth, D.G.. MacKenzie, D.. Smith, C.. and Welch, F.B.. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos Conducted by the British School at Athens, JIS Supplement + (1904).

Austin, N. Archen at the Dark of the Moon, Poetic Problems in Homer's Odyssey Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1975:

(1991:

« Prehistoric Textiles, The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze

ges with Special Reference to the Aegean (Princeton, 1991). . “The Peplos of Athena” in Goddess and Polis, The Panathenatc Festiral in Ancient Athens, edited by J. Neils (Princeton, 1992), 103 17. Basch, L., Le musée imaginaire de la marine antique (Athens, 1987). ‚ "Comment

on Seafaring, Craft and Cultural Contacts in the

Aegean during the 3rd Millennium B. C. (7\:1 17: 237 256)" UNA 18 (1989): 175 -76. Bass, G.F., Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck, with contributions from P. Throckmorton,J. du P. Taylor, J.B. Hennessy, A.R. Shulman and H.-G. Buchholz (Philadelphia, 1967). . “A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kas: 1984 Campaign.” 47.4 90 (1986): 269-96. . "Oldest Known Shipwreck Reveals Splendors of the Bronze Age," National Geographic 172 (1987): 692. 733. ."A Bronze-Age Writing-Diptych from the Sea off Lycia.” Aadmoy 29 (1990): 169. . “Beneath the Wine Dark Sea: Nautical Archacology and the Phoenicians of the Odyssey" in Greeks and Barbarians, Essays on the Interaction between Greeks and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences for Eurocentrism, edited by J.E. Goleman and C.A. Walz (Bethesda, MD, 1997), 71 101. Bass, G.F., and Pulak, C., “The Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986,” 47.191 (1987): 321. . “The Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, ‘Turkey, 1992 Campaign,” 474 97 (1993): 310-11. Bass, G.F., Pulak, C., Collon, D., and Weinstein, J.. “The Late Bronze

Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 Campaign.” 47.4 93 (1989): 1:29. Bassett, S.E., “The Palace of Odysseus,” 474 23 (1919): 288-311. Beazley, J.D., Attic Black-figure Vase-painters (Oxford, 1956). Bellamy, R., “Bellerophon’s Tablet,” (7 84 (1988 89): 289 - 307. Bennet, E.L., Jr., “Some Local Differences in the Linear B Script.” Hespena 35 (1966): 295-309. Bennet,J.. “Knossos in Context: Comparative Perspectives on the Linear B Administration of IAT IE TD Crete.” 17.194 (1990): 193-211. . “Homer and the Bronze Age” in A .Nee Companion to Homer, edited by I. Morris and B.B. Powell. Mnemosyne Supplement 163 !1eiden, New York and Cologne, 1997), 511 33. Benton, S.. Review oFA.M. Snodgrass, Arms and Annour of the Greeks ithaca and London. 1967) in Antiquity 42 (968): 69. Bernal, ML. "On the Transmission of the Alphabet to the Aegean Belore

1400 BCL

BASOR 267 1987:

1

20,

256

TALES OF HEROES

Bernard, V., 12s .Navigations d’

Ulysse (Paris, 1927

1929).

Beye. C.R., “Repeated Similes in the Homeric Poems” in Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday, edited by K.J. Rigsby (Greek, Roman and Byzantine Monographs, No. 10, Durham, N.C, 1984), 7 14. ‚ Ancient Greek Literature and Society (Ithaca and London, second edi-

——, “Kriegswesen II. Helm,” ArchHom (1977) E: 57 -74. Bowra, C.M., “The Comparative Study of Homer.” 47.1 54 (1950): 184 92. --, “Evxvigides “Ayaroi,” Afnemosyne 14 (1961): 97-110. --- -, Pindar (Oxford, 1964). ~--- , Heroic Poetry (London, 1964).

tion, 1987).

~~ . “Problems Concerned with Homer and the Epics” in Homer’; History, Mycenaean or Dark Age? edited by C.G. Thomas (New York, 1970), 9-16.

Biebuyck, B., and Mateene, K., The Micinds Epic from Banyango (Congo Republic) (Berkeley, 1969), Blegen, C.W., Aorakon, A Prehistoric Settlement near Corinth (Boston and New York, 1921). - --, Qypounies. A Prehistoric Settlement in the Valley of Kleonae (Cambridge, MA, 1928). » “Excavations at Troy 1934,” 17.139 (1935): 6: 34.

-

— , Homer (Bristol, reprint, 1972).

Bozice, I.M.G., “Contemporary Survivals of Features of the Homeric House,” GER 15 (1946): 108-109, quoted by Stanford, Commentary, vol. II, Appendix B.

bridge, MLA, 1937).

Brandenburg, H., “Kriegswesen IV: Mitpa, Coothp und Copa,” ArchHom (1977) E: 119. +43.

» Troy” in «A Companion to Homer, edited by AJ.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York, 1962), 362 86.

Braswell, B.K., “Mythological Innovations in the /ltad.” CQ 21 (1971): 16 26.

. "Pylos” in 1 Companion to Homer, edited by AJ.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings ‘London and New York, 1962), 422-29.

Bremmer, J.N.. “A Homeric Goat Island (OD. 9.116. +1),” CQ36 (1986): 256 57.

. Prosymna, The Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heracum (Cam-

. Troy and the Trojans (Ancient People and Places, London, 1953). "Troy VI" in CAH (third edition, 1973), vol. II, part 1,683 84 Blegen, C.W., Boulter, C.G., Caskey, J.L., and Rawson, M., Troy. Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati, 1932 1938. 1V: Settlements VIla, VIIb and VIII (Princeton,

1958).

Blegen. C.W., Caskey, J.L., and Rawson, M., Troy, Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati, 1932-1938, 111: The Sixth Settlement (Princeton, 1953). Blegen, C.W., and Rawson, M., The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western

Messenia, I: The Butldings and Their Contents (Princeton, 1966).

Breve, H., and Gruben, G., Greek Temples, Theatres and Shrines, translated

by M. Himer (London, 1963). Brouskari, M.S., The Acropolis Museum, A Descriptive Catalogue (Athens, 1974). Brown, L. Morgan, “The Ship Procession in the Miniature Fresco” in Thera and the Aegean World, Papers presented at the Second Intemational Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978, edited by C. Doumas (London, 1978) 1,629 44. Brunnsäker, S., The Tyrant-Slayers of Anitios and .Nestotes, A Gritical Study of the Sources and Restorations (Stockholm,

1971).

Blegen. C.W., Rawson, M., Taylour, W., and Donovan, W.P., The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, 111: Acropolis and Lawer Town. Tholoi and Grave Circle, Chamber Tombs, Discoveries Outside the Citadel (Princeton, 1973).

Buchholtz, H.-G., “Der Pfeilglätter aus dem VI Schachtgrab von

Bloedow, E.F., “The Trojan War and Late Helladic ILC." Praehistorische Sritschnift 63 (1988): 23 53.

Burkert, W., “Die Leistung eines Kreophylos: Kreophyleer, Homeriden und die archaische Heraklesepik,” MfusHelv 29 (1972): 74-85.

Bloedow, E.F., and Spina, G.A., “Two ‘Tales of One City: Atlantis Surfaces from the Deluge to Claim I[lios,” Studia Troira + (1994): 159-71.

— „"Kymnaithos, Polycrates, and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo” in Arktouros, Hellenic Studies presented to Bernard M.W. Knox, edited by G.W. Bowersock, W. Burkert and M.C,J. Putman (Berlin and

Boardman,J.. The Greeks Overseas (Baltimore, 196-4). >. “Exekias,” 17.4 82 (1978): 11 25. . “Herakles, Peisistratos and the Unconvinced,” JAS 109 (1989): 158 59. Boersma, J.S.. Athenian Building Policy from 3561/0 to 4035/4 B.C. (Groningen, 1970). Bol. P.C., Olympische Forschungen. XN New York, 1989}.

Argivische Schilde (Berlin and

Bolling, G.M., “Vulgate Homeric Papyti.” 47P 42 (1921): 253 59. . The External Evidencefor interpolations in Homer (Oxford, 1925), - The Athetized Lines of the Hiad (Baltimore, 19-44. Bonfante. 1... "Nudity as a Costume in Classical Arts” 174 93 (1 989%: 343

70.

Borchhardt. H.. “Rricgswesen 1. Frühegriechische Schildformen.” ArchHom 1977: 6:1 57. Borchhardt.J.. Homerische Heime, zu orientalischen und swofuschen zeit Mainz am Rhein. 10972.

Helmformen der Agats in ihren Beziehungen Holmen in der Bronze: und [ruhen Eisen:

Mykene und die helladischen Pfeilspitzen,” 7D/ 77 (1962): 1 58. Buchholz, H.-G., and Karageorghis, V., Altägäis und Altkypros (Tübingen, 1971).

New York,

1979), 53:-62.

-, “The Making of Homer in the Sixth Century B.C.: Rhapsodes versus Steichoros” in Papers on the Amasis Painter and his World, Colloquium Sponsored by the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities and Symposium Sponsored by theJ. Paul Getty Museum, edited by A.P.A. Belloli (Malibu, 1987), 43-62. -, “Homer's Anthropomorphism: Narrative and Ritual” in Naw Perspectives in Early Greek Art, edited by D. Buitron-Oliver (Hanover and London, 1991), 81-91. Calder, W.M., IH, “Gold for Bronze: Iliad 6.232. 36” in Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Fightieth Birthday, edited by KJ. Rigsby (Greek, Roman

1984,31

and Byzantine Monographs, No.

10, Durham, NC,

35.

Campbell, D.A., Greek Lyric Poetry (New York, 1967). Camps, W.A.. In Introduction to Homer (Oxlord,

1980).

Canfora. L., The Vanished Library, A Wonder of the Ancient World. translated by M. Pyle Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1990. Carpenter, R.. Folk Tale. Fiction and Saga in the and Los Angeles,

[0-465

Homeric Epics (Berkeley

Bibliography Cary, M., 4 History of the Greek World, From 323 to 146 B.C. (London and New York, reprinted 1963). Caskey, J.L., “Excavations at Lerna, 1952- 1953,” Hesperia 23 (1954): 3- 30. --—, “Excavations at Lerna, 1956,” Hesperia 26 (1957):

142-62.

--

, “Excavations in Keos,

1960:

1961,” Hesperia 31 (1962): 263

83.

—. “Excavations in Keos,

1964-1965," Hesperia 35 (1966): 363- 76.

-, “Investigations in Keos. Part I: Excavations and Explorations. 1966-1970,” Hesperia 40 (1971): 358-96. —. “Investigations in Keos. Part Il: A Conspectus of the Pottery,” Hesperia +1 (1972): 357-401.

Odyssey (Oxford and New York,

1995).

Coldstream, J.N., Greek Geometric Pottery, A Survey of Ten Local Styles and their Chronology (London, 1968). -, Geometric Greece Cambridge, 1979. Combellack, F.M., “Homer and Hector,” 47? 65 (19-44): 209-43. -—,

“Homer the Innovator,”

CP 71 (1976): 44-55.

Connolly, P., The Greek Armies (London, 1982). Conophagos, C.E., I Laurium antique et la technique grecque de la production de l’argent (Athens, 1980).

“Greece, Crete and the Aegean Islands in the Early Bronze

Cook, E.F., The Odyssey in Athens, Myths of Cultural Origins (Ithaca and London, 1995).

Age” in CAH (third edition, 1973), vol. I, part 2, 771-807.

Cook, J.M., “Protoattic Pouery.” BSA 35 (1938): 165 219.

Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton, 1971).

-—

, The Wrath of Athena, Gods and Men in the Odyssey (Princeton, 1983).

Cline, E.H., Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Intemational Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aqgean (Bar 591, Oxford, 1994).

, “Excavations in Keos, 1963,” Hesperia 33 (1964): 314-35. - , “Archaeology and the Trojan War,” JHS 84 (1964): 9 11.

—

—

1-41." CQ30 (1980): 261 64.

Cohen, B., editor, The Distaff Side: Representing the Female in Homer's

—. “The Early Helladic Period in the Argolid,” Hesperia 29 (1960): 285-303. —

257

Clay, J.S., "Goat Island: OD. 9.116

, “Bronze Age Ships. The Evidence of the ‘Thera Wall Paintings.” INA 4 (1975): 3-10.

Cook, R.M., “Ionia and Greece in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries

B.C.,” JHS66 (1946): 67--98. - , “Pots and Pisistratan Propaganda,” JHS 107 (1987): 167-69.

. “The Thera Ships,” /7\4 7 (1978): 232-33.

Coulton,

, “Odysseus’ Boat (Od. 5.244 53),” GVA 21 (1992): 73 74.

Courbin, P., “Une tombe geometrique d'Argos,” BCH (1957): 322 86.

Castriota, D., Mfyth, Ethos, and Actuality, Official Art in Fifth-Century B.C. Athens (Madison,

1992).

Catling, H.W., “Bronze Cut-and-Thrust Swords in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society for 1956, vol. 2:2: 102--25. ‚ "A New Bronze Sword from Cyprus,” datiquity 35 (1961): 115-22. » Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World (Oxford, 196-4). —, “Sparta,” JHS Archaeological Reports for 1973 74: 14 15. -—, “Sparta,” JHS Archaeological Reports for

1974-75: 12-15.

J,J.,

The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa (Oxford,

1976).

. La céramique géométrique de |Argolide (Paris, 1966). Coventry, LJ., “Messenger Scenes in the /liad xxiii and xxiv.” JHS 107 (1987): 178-80. Crielaard, J.P., “Homer, History and Archaeology: Some Remarks on the Date of the Homeric World” in Homeric Questions: Essays in Philology, Ancient History and Archaeology, Including the Papers of a ConJSerence Organized by the Netherlands Institutre at Athens (15 May 1993), edited by J.P. Crielaard (Amsterdam, 1995), 201-88. Crouwel, J.H., Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece (Amsterdam, 1981).

. “Excavations at the Menelaion, Sparta, 1973 76,” JHS Archaeological Reports for 1976-77: 24 42.

Cuillandre, J., Le droite et la gauche dans les potnus homeriques (Paris, 19-14).

‚ “Kriegswesen III. Panzer,” and “Kriegswesen V. Beinschiene,” ArchHom (1977) E: 74-118, 143-61.

Dakaris, S.1., “" Avacxagi tod iepod tig AsSeavng.” Praktika 1965: 53 65.

——. “Archaeology in Greece, 1979 80," 7HS Archaeological Reports for 1979- 80. 3-53.

," Avaoxagi tov iepod tig Außevng.” Praktika 1966: 71-84.

Cauer, P., Grundfragen der Homerkritik, I-II (Leipzig, 1921-23). Chadwick,J., "New Fragments of Linear B Tablets from Knossos” with introductory remarks by G.L. Huxley, 3$4 52 (1957): 147-5]. . The Mycenaran World (Cambridge, London and New York, 1976). - "Who Were the Dorians?” La Parola del Passato 31 (1976): 103 -17. -—-, “The Descent of the Greek Epic,” 7HS 110 (1990): 174-77. Chadwick,J., Godart, L., Killen, J.T., Oliver, J.P., Sacconi, A., and Sakellarakis, I., Corpus of the Mycenacan Inscriptions from Knossos. | (Instituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolica, vol. 88, Cambridge, 1986).

Cunliffe, RJ.. A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect (Norman, reprinted 1988).

‚ “ Avaoxagi tod iepod tig Außavrg,” Praktika 1967: 33-54. - —,""Avasxagı) tod iepod ti; AwsScivnc,” Praktika 1968: 42-59. —-, “ Avacxagh tov iepod tig Audevng,” Praktika 1969: 26-35. ——. “Ambevn,” Ergon 1970: 70-77. — =, Archaeological Guide to Dodona (Greece [1971)). Dakoronia, F., “War-ships on Sherds of LH

III C Kraters from

Kynos” in Tropis Il, Second International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, edited by H.E. Tzalas (Athens, 1990), 117-22. Darcque, P., L ‘architecture domestique mycénienne, unpublished M. A. thesis for the Ecole des hautes études en science sociales (Paris, 1980).

Darcque, P., and Treuil, R., editors, L'Habitat egem préhistorique, Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par le Centre National de la Recherche Scntifque, Université de Paris et l'Ecole francaise d'Athénes, BCH Supplement 19 (1990).

Chadwick.J.. Killen, J.T.. and Oliver. J.P., The Anossos Tablets (Cambridge, 1971}.

Davies, J.K., Athenian Propertied Families, 600--300 B.C. (Oxtord. 1971).

Chamoux, F.. “La porcherie d’Eumee,” REG 65 (1952): 281 - 88.

Davies, M., “The Date of the Epic Cycle,” Glotta 67 (1989): 89-100,

Chantraine, P.. Dietionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris, 1968

1980),

"The Judgement 36 62.

of Paris and Hiad XXIV." JHS 101 (1981):

258

TALES OF HEROES

Davis, E.N., The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware (Diss. for New York University, 1977). Davis, J.L., “The Islands of the Aegean,” 47.4 96 (1992): 699-756.

— —, The Coming of the Greeks, Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East (Princeton, 1988). - —-, The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. (Princeton,

Davison, J.A., “Peisistratus and Homer,” 7:4 PA 86 (1955): 1-21. —., “Notes on the Panathenaea,” 7H$ 78 (1958): 23 -12. —-—, “Addenda to ‘Notes on the Panathenaea,”” JHS 82 (1962): 141-42. —,, “Literature and Literacy in Ancient Greece,” Phoenix 16 (1962):

Driessen,J., and MacDonald, C., “Some Military Aspects of the

Aegean in the Late Fifteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries B.C.,” BSA 79 (1984): 49-74.

141-56. —, “The Transmission of the Text” in -1 Companion to Homer, edited by AJ.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York, 1962), 215-33.

Ducrey, P., H’arfare in Ancient Greece (New York,

from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 B.C. (Oxford,

234-65.

Delebecque, E., Le cheval dans I'Iliade (Paris, 1951).

Demakopoulou, K., editor, The Mycenaean World, Five Centuries of Early Greek Culture, 1600-1100 B.C., A Catalogue to An Exhibition in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens (Athens, 1988). -——, editor, Troy, Mycenae, Tiryns, Orchomenos; Heinrich Schliemann: The 100th Anniversary of his Death, A Catalogue to An Exhibition in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens (Athens, 1990). Demargne, P., The Birth of Greek Art, translated by S. Gilbert andJ. Emmons (The Arts of Mankind, New York,

1964).

Desborough, V.R. d’A., The Last Mycenarans and their Successors (Oxford,

1964).

GER, second series, 33

——, The Aegean Bronze Age (Cambridge, 1994). Dimock, G.E., The Unity of the Odyssey (Amherst, 1989). Dolin, E., “Thucydides on the Trojan War: A Critique of the Text of 1.1.1,” ASCP 87 (1983): 119 49. Donlan, W., “The Homeric Economy” in A New Companion to Homer, edited by I. Morris and B.B. Powell, Mremosyne Supplement 163 (Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1997), 649 67. Doumas, C.G., Santorini, The Prehistoric City of Akroteri (Athens). --

“The Minoan Eruption of the Santorini Volcano,” Antiquity 48 (1974): 110-15.

—

, Santonni, A Guide to the Island and its Archacological Treasures ‘Athens,

1980). ~

— „Homer. Poet of the Iliad (Baltimore and London,

-, Thera, Pompeii of Ancient clegean (Landon, 1983).

—

, The Iliad:

A Commentary, G.S. Kirk, general editor, vol.

V (Cam-

bridge, 1991). Edwards, V., and Sienkewicz, T.J., Oral Cultures Past and Present: Rappin'

Errington, R.M., “Rome against Philip and Antiochus” in (4H (sec-

ond edition, 1989), vol. VIII, 244 74. Ervin, M., “A Relief Pithos from Mykonos,” Deltion 18 (1963): 37- 75.

—, “The Minoan and Mycenaean

1906).

Elements in Hellenic Life,” JHS

32 (1912): 277 97. -, The Palace of Minos (London,

1921

35).

Evely, D., Hughes-Brock, H., and Momigliano, N.. editors, Anosvos, 4 Labyrinth of History, Papers presented in honour of Sinclair Hood (Oxford and Northampton, 1994). Evelyn-White, H.G., Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica (Loeb edition, 1967). Fagerström, K., Greek Iron Age Architecture, Developments through Changing Times (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 81, Göteborg.

1988). Fagles, R.. translation of Homer: The Ihad, with introduction by B. Knox (New York, 1990). Fenik, B.C., Typical Battle Scenes in the liad, Studies in the Narrative ‘Techniques of Homenc Battle Description (Wiesbaden, 1968). « Studies in the Odyssey (Wiesbaden, 1974). Homer. Tradition and Invention, edited by B.C. Fenik (Leiden, 1978),

‚“"Onpa,” Arun 1993: 83 91. Drerup, H.. “Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit” ‚IrchHom (1969: ©): 1- 136. Drews, R.. Basıleus. the Evidence for Ringshup in Geometric Gere

1987).

-—--, “Topos and ‘Transformation in Homer” in Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry, Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation, edited by J.M. Bremer, I J.F. de Jong and J. Kalff (Amsterdam, 1987), 47-60.

—, “Stylization and Variety, Four Monologues in the /had* in

—, The Wall-Paintings of Thera. wanslated by A. Doumas (Athens, 19923.

Haven and London, 1983).

--, Elegy and lambicy (Loeb edition, 1968).

Edwards, M.W., “The Structure of the Homeric Catalogues,” T4PA 110 (1980): 81-105.

Evans, AJ., The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos (London,

—, The Greek Dark Ages (London, 1972:. Dickinson, O.T.P.K., The Origins of Mycenucan Civilization (Studies in Mediterranean Archacology, vol. 19, Göteborg, 1977).

-

Faston, D., “Has the Trojan War been found?” Antiguity 59 (1985): 188- 95. Edmonds, J.M., Lyra Graeca (Locb edition, 1959).

and Homer (Cambridge, MA and Oxford 1990}.

Derow, P.S., “Rome, the Fall of Macedon and the Sack of Corinth” in CAH (second edition, 1989), vol. VIII, 190 323.

——. “Homer, the Poet of the Dark Age.” (1986): 20-37.

1948).

-, The Greeks and their Eastern Neighbours (London, 1957).

1962).

De Angelis, F., “The Foundation of Selinous: overpopulation or opportunities?” in The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis (Oxford, 1994), 87-110.

1986).

Dunbabin, T,J., The Western Greeks, The History of Sicily and South Italy

——, “The Homeric Question” in A Companion to Homer, edited by AJ.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York,

1993).

Driessen,J., {n Early Destruction in the Mycenaean Palace at Knossos, A New Interpretation of the Excavation Field-Notes of the South-East Area of the West Wing (Leuven, 1990).

New

68 90. Finkelberg. M., “Ajax’s Entry in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women CQ 38 (19881: 31 1. Finley. MLL. “Homer and Mycenae: Property and Tenure.” Historia 6

(19575 133 50. "The Trojan

War” 7488

1961: 1 9.

© The Ove and Abuse of History London, 1975.

Bibliography -, The World of Odysseus (London, 1977).

259

Glenn,J.. “The Polyphemus Folktale and Homer's AYALOPELA, “ TAPA 102 (1971): 133-81.

. Economy and Society in Ancient Greece (London, 1981).

-— , “The Polyphemos Myth: Its Origin and Interpretation,” GER 25 (1978): 141-55.

Finnegan, R.F., Oral Poetry, Its Nature, Significance and Social Context (Cambridge, 1977). Fiuschen, K., Untersuchungen zum Beginn der Sagendarstellung bei den Griechen (Berlin, 1969).

Godencken, K.B., “A Contribution to the Early History of Miletus,

The Settlement in Mycenaean Times and its Connections Overseas” in Problems in Greek Prehistory, Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, edited by E.W. French and K.A. Wardle (Bristol, 1988), 307-15.

Foltiny, S., “Schwert, Dolch und Messer.” ArchHom (1980) E: part 2, 231-75. Forbes. R.J.. Mettalurgy in Antiquity, A Notebook for Archaeolugists and Technologists (Leiden, 1950}. -

„Studies in Ancient Technology, vol. U1 (Leiden, second edition, 1965), and vol. IX (Leiden, second edition, 1972).

Ford, A., Homer, The Poetry of the Past (Ithaca and London,

1992).

Forsyth, P.Y., Atlantis, The Making of Myth (London, 1980).

Goldman, H., Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia (Cambridge, MA, 1931). Goold, G.P., “Homer and the Alphabet,” TAPA 91 (1960): 272-91. Graham, AJ., “Patterns in Early Greek Colonization,” JHS 91 (1971): 35 -47. ——., Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Chicago, 1983).

Fortenberry, D., “Single Greaves in the Late Helladic Period,” 474 95

-—, “The Odyssey, History, and Women” in The Distaff Side: Representing the Female in Homer's Odyssey, edited by B. Cohen (Oxford and

(1991): 623 27. Foster, K.P., Aegean Faience of the Bronze Age (New Haven and London,

1979). -

,“A Flight of Swallows,” 474 99 (1995): 409 25.

Fowler, R.L., “AIT- In Early Greek Language and Myth.” Phoenix 42 (1988): 95- 120. Foxhall, L., and Davies, J.K., editors, The Trojan War. [ts Histoncity and Context, Papers of the First Greenbank Colloquium, Liverpool, 1981 (Bristol, 1984). Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford,

1972).

French, E.W., “Pottery Groups from Mycenac: (1963): 44-52.

A Summary,” BS 58

—. “The Development of Mycenaean Terracotta Figurines.” BSA 66 (1971): 102-87. --

New York,

1995), 3- 17.

Graham, J.W., The Palaces of Crete (Princeton, 1962).

„Cult Places at Mycenae” in Sanctuanes and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May, 1980, edited by R. Hagg and N. Marinatos (Stockholm, 1981), 41-48.

Gray. D.H.F., “Metal-Working in Homer,” JHS 74 (1954): 1- 15. ——., “Houses in the Odyssey,” CQ5 (1955): 1-12. ——, “Seewesen,” ArchHom (1974) G: part 1, 1-139. Graziadio, G., “The Process of Social Stratification at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period: A Comparative Examination of the Evidence,” AJA 95 (1991): 403-40. Greenhalgh, P.A.L., Early Greek Warfare, Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages (Cambridge, 1973). Griffen,J., “The Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer,” JHS 97 (1977): 39 53. —— , Homer on Life and Death (Oxford, 1980). --

+, “Homeric Words and Speakers,” 7HS 106 (1986): 36-57.

Groningen, B.A. van, Tratlé d’histoire et de critique des textes grecs (Amsterdam, 1963).

Friedrich, R., “Zeus and the Phaeacians: Odyssey 13.158," AZP 110 (1989): 395 99.

Guida, P.C., Le armi difensive dei Micenei nelle figurazioni (SMEA 56, Rome, 1973).

--

Gunn, D.M., “Narrative Inconsistency and the Oral Dictated Text in the Homeric Epic,” 47P91 (1970): 192-203.

“The Hybris of Odysseus,” JHS 111 (1991): 16 28.

Friis Johansen, K., The Iliad in Early Greek Art (Copenhagen, 1967). Frédin, O., and Persson, A.W., Asine, Results of the Suvedish Excavations, 1922 1930 (Stockholm, 1938). Frost, F., “Peisistratos and the Unification of Athens,” 17.1 92 (1988): 239-40. F

k, A., The M holm,

Pottery, Analysis and Classification (Stock-

1941).

Galanopoulos, A.G., and Bacon, E., Atlantis, The Truth Behind the Legend (London, 1969). Galili, E., Shueli, N., and Artze, M., “Bronze Age Ship's Cargo of Copper and Tin,” GNA 15 (1986): 25-37.

—— , “Thematic Composition and Homeric Authorship,” HSCP 75 (1971): 1- 31. Güterbock, H.G., “The Hittites and the Aegean World: Part I. The

Ahhiyawa Problem Reconsidered,” 474 87 (1983): 133-38. ——, “Troy in Hittite Texts? Wilusa, Ahhiyawa and Hittite History” in Troy and the Trojan War: A Sympostum held at Bryn Mawr College, October, 1984, edited by MJ. Mellink (Bryn Mawr, 1986), 33-44. Gwynn, A., “The Character of Greek Colonization,” JHS 38 (1918):

88-123. Hägg, R., and Marinatos, N., editors, Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13, May, 1980 (Stockholm, 1981).

Georgiou, H.S., “A Sea Approach to Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age” in Ware and Blegen, Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age, 1939 - 1989, Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Athens, December 2 3, 1989. ediwd by C. Zerner (Amsterdam, 1993), 353-64.

Hainsworth, J.B., “Structure and Content in Epic Formulae: ‘The Question of the Unique Expression,” CQ 14 (1964): 155 -64.

Gilbert. K.S.. Holt. J.K.. and Hudson, S., Treasures of Tutankhamun

—.

iNew York,

1976).

Giten. S.. Mazar, .A.. and Stern, E., editors, Mediterranean Peaples in Transıtum, ‘Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. in Honor of Professor Truk Dothan Jerusalem, 1998,

, The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula (Oxford, 1968). “The Criticism of an Oral Homer,” JHS 90 (1970): 90-98. +, The Ihad: A Commentary, G.S. Kirk, general editor, vol. III (Cambridge, 1993). Hallager, E.. The Mycenaean Palace at Knossos, Evidence for the Final Destruc-

tion in the III B Period (Stockholm, 1977).

260

TALES OF HEROES

Hallager. E.. Vlasakis. M.. and Hallager, B.P.. "New Linear B Tablets from Khania,” Aadmos 31 (1992): 61

87.

Hampe, R.. and Simon, E., The Birth of Greek ‚Art from the Mycenaean to the Archaic Period (New York, 19811. Hanson, V.D., The Western War of War. infantry Battle in Classical Cereece (London, 1989), Harris, W.V.. Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA and London, 1989). Harrison, A.R.W.. The Lane of Athens (Oxtord, 1971). Haussoullier, B., “Catalogue descripuf des objets découverts a Spata.” BCH 2 (1878): 185 228. Havelock, E.A.. The Laterate Revolution in Greece and its Cultural Consequences (Princeton, 1982). . The Muse Learns to Write, Reflections on Orality and Literacy from Antiguity fa the Present (Now Haven and London, 1986). Heubeck. A., “Schrift,” ArchHom 3 (197% X. . “Homer and Mykene.”

Gymnasium 91 (1984);

Heubeck, A., West. S.R.. and Hoekstra, A... A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey. vol. 1 (Oxford. 1988). Hickman. H.. La trompette dans 'Fgyple ancienne, Annales du Service des Antiquites de VEgypte Supplement | (Cairo. [1946}). Hiesel. G., Späthelladische Hausarchitektur, Studien zur Architekturgeschichte des griechischen Festlandes in der späten Bronzezeit (Mainz am Rhein, 1990). Higgins, R.A.. Greek and Roman Jacellery (London, 1961). Hiller, S.. “Mykenische Heiligtümer: Das Zeugnis der Linear B-Texte” in Sanctuanes and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12 13 May. 1980. edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (Stockholm,

1961),

125.

“The Miniature Minoan Poeuy?” Third International ed by D.A. Hardy

Frieze in the West House Evidence for in Thera and the Aegean World, III. Proceedings of the Congress. Santorini, Greece, 3 9 September 1989. edit(London, 1990), 1,229 36.

“Pwo Trojan Wars? On the Destruction of Troy VIh and Vila,” Studia Trotca 1 (1991): 145 49. Höckmann, O., "Lanze und Speer.” ArchHon (1980) E: part 2, 275 318. --

Hockstra, A., Homeric Modifications of Formulate Prototypes, Studies in the developnnent of Greek epic dictton (Amsterdam, 1965).

106 (19761:

Holladay, A,J.. “Hoplites and Heresies.” 7278 102 (19825: 04 Holland. T.B.. "Colophon.” Heyperia 13:19: OL

103.

171.

Hollinshead, M.B.. “The Swallows and Artists of Room Delta 2 at Akrotiri. Thera” 17-195 189% 339 51. Holmberg, B,J... ‘The Sieedivh Excavations at Area in Arcadia (Lawd and Leipzig. 19h. Holoka. J.P.. “Homeric 257

Originality: \ Survey.

CH 6601972

73%

93.

. "Homer Studies

. The Minoans, Crete in tee Bronze Age (London, 1971). . "Minoan Town-Shrines?” in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in ‚Ancient History and Prehistory, Studies Presented to Fritz Schachermevr, edited by K.H. Kinzl (New York and Berlin, 1977), 158--72. » The Cretan Element on Thera in Late Minoan LA” in Thera and the Aegean World, III, Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3 9 September 1989, edited by D.A. Hardy (London, 1990), 1. 118-23. Hood, M.S.F., and de Joung, P.. “Late Minoan Warrior-Graves from

Ayios Ioannis and the New Hospital Site at Knossos,” BSA 47 (1952): 243-77.

. “A Residual Problem in /LLAD 24,” CQ 36 (1986): 32-37. Hope Simpson, R., “Mycenaean Greece and Homeric

Reflections” in

Approaches to Homer, edited by C.A. Rubino and C.W. Shelmerdine

(Austin, 1983), 122 39. Hope Simpson, R., and Lazenby. J.F.. The Catalogue of Ships in Homer's lliad (Oxford, 1970). Howes, G.E., “Homeric Quotations in Plato and Aristotle,” HSCP6 (1895): 153 237. Hurwit, J.M., “Art, Poetry, and the Polis in the Age of Homer” in From Pasture to Polis, Art in the Age of Homer, edited by S. Langdon (Columbia and London,

1993), 1442.

lakovidis, S.E., "H puxnvaixn axpöroAıg trav 'Aönvav (Athens, 1962). ‚"A Mycenacan Mourning Custom,” 47.4 70 (1966): 43-50. . Nepanj, To vexporagetov (Athens, 1969). . "Vormykenische und mykenische Wehrbauten.” ArchHom (1977) E: 161-221. “A Hundred Years of Mycenaean Archaeology," The Antiquaries ~ Sournal 58 (1978): 13-30. “Thera and Mycenaean Greece,” 474 83 (1979): 101-2. . Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece (Monumenta Greaca et Romana, vol. IV, Leiden. 1983). . Fads, |:°H avaoxagn 1955 1961 (Athens, 1989). —-—, “Mycenaean Roofs: Form and Construction,” BCH Supplement 19 (1990): 147-60. Immerwahr,

1979).

Hoelscher, U., “The Transformation from Folk-Tale to Epic” in Homer: Tradition and Invention, edited by B.C. Fenik (Laide n, 1978). 51 67. Hogan. J.C., “The Temptation of Odysseus.” TAP 187 210.

1983, Part 2,” CH’84 (1990-91): 89-156.

——. “The Chronology of LH IN C," 474 83 (1979): 454 62.

,“Lanzen und Speere der ägäischen Bronzezeit und des Übergangs zur Eisenzeit” in Agdische Bronzezeit, edited by H.-G, Buchholz (Darmstadt, 1987), 329 58,

. Epic Verse before Homer (Amsterdam,

. “Homer Studies 1978

Hood, MLS.F.. "A Mycenaean Cavalryman,” BSA 48 (1953): 84 93.

Hooker, J.T., “Homer and Late Minoan Crete,” JHS 89 (1969): 60-71.

1-14.

Heubeck, A., and Hoekstra, A., 1 Commentary on Homer's Odyssey, vol. 11 (Oxford, 1989).

95

. “Homer Studies 1978 -1983, Part 1.” CH'83 (1989 90): 393 461.

H.R., Attic Sept. A Survey (Oxford,

1990).

Immerwahr, S.A., The Athenian Agora, Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, XIII: The Neolithic and Bronze Ages

(Princeton,

1971).

. „legean Painting in the Bronze Age (University Park and London,

1990), Jablonka, P.. * Ausgrabungen südlich der Unterstadt von ‘Troia im Bereich des Troia VI-Verteidigungsgrabens. Grabungsbericht 199.4” Studia Trotca 5 (1995: 39 79. "Ausgrabungen im süden der Unterstadt von Troia. Grabungsbericht 1995." Studia ‘Taira 6 1996": 65 96. Jablonka, P.. König, H.. and Riehl, S.. ” Ein Verteidigungsgraben in der Umterstade von Trosa VI. Grabungsbericht

Tronat

1994.51

1993. Studia

73.

Jacobsthal. PL, Greek Pins and their Gonnexims with Europe and Asia (Oxford, 197119777

0107753

1979

BO

65

150.

195.

Bibliography Jacoby, F., "Patrios Nomos: State Burial in Athens and the Public Cemetery in the Kerameikos,” JHS 64 (1944): 37-66. Janko, R., “Equivalent Formulae in the Greek Epos,” \nemosyne 3+ (1981): 253-64. ——

. Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Dietion (Cambridge, 1982).

-—, Homer and the Oral Tradition (Cambridge, 1976). --

-, Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and tts Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centunes B.C., with supplement by A.W. Johnston (Oxford, 1990). Jensen, M.S., The Homeric Question and the Oral-Formulaic Theory (Copenhagen, 1980). Johnston, P., “Stern First in the Stone Age?” [7.¥A4 2 (1973): 3-11. Jong, LJ.F. de, Narrators and Focalizers, The Presentation of the Story in the Ihad (Amsterdam, 1987). —. “Homeric Words and Speakers: An Addendum,” JHS 108 (1988): 188-89. «The Subjective Style in Odysseus’ Wanderings.” CQ 42 (1992): 1 1k.

+, “The Formal Duels in Books 3 and 7 of the Zliad” in Homer, Tradition and Invention, edited by B.C. Fenik (Leiden,

- —

„general editor, The Iliad:

1978), 18-40.

A Commentary, G.S. Kirk, vols. I I

(Cambridge, 1985, 1990); R. Janko. vol. IV (Cambridge, 1992}: J.B. Hainsworth, vol. III (Cambridge, 1993); M.W. Edwards. vol. V (Cambridge, 1991).

--, The lhad: A Commentary, G.S. Kirk. general editor. vol. IV (Cambridge, 1992). Jeffery, L.H., Archaic Greece: The City-States c. 700 500 B.C. (New York and London, 1976).

261

—.“The Trojan War. The Character of the Tradition.” JHS 84 (196-4): 12-17.

Knigge, U., Acrameikos, Ergebenisse der Ausgrabungen, IN: Der Südhügel (Berlin 1976). —, The Athenian herameikos, History - Monuments -- Excavations (Athens, 1991). Knox, B., Introduction to Homer, The Iliad, wanslated by R. Fagles (New York,

1990).

Knox, M.O., “House” and ‘Palace’ in Homer.” JHS 90 (1970):

117 20. --

, “Huts and Farm Buildings in Homer,”

CQ 21 (1971): 27 31.

—, “Megarons and METAPA: Homer and Archacology,” CQ23 (1973): 1-21. Korfmann, M., “Besik Tepe: Vorbericht aber die Ergebnisse der Grabung von 1984,” 44 101 (1986): 303 29. -, “Besik Tepe: Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabung von 1985 und 1986,” 44 103 (1988): 394-98.

Kakrides, LT., “EAAnviay pu@odozia (Athens, 1986). Kamptz, H. von, Homerische Personennamen, Sprachuissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation (Göttingen, 1982).

-

Kannicht, R., “Poetry and Art, Homer and the Monuments Afresh,” CA | (1982): 70 82.

- —.“Troia - Ausgrabungen 1992,” Studia Troica 3 (1993): 1 37.

Karageorghis, V., The Cwiltzation of Prehistoric Cyprus (Athens. 1976). — , View from the Bronze Age, Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries at hition (New York, 1976). Karo, G., “Schatz von Tiryns,” AM 55 (1930): 119 40. —, Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (Munich, 1930-- 1933). —

-, "Archäologische Fund vom Sommer 1935 bis Sommer 1936,” AA 51 (1936): 94-181.

.“Troia - Ausgrabungen 1990 und 1991.” Studia Troica 2 (1992): 1-41. ——.“Troia-

Ausgrabungen 1993,” Studia Troica 4 (1994): 1 50.

‚"Troia: A Residential and Trading City in the Dardanelles” in Politaia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by R. Laffiner and W.-D. Niermeier, Aegacum 12 (1995), 173 82. Kraay, C.M., “The Archaic Owls of Athens: Classification and Chronology,” .Niwnismatic Chronicle 16 (1956): 43 68. Krammer, S.N., The Sumerians: Their History, Culture and Character (Chicago, 1963).

Kawvadias, P., “" Avaoxagat ev’ AxpondAet,” Deltion 1888: 81-83.

Kroll, J.H., “The Ancient Image of Athena Polias,” Hesperia Supplement 20 (1982): 65-76.

Kenna, V.E.G., Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel, VII: The English Museums, part II, edited by F. Matz and H. Biesantz (Berlin, 1967).

Kübler, K., Aerameikos, Ergebenisse der Ausgrabungen, V’: Die Nekropole des späten 8. bis frühen 6. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1970).

Keramopoullos, A.D., “Onfaixa,” Deltion 3 (1917): 339. Kilian, K., “Zeugenisse mykenischer Kultausübung in Tiryns” in Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First Intemational Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12- 13 May, 1980, edited by R. Hagg and N. Marinatos (Stockholm, 1981), 49-58. -—, "Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83. Bericht zu den Grabungen,” ld 103 (1988): 105 51. —.-, “Mycenacans Up to Date, Trends and Changes in Recent Research” in Problems in Greek Prehistory, Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, Apnl 1986, edited by E.W. French and K.A. Wardle (Bristol, 1988). 115 52.

Kullmann, W., Die Quellen der Ilias (Wiesbaden, 1960). Kumpf, M.M., Four Indices of the Homeric Hapax Legomena (Hildesheim, 1984). Kurtz, D.C., and Boardman,J., Greek Burial Customs (London, 1971). Kyle, D.G., “The Panathenaic Games: Sacred and Civic Athletics” in Goddess and Polis, The Panathenatc Festival in Ancient Athens, edited by J. Neils (Princeton. 1992), 77-101. Laffiner, R., and Niermeier, W.-D., editors, Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegacum 12 (1995). Lamb, W., “Excavations at Mycenae: The Palace” by A,J.B. Wace with contribution by Lamb, 381 25 (1921 23}: 162 72.192 95, 223 24,235 43.

Killen,J.. "The Wool Industry of Crete in the Late Bronze Age,” BSA 59 (1964): 1 15.

Lamberton, R., Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of te Epic Tradition (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London [1986)).

King. K.C., Achilles, Paradigms of the War Hero from Homer to the Middle slges (Berkeley, 1987),

Lamberton, R., and Keaney, J,J.. editors, Homer's Ancient Readers: ‘The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic's Earliest Exegetes (Princeton. 1992).

Kirk, G.S.. “Ships on Geometric Vases.” BSA 44 119495: 93-153. . The Songs of Homer ‘Cambridge, 1962).

Lang. M.L.. The Palace of Nestor at Polos in Western Mesvenia. I: The Frey coes (Princeton, 1969).

262

TALES OF HEROES . The Athenian Agora, Results of Excavations conducted by the American School af Classical Studies at Athens, XN: Graffiti and Dipinti (Prince-

Luce. J.V.. The End of Atlantis, Naw Light on an Old Legend (London, 19695,

ton, 1976).

. Homer and the Heroic Age (London,

~The Alphabetic Impact on Archaic Greece” in New Perspectives in Early Greek Art, edited by D. Buitron-Oliver (Hanover and London, 1991), 65

79.

12 (1905-6): 216- 58. Macrakis, A.L., “Comparative Economic Values in the Iliad: The Oxen-Worth” in Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Exghtieth Birthday, edited by K J. Rigsby (Greek, Roman and Byzantine Monographs, No. 10, Durham, NC, 1984), 211 -16.

Langdon, M.L., Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos, Hesperia Supplement 16 (1976). Litacz,J.. Aampfparäncse, Kampfdarstellung und Alampfivirklichkett in der Jliad. ba Kallinos und Tyrtaios (Munich, 1977).

Manning, S., “Archaeology and the World of Homer: Introduction to a Past and Present Discipline” in /fomer: Readings and Images, edited by Emlyn-Jones (London, 1992), 117-42.

Lauimore, R., translation and introduction to ‘The Hiad of Homer (Chicago, 1951). ‚translation and introduction to The Odywer of Homer New York. 1965). . “Nausikaa’s Suitors” in Classical Studies Prevented to Ben Edwin Perry by his Students and Colleagues at the Cnivervtty of Illinois, 1924-60, edited by B.A. Milligan, J.R. Frey and P. Kolb (Urbana, Chicago and London, 1969), 88 102. Leaf W., The Ihad (London.

1900).

Lasky, A., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (Berlin and Munich, 1963): 4 History of Greek Literature, English translation by J. Willis and C. de Heer (London, 1966).

Mannsperger, B.. “Das Dardanische Tor in der Zliad,” Studia Troica 3 (1993): 193- 99. Marinatos, N., “The West House at Akrotiri as a Cult Center,” 44/98

(1983): 1 19. - ‚Art and Religion in Thera, Reconstructing a Bronze Age Society (Athens, 1984). Marinatos. S., “The Volcanic Destruction of Minoan Crete.” Antiquity 13 (1939): 425--39. . "Tlepi tov OpvAwv tig AtAavtidos.” Konnxd Xpovixa 4 (1950): 195-203. -. * Moupratada,” Ergon 1960: 149 51.

[étoublon, F., “Le Messager Fidele” in Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry, Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation, edited by J.M. Bremer, LJ.F. de Jong andJ. Kalff (Amsterdam, 1987), 123 +. Leumann, M., Homerische

. Treasures of Thera (Athens, 1972).

-

Liritzis, V.M., “Seafaring, Crafis and Cultural Contact in the Aegean 17 (1988): 237- 56.

Liuauer, M.A., “The Military Use of the Chariot in the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age.” 17.1 76 (1972): 145 57. Littauer, M.A., and Crouwel, J.H., “Chariots in Late Bronze Age Greece,” Antiquity 57 (1983): 187--92. Greece,” 07:1 15 (1996): 297

—-, L’urbanisme dans la Grece antique (Paris, 1956).

Maynor Bikai, P.M., “The Phoenicians” in The Crisis Dears: The 12th Century B.C., edited by W.A. Ward and MLS. Joukowsky (Dubuque, 1992), 132-41.

- , Greek in a Cold Climate (Savage, 1991). Lohmann, D., Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias (Berlin, 1970).

Long, A.A., “Morals and Values in Homer,” JHS 90 (1970): 121

39.

The Avia Triadha Sarcophagus (Studies in Mediterranean

Archacology, vol. $1, Lund, 197-1). Lord, A.B., “Homer and Huso I: The Singer's Rests in Greek and Southslavic Heroic Song,” ‘APA 67 (1936): 106 13. . “Homer, Parry, and Huso,” {7.152 (19-18): 34 44. . “Homer and other Epic Poetry” in I Companion to Homer, edited by AJ.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York, 1962), 179 214. Tales (New York. 1973,

. Epie Singers and Oral Tradition Whaca and London, 1991. Lord. A.B.. and Parry, M.. Sertoceatian Heroic Songs, 1 and Belgrade, 195-4.

Cambridge, MA

Lord. A.B. Parıy. ML. and Bynum. DLE. Serbo Croatian Herne Songs Callected by Milman Parry WE

Cambridge.

MA,

1074.

Lorimer, H.L. "The Hoplite Phalans with Special Reference to the Poems of Archilochus and Tyrtacus.” BSE 1210417 2700158. © Home

and the Monuments

London,

1950.

Mark, S.E., “Odyssey 5.234 53 and Homeric Ship Construction: A Reappraisal,” 17.495 (1991): 441 45.

Martin, R.P., The Language of Heroes: Speech and ‘Performance in the liad (Ithaca and London, 1989).

305.

Lloyd-Jones, H., The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley, 1971).

. The Singer of

. “Das Schiffsfresko von Akrotiri, Thera,” ArchHom (1974) G: part 1, 140 57.

Marinatos, S., and Hirmer, M., Kprim xai Muxnvaixn Bldg (Athens, 1959).

Martin, R., Recherches sur Uagora grecque (Paris, 1951).

“Robert Drews and the Role of Chariotry in Bronze Age

Long, C.R.,

. “Kleidung-Haar-und Barttracht,” ArchHom (1967) 1: parts A, B. . Excavations at Thera, 1- VII (Athens, 1968- 1976).

Wörter (Basel, 1950).

Levi, P., 4 History of Greek Literature (Middlesex, 1985). in the 3rd Millennium B.C.,” [NA

1975).

Mackenzie, D., “Cretan Palaces and the Aegean Civilization. II.” BSA

Mazon, P., Introduction a ['Iliade (Paris, 1942). McArthur, J.K., Place-Names in the Knossos Tablets, Identification and Location, Minos Supplement 9 (Salamanca, 1993). McDonald, W.A., and Rapp, G., ‘The Minnesota Alessenian Expedition (Minneapolis, 1972). McFadden, G.H., “A Late Cypriote II] Tomb from Kourion, Kalorizki No. 40," 47-1 58 (1954): 131-42. McLeod, W., “The Bow and the Axes” in Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday, edited by KJ. Rigsby (Greek, Roman and Byzantine Monographs, No. 10, Durham, NC, 1984), 203-10. Mellart.J.. “Hatt, Arzawa and Ahhiyawa: A Review of the Present Stalemate in Historical and Geographical Studies” in Pla "Em eis Teaipyıov E. Mvdwvay. 1 i Athens, 1986), 74 84. Menkes, MLS. Ilerakler in the Homeric Epies (Diss. for Uhe Johns Hopkins University, 1978), Merkelbach, R.. “Die pisiswatische Redaktion der homnerischen Gedichte” Rh A552: 23 17. Miller. D.G.. Imprainaten, Ty pole, Oval

Homa?

Wastineton,

Culture, and “the New Orthodoxy: How

DCL.

1982.

Bibliography Mills,J., and White, R.. “The Identity of the Resins from the Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kag,” Archaeometry 31 (1989): 37-44.

--, Muxnvaixn Opnoxeia' Naoi, Bayıoi Kai rzuevn (Athens, 1977). ‚ Mycenae Rich in Gold (Athens, 1983).

Mylonas, G.E., and lakovidis, S.E., “Muxijvat.” Ergon 1975: 90-101.

Mobius, M., and Wrede, W., “Archäologische Funde in den Jahren 1926-1927,” 44 42 (1927): 345-410.

+,“ Avacxagn Muxnvev,” Praktika 1984: 233-40. -- -, “Muxiyvan,” Ergon 1984: 59-61.

Moore, M.B., “Exekias and Telamonian Ajax," 17.1 84 (1980): 417 34.

‚ ‘Muxjyvat,” Ergon 1985: 48

Morgan, L., The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera: A Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography (Cambridge, 1988).

49.

——, “Muxiyat,” Ergon 1986: 100. Alyres, J.L., “On the Plan of the Homeric House,” JHS 20 (1900):

128-50.

Morris, I., “The Use and Abuse of Homer,” C4 5 (1986): 81- 138.

» The Axes Yet Again,” CR 62 (1948): 113.

Morris, 1., and Powell, B.B., editors, 4 New Companion to Homer, Mnemosyne Supplement 163 (Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1997).

Naddaf, G., “The Atlantis Myth: An Introduction to Plato's Later Philosophy,” Phoenix 48 (1994): 189-209.

Morris, S.P., “A Tale of Two Cities: The Miniature Frescoes from

535.

——, “Homer and the Near East” in A Naw Companion to Homer, edited by I. Morris and B.B. Powell, Mfnemosyne Supplement 163 (Leiden, New York and Cologne,

1973).

—— ,‚"*"Avaoxasiı Muxnvev,” Praktika 1975: 153 61.

Mirié, S., Das Thronraumareal des Palastes von Anossos. Versuch einer Neuinterpretation seiner Entstehung und seiner Funktion (Bonn, 1979).

‘Thera and the Origins of Greek Poetry,” 474 93 (1989): 511

263 , O ragixds wüxAog B tv Munnvav (Athens, 1972

Nagler, M.N., Spontaneity and Tradition, A Study in the Oral Art of Homer (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1974). Nagy, B., “The Peplotheke: What was it?” in Studies Presented to Sterling

Dow on his Eightieth Birthday, edited by KJ. Rigsby (Greek, Roman and Byzantine Monographs, No. 10, Durham, NC, 1984), 227 32.

1997).

Morrison, J.S., and Williams, R.T., Greek Oared Ships (Cambridge, 1968). Moulton, C., Similes in the Homeric Poems (Göttingen, 1977). Miuhlestein, H., “Redende Personennamen bei Homer,” S\SEA 39 (1969): 67 94. Mühll, P. von der, Aritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias (Basel, 1952). Müller, K., “Frihmykenische Reliefs aus Kreta und von griechischen Festland,” JD/ 30 (1915).

Nagy, G., The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry (Baltimore and London, 1979). —

,“On the Death of Sarpedon” in Approaches to Homer, edited by C.A. Rubino and C.W. Shelmerdine (Austin, 1983), 189-217. ‚ Greek Mythology and Poetics (Ithaca and London, 1990).

——., Pindar’s Homer, the Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (Baltimore and London,

1990).

, “Homeric Questions,”

74PA

122 (1992): 17

60.

Müller, K., and Sulze, H., Tiryns, Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabugen des Instituts, III: Die Architecktur der Burg und des Palastes (Augsburg, 1930).

——-., Poetry as performance, Homer and beyond (Cambridge, 1996).

Miller, M., The Iliad (London, 1984).

Nauert, J.P., “The Hagia Triada Sarcophagus. An Iconographical Study,” AntK8 (1965): 91-98.

Murray, A.T., Homer, The Odyssey (Loeb edition, 1966).

Naveh, J., Early History of the Alphabet (Jerusalem, 1982).

—. Homer, The Iliad (Loeb edition, 1967).

Negbi, O., “Early Phoenician Presence in the Mediterranean Islands:

Murray, G., The Rise of Greek Epic (New York, 1934).

A Reappraisal,” 47A 96 (1992): 599-615.

Mylonas, G.E., “Eleusis in the Bronze Age,” 47.1 36 (1932): 104-17. —— , “The Figured Mycenaean Stelai,” 474 55 (1951): 134-47. —

, Oxperoatnxds dugopets tig “EXevoivos (Athens, 1957).

Nelson, H.H., The Earliest Historical Records of Ramses III, Medinet Habu, vol. 1-11 (Chicago, 1930, 1932).

, “Muxivan,” Ergon 1959: 93--100. —.” Avacxagn Muxnvev,” Praktika, 1959: 141

Neils,J., Goddess and Polis, The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens, with contributions by E,J.W. Barber, D.G. Kyle, B.S. Ridgway and H.A. Shapiro (Princeton, 1991).

45.

—-- , Aghios Kosmas, An Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery in Attica (Princeton, 1959).

Neugebauer, K.A., “Zeus von Dodona,” JD/ 49 (1934): 162-79. Niemeier, W.-D., “The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the

." Avaoxaeh üaxpordleng Muxnvav,” Praktika 1961: 155-60.

Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples” in Mediterrancan Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, in Honor of Profes-

, “Muxiyvat.

sor Trude Dothan, edited by S. Giten, A. Mazar and E. Stern

Axpoxoltg,” Erpon 1962: 95 97.

-- -,""H axpoxolts tev Muxnvev. Oi xepifodot, ai mbAat Kai ai Gvob5ou,” Ephemens 1962: 1--199. . “"Muxijvat,” Ergon 1963: 64 74. . Avacxagn Muxnvaiv,” Praktika 1964: 99

-—, Cults, Myths, Oracles, and Politics in Ancient Greece (Lund, 1951).

106.

--+."Priam’s Troy and the Date of its Fall." Hesperia 33 (196-4): 352

80.

.° Avacxagnh

Muxnvev.” Praktika 1965: 85

6.

+19

East Wing of the Palace at Mycenae,” Hesperia 35 (1966): 26.

. "Muxnvan.” Zrean 1970: 9-4

100.

. To Opnaxevrinov xévipoy rev Munnvor (Athens,

-, “Homer’s Kings Drawn from the Mycenaean Age” in Homer’s History, Mycenaean or Dark Age? edited by C.G. Thomas (New York, 1970), 80-92. Nisetich, FJ.. “Immortality in Acragas: Poetry and Religion in Pindar’s Second Olympian Ode.” CP 83 (1988): 1-19.

« Vicenac and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966). Phe

(Jerusalem, 1998), 17 65. Nilsson, M.P., The Minoan Mycenaean Religion and Its Surcival in Greek Religion (Lund, 1950).

19721.

Noack, F., Homerische Paläste. Eine Studie zu den Denkmäler zum Epos (Leipzig, 1903). Notopoulos, J.A.. “Homer and Cretan Heroic Poetry: A Study in Comparative Oral Poetry,” AP 73 (1952): 225-50.

264

TALES OF HEROES

— , “Homer, Hesiod and the Achacan Heritage of Oral Poetry.” Hespena 29 (1960): 177- 97. --, “The Homeric Hymns as Oral Poetry; A Study of the PostHomeric Oral Tradition,” 47P 83 (1962): 337-68.

Persson, A.W., The Royal Tombs at Dendra near Midea (Land, 1931). -

-, New Tombs at Dendra near Midea (Lund,

Berbati,” Bulletin de la société royale des lettres de Lund 3 (1937-1938): 59-63.

- , “Studies in Early Greek Oral Poetry,” HSCP68 (1964): 1 77. Nylander, C., “The Fall of Troy,” Antiquity 37 (1963): 7 10. Oakley, J.H., and Sinos, R.H., The 1993).

Wedding in Ancient Athens (Madison,

Ober,J., and Hedrick, C.W., editors, The Birth of Democracy, An Exhibi-

tion Celebrating the 2500th Anniversary of Democracy at the National Archives, Washington D.C. (Athens, 1993). Oliver, J.P., “The Inscribed Documents at Bronze Age Knossos” in Knossos, A Labyrinth of History, Papers presneted in honour of Sinclair Hood, edited by D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock and N. Momigliano (Oxford and Northampton, 1994), 157-70. Olson, S.D., “Equivalent Speech-Introduction Formulac in the Zliad,” Mnemosyne 47 (1994): 145 51. Pack, R.A., The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt (Ann Arbor, second edition, 1968).

Page, D.L., History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1963). —, Review of G. Schoeck, /lias und Aithiopis. Kyklische Motive in homerischer Brechung (Zurich, 1961) in CR new series 13 (1963): 21 -24. —. -, “Homer and the Trojan War,” JHS 84 (1964): 17-20. Palaima, T.G., “Maritime Matters in the Linear B Tablets” in Thalassa: L’Egte prehistorique et la mer, edited by R. Laffincur and L. Basch (Liége, 1991), 273 -310.

1942).

Persson, A.W., and Äkerström, A., “Zwei mykenische Hausaltäre in

Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of Ue Hellenistic Age (Oxford, 1968). Piggott, S., The Earliest Wheeled Transport from the Atlantic Coast to the Caspian Sea (Ithaca, 1983). Platthy,J., Sources on the Earliest Greek Libraries (Amsterdam, 1968). Plommer, H., “ ‘Shadowy Megara,’ ” JHS 97 (1977): 75 83. Pollard,J., Birds in Greek Life and Myth (London, 1977). Pope, M., “A Nouce-Word in the /lad,” CQ 35 (1985): 1-8. —

-, “The Alphabet Race,” Review of M. Bernal, Cadmran Letters: The Transmission of the Alphabet before 1400 B.C. (Eisenbrauns, 1990) in CR new series 42 (1992): 159-60.

Popham, M.R., “Precolonisation: early Greek contact with the East” in The Archaeology of Greek Colontsation, Essays dedicated to Str John Boardman, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis (Oxford, 1994), 11-34. -

-

“Late Minoan II and the End of the Bronze Age” in Anossos, A

Labyrinth of History, Papers presented in honour of Sinclair Hood, edited by D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock and N. Momigliano (Oxford and Northampton,

1994), 89

102.

Porter, J.., “Hermeneutic Lines and Circles: Aristarchus and Crates on the Exegesis of Homer” in Homer's Ancient Readers, The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic's Earliest Exegetes, edited by R. Lamberton andJ J. Keancy (Princeton, 1992), 67-114.

—~. “The Last days of the Pylos Polity” in Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, cdited by R. Laffiner and W.-D. Niemeicr, Aegacum 12 (1995), 623-37.

Postlethwaite, N., “Agamemnon Best of Spearmen,” Phoenix 49 (1995): 95-103.

Palmer, L.R., “The Language of Homer” in .4 Companion io Homer, edited by AJ.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York, 1962), 75--178.

Powell, B.B., Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet (Cambridge, 1991).

--, The Interpretation of the Mycenaean Greek Texts (Oxford, 1963).

Poulsen, F., Delphi (London, 1920). --, “Homer and Writing” in A New Companion to Homer, edited by 1. Morris and B.B. Powell, Afremosyne Supplement 163 (Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1997), 3- 32.

Papadopoulos, T J., Mycenaean Achaea (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 55:1, Göteborg, 1979).

Price, M., and Waggoner, N., Archate Greek Coinage: the Asyut Hoard (London, 1975).

Papazoglou-Manioudaki, I., contribution to Troy, Adycenae, Tiryns, Orchomenos; Heinrich Schliemann: The 100th Anniversary of his Death, A Catalogue to An Exhibition in the National Archaeological Muscum in Athens, edited by K. Demakopoulou (Athens, 1990), 386-87.

Pritchard, J.B., editor, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testa-

-

-,"“A Mycenaean Warrior’s Tomb near Patras,” BSA 89 (199-4): 171 200.

Park, H.W., Festivals of the Athenians (London,

1977).

Parry, A., “Have We Homer’s /liad?” YCS 20 (1966): 177-216.

ment (Princeton, second edition, 1955).

Pucci, P., Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and Iliad (Ithaca and London, 1987). Pulak, C., “The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign,” AJA 92 (1988): 1-37. Raaflaub, K.A., “Homeric Society” in A .Nee Companion to Homer, edited by I. Morris and B.B. Powell, Mnemosyne Supplement 163 (Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1997), 624-48.

, The Making of Homeric Verse, the Collected Papers of Milman Parry (Oxford, 1971).

Rabin, A., “The Medinet Habu Ships: Another Interpretation,” NA 18 (1989): 163-71.

Parsons, E.A., The Alexandrian Library: Glory of the Hellenic World (London, 1952).

Ramage, E.S., Adantis, Fact or Fiction, with contributions by J.V. Luce. S.C. Fredericks, J.R. Fears, D.B. Vitaliano and H.E. Wright,Jr.

—

Payne, H.. .Necrocorinthia, A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period (Oxford, 1931). -, Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis (London [1936]. Payton, R.. "The Cli Burun Writing-Board Set.” Anatolian Studies 41 “1991 990

106,

Pendelbury, J.D.S.. The Archacalogy af Crete London, 19671. Perdrizet. P. Fatalles de Delphes N: Monuments figures, petits bronzes, terres: eutles, antiquites diseres Paris. 1908),

(Bloomington and London,

1978).

Raubitschek, A.E., “Early Auic Votive Monuments,” BSA 40 (1939: 1910): 17 37. . Dedications from the Athenian Akropalis. A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the Sixth and Fifth Caaturies B.C. (Cambridge. MA, 1949). Rausing. G.. The Baie, Some Notes on its Origin and Development (Bonn and Lund,

1067).

Redfield, J.M.. Nature and Cultwe in the Hiad: ‘The Tragedy of Hector (Chicago and London.

1975:

Bibliography “The Economic Man” in Approaches to Homer, edited by C.A. Rubino and C.W. Shelmerdine (Austin, 1983), 218 47. Reeves, N., The Complete Tutankhamun: The King, Ur Tomb. the Royal Treasures (New York, 1990). Reichel, W., Homerische Waffen (Vienna,

1901).

Reinhardt, K., Tradition und Geist (Géttingen, 1960). —, Die Ilias und ihr Dichter (Göttingen,

1961).

Renfrew, C.A., with contributions by P.A. Mountjoy, E.W. French, J.C. Younger, J.F. Cherry, A. Daykin, J. Moody, L. Morgan and N. Dradford, The Archaeology of Cull. The Sanctuary at Phylakopi, BSA Supplement 18 (1985). Rhodes, P,J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981). Rhomiopoulou, R., “The Panathenaic Festival” in Mind and Body: Athletic Contests in Ancient Greece, A Catalogue of An Exhibition in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens (Athens, 1989) 41-46. Richardson, N_J., “Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Ikad. A Sketch,” CQ30 (1980): 265 - 87. —, “The Individuality of Homer's Language” in Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry, Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation, edited by J.M. Bremer, LJ.F. de Jong andJ. Kalff (Amsterdam, 1987), 165- 84. . “Aristotle's Reading of Homer and its Background” in Homer's Ancient Readers, The Hermeneutics of Greek Epie’s Earliest Exegetes, edited by R. Lamberton and J J. Keaney (Princeton, 1992), 30--40. , The Iliad: A Commentary, G.S. Kirk, general editor, vol. VI (Cambridge, 1993). Richter, G.M.A., The Portraits of the Greeks, vol. 1 (London, 1965). -—, Korai, Archair Greek Maidens (London, 1968). Ridgway, B.S., The Archaic Style of Greek Sculpture (Princeton, 1977). Ridgway, D., “Phoenicians and Greeks in the West: a view from Pithekoussai” in The Archaeology of Greck Colonisation, Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis (Oxford, 1994), 35-46. Risch, E., “Les différences dialectales dans le Mycénien” in Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, edited by L.R. Palmer and J. Chadwick (Cambridge, 1966), 150-57. Robb, K., Literacy and Phaideia in Ancient Greece (New York and Oxford, 1994).

265

Ruijgh, C,J., "D’Homere aux origines proto-mycéniennes de la tradition &pique. Analyse dialectologique du language homérique avec excursus sur la création de I’ alphabet grec” in Homeric Questions. Essays in Philology, Ancient History and Archaeology, Including the Papers of a Conference Organized by the Netherlands Institute at Athens (15 May 1993), edited by J.P. Crielaard (Amsterdam, 1995), 1 96. Ruipérez, M., “KO-RE-TE-RE et PO-RO-KO-RE-TE-RE a Pylos” in Etudes mycéniennes, Colloquium for Mycenaean Studies, edited by M. Lejeune (Paris, 1956), 105 20. Russo,J., “The Structural Form in Homeric Verse.” 268 20 (1966): 219-40. ——., “The Formula” in A Naw Companion to Homer, edited by I. Morris and B.B. Powell, Mnemosyne Supplement 163 (Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1997), 238-60. Russo,J., Fernändez-Galiano, M., and Heubeck, A., A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey, vol. III (Oxford, 1992). Rutherford, R.B., “The Philosophy of the Odyssey,” JHS 106 (1986): 145-62. Rutkowski, B., The Cult Places of the Aegean World (New Haven and London, 1986). Rystedt, E., “The Foot-Race and Other Athletic Contests in the Mycenacan World,” OpusAth 16 (1986): 103-16. Sackett, H., and MacGillivray, S., “Boyhood of a God. Two Unique Objects Found in Eastern Crete Strongly Suggest a Minoan Link to Zeus of Classical Mythology,” Archarology 42 (1989, September/October): 26-31. Sacks, R., The Traditional Phrase in Homer, Two Studies in Form, Meaning and Interpretation (New York, 1987). Sainer, A.P., “An Index of the Place Names at Pylos,” SUEA 17 (1976): 17-63. Sakellariou, A., Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel, 1, Athens, edited by F. Matz and H. Biesantz (Berlin, 1964). ——, “Un cratére d'argent avec scene de battaille provenant de la IVe tombe de l’acropole de Mycenes,” AntK 17 (1974): 3-20. —, “La scene du «siége» sur le rhyton d’argent de Mycénes d’apres une nouvelle reconstitution,” RA 1975: 195-208. --, “The West House Miniature Frescoes” in Thera and the Aegean

World, Papers and Proceedings of the Second International Scientific Con-

Robertson, M., A History of Greek Art (Cambridge, 1975).

gress, Santorini, Greece, August 1979, edited by C. Doumas (London,

Robertson, M., and Frantz, A., The Parthenon Frieze (London, 1975). Robinson, D., Excavations at Olynthus, II: Architecture and Sculpture (Baltimore, 1930). —

-, Excavations at Olynthus, XII: Domestic and Public Architecture (Baltimore,

1946).

Robinson, D., and Graham, J.W.. Excavations at Olynthus, VIII: The Hellenic House (Baltimore, 1938) Rodenwaldt, G., “Fragmente mykenischer Wandgemalde,” .11/ 36 (1911): 221 -50. —

--, Tiryns, Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabugen des Instituts, 11: Die Fresken des Palastes (Berlin, 1912). —. Der Fries des Megarons von Mykenai (Halle. 1921).

Rösler, W., “Die Entdeckung der Fiktionalitat,” Poetica 12 (1980): 283-319. Rougier-Blanc. S.. “MPOAOMOE et AISOYEA, remarques sur les distine-

tions s¢émantiques et fonctionelles entre deux tennes d’architecture emloyées chez Homére,” REG 109 (1996): 44-61. Rowe, C,J.. “The Nature of Homeric Morality” in Approaches to Homer, edited by CA. Rubino and C.W. Shelmerdine (Austin, 1983). 248 75.

1980) II, 147- 53. Sakellariou, A., see also Xenaki-Sakellariou, A Sale, W.M., Review of M.S. Jensen, The Homeric Question and the OralFormulaic Theory (Copenhagen, 1980) in AJP 104 (1983): 295 -95. ——,

“The Formularity of the Place Phrases,” TAPA

117 (1987):

21-39. Sanders, N.K., “The First Aegean Swords and Their Ancestry,” 47.4 65 (1961): 17- 29. -—, “Later Aegean Bronze Swords,” 474 67 (1963): 117-53. — —. The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean (London, 1978). Santerre, H.G. de, Delos primitive et archaique (Paris, 1958). Schachermeyt, F., Mykene und das Hethiterrach (Vienna, 1986). Schadewaldı. W.,

Fon Homers

Welt und Werk (Stuttgart, 1959).

Schaeffer, C.F.A., “Enkomi,” 47.452 (1948): 165-77. Schefold, K., Gotler- und Heldensagen in der griechischen Kunst der spätarchaischen Zeit (Munich, 1978). Scheibner, G., Der Aufbau des 20. und 21. Buches der Ilias (Borna and Leipzig. 1939.

266

TALES OF HEROES

Schliemann, H., .Vycenae: A Narrative of Researches and Discoveries at Mycenae and Tiryns (New York, 1880). -, Tirıns, Der prähistorische Palast der Könige von Tiryns (Leipzig, 1886).

Shive, D., Naming Achilles (New York and Oxford, Simon, E., Festivals of Attica (Madison,

Sinos, $.. Die vorklassischm Hausformen in der Agdis (Mainz am Rhein,

1971).

Schlunk, R.R., “The Theme of the Suppliant-Exile in the Zhad,” .17P

97 (1976): 199-209.

Skutsch, O., “Helen, her Name and Nature,” JAS 107 (1987): 188 93.

Schofield, L., and Parkinson, R.B., “Of Helmets and Heretics: A Possible Egyptian Representatiomn of Mycenaean Warriors on a Papyrus from El-Amarna,” BSA 89 (1994): 157 70. Schuchhardt, W.-H., “Rundwerke ausser den Koren” in H. Schrader,

Die Archaischm Marmorbildwerke der Akropolis (Frankfurt am Main. 1939). Schweitzer, B., Greek Geometric Art (London, 1971).

Slatkin, L.M., The Power of Thetis, Allusion and Interpretation in the [liad

(Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford, 1991). Smithson, E.L., “The Tomb of a Rich Athenian Lady, ca. 850 B.C..." Hespena 37 (1968): 77-116. Snodgrass, A.M., Early Greek Armour and Vi capons (Edinburg, 1964). -

-, “The Linear

(1965): 96 110.

Scodel, R., “The Achacan Wall and the Myth of Destruction,” HSCP

B Arms and Armour Tablets - Again,” Aadmos 4

- -, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Ithaca and London,

86 (1982): 33-50.

1967).

—, The Dark Age of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries (Edinburgh, 1971).

— .“The Wits of Glaucus.” 74P4 122 (1992): 73 -84. Scott, J.A., “Paris and Hector in Tradition and in Homer,” CP8 (1913): 160-71.

- , “An Historical Society?” JHS 94 (197-4): ‚ Archaic Greece, The Age of Experiment (London,

— — , The Unity of Homer (New York, 1965, reprint of Sather Classical Lectures, vol. I, Berkeley, 1921).

-

Scott, W.C., The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile (Leiden, 1974).

114-25. 1980).

, “Homer in Greek Art” in A New Companion to Homer, edited by 1. Morris and B.B. Powell, .\nemosyne Supplement 163 (Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1997), 560.-82.

Solmsen, F., “The ‘Gift of Speech in Homer and Hesiod,” TAPA 85 (1954): 1-15.

Scully, S., Homer and the Sacred City (Ithaca and London, 1990). Sealey, R., “From Phemios to lon,” REG 70 (1957): 312

1987).

1983).

51.

Seymour, T.D., Life in the Homeric Age (New York, 1914).

Spitaels, P., “The Early Helladic Period in Mine No. 3" in Thorikos VIN, 1972/1976 (Gent, 1984), 151-74.

Shapiro, H.A., Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens (Mainz, 1989).

Spruyette, J., Etudes experimentales sur Vatielage (Paris, 1977).

» ‘Mousikoi Agoncs: Music and Poetry at the Panathenaia™ in Goddess and Polis, The Panatheaic Festival in Ancient Athens, edited by J. Neils (Princeton, 1992), 53- 75. Shaw, J.W., “Excavations at Kommos (Crete) During 1982- 1983,” Hesperia 53 (1984): 251 87. - - -, “Phoenicians in Southern Crete,” 17.4 93 (1989): 165-83.

Stanford, W.B., The Odyssey of Homer, Introduction and Commentary (London, 1958-1959). Stanley, K., The Shield of Homer, Narrative Structure in the [liad (Princeton, 1993) Stansbury-O’Donnell, M.D., “Polygnotos’s /liupersis: A New Reconstruction,” 47d 93 (1989): 203-15.

Shaw, J.W., and Blitzer, H., “Stone Weight Anchors from Kommos, Crete,” [NA 12 (1983): 91- 100.

--

Shaw, M.C., “The Bull-Leaping Fresco from below the Ramp House at Mycenae. A Study in Iconography and Artistic Transmission.” BSA 91 (1996): 167-90.

Stewart, A., Greek Sculpture: An Exploration (New Haven and London, 1990).

Shear, I.M., Mfycenacan Domestic Architecture (Diss for Bryn. Mawr College, 1968). . “The Panagia Houses at Mycenae and the ‘Potter's Shop’ at Zygouries” in Pidta "Ern eig Tedpyiov E. Mudevav, | (Athens, 1986), 85-98. - —, The Panagia Houses at Mycenae (Philadelphia, 1987). , ‘Bellerophon tablets from the Mycenaean World? A tale of seven bronze hinges,” JHS 118(1998): 187 - 89. —

“The Western Approaches to the Athenian Akropolis,” JHS 119(1999): 86 -127.

Shear, T.L., “The Campaign of 1939.” Hesperia 9 (1940): 261

307.

Shear, T.L... Jr.. “Tyrants and Buildings in Archaic Athens” in Adhens Comes of ge, From Solon to Salamis, Papers af a Symposium Sponsored by the Archaeological Institute of America. Princeton Society and the Department of Art and Archacology, Princeton Cniversity (Princeton, 1978), 1 19. . Aallias of Sphetton and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BC. Hesperia Supplement 17 1978). Shelmerdine. C\W.. The Perfume Industry of Mycenaean Prlos Studies in Mediterranean Archacology. Pocket-book 34, Goteborg, 198). Shipp. G.P.. Stadies in the Langage af Homer (Cambridge, second edition, 1972.

+, “Polygnotos’s Nekyia: A Reconstruction and Analysis,” 47.4 94 (1990): 212. 35.

Stillwell, R., “Excavations at Morgantina (Serra Orlando) 1962: Preliminary Report VII,” 474 67 (1963): 163 71. —-, editor, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (Princeton,

1976).

Stroud, R., The «Lrones and Kyrbeis of Drakon and Solon (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1979). —-

-, Drakon’s Law on Homicide (Berkeley and Los Angeles,

1968).

Stubbings, F.H., “Arms and Armour” in | Companion to Homer, edited by A J.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York, 1962), 504-22. —

„Food and Agriculture” in Al Companion to Homer, edited by AJ.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York,

1962),

523 30. -, “Crafis and Industries” in A Companion to Homer, edited by AJ.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York, 1962), 531 38. . “Communications and Trade” in 1 Companion to Homer, edited by AJ.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York, 1962), 539 +}. "The Recession of Mycenaean Civilization” in CAH (third edition, 1975). vol. II. part 2. 3-43 46. Stubbings. F.H.. and Thomas, H.. “Lands and People in Homer"

Companion to Homer, edited by A,J.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings London

and New

York.

1902), 283°

310.

in 4

Bibliography

267

Stubbs, H.W., “The Axes Again,” CR 62 (1948): 12-13.

Tsountas, C., and Manat, J.l., The Alycenaean Age (London, 1897).

Szlezak, T.A., “Atlantis und Troia, Platon und Homer: Bemerkungen zum Wahrheitsanspruch des Adantis-Mythos,” Studia Troica 3 (1993): 133-37.

Vandenabeele, F., “L’idéogramme de l’armure sur une tablette en

Tamvaki, A., “Some Unusual Mycenaean Terracottas from the Citadel House Area, 1954-69,” BSA 68 (1973): 207--65.

Taplin, O., Homeric Soundings, The Shaping of the Iliad (Oxford, 1992). Televanto, C.A., ‘Axpenip: Orjpas. Oi toızoypapies tig AuTiKTis Oixiag (Athens, 1994). ——-, The “Ivory Houses” at Mycenae (Oxford and Northampton, 1995). Thalmann, W.G., Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry (Baltimore and London, 1984). Theocharis, D.R., “* Avacxagn puxnvaixdv Sadauoe Sav tagov napa 10 Méya Movaotipıov (Aapions),” Delton 19 (1964): chronika, 255-58. -—, *"O vipBos tov’ EEaAdgou kai ni eioßoAn tov Cecoaldv.” ALL | (1968): 289-92. Thomas, C.G., editor, Homer's History, Mycenaean or Dark Age? with contributions by C.M. Bowra, D.L. Page, W. Gladstone, T.B.L. Webster, R. Carpenter, L.R. Palmer, M.I. Finley W.F. Otto, C.G. Thomas, C.H. Gordon, W,J. Woodhouse and J.A. Scott (New York, 1970).

Linéaire B de Tirynthe,” BCH 102 (1978): 25-39. Varoufakis, G., “The Origin of Mycenaean and Geometric Iron on the Greek Mainland and in the Aegean Islands” in Early Metallurgy in Cyprus 4000-500 B.C., Congress held on Cyprus, June l.-6, 1988, edited by J.D. Muhly, R. Maddin and V. Karageorghis (Nicosia. 1982), 315-19. Ventris, M., and Chadwick,J.. Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cam-

bridge, 1956). Verdelis, N.M., “A Private House Discovered at Mycenae.” Archaeology 14 (1961, Spring): 12-17. —- „“The West House.” The Mycenae Tablets III, edited by J. Chadwick, in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 52 (1962): 13 -29. —-

.""Avasxagıı Muxnvev,” Praktika 1963: 65-89. Vermeule, E.D.T., “The Mycenacans in Achaia,” 474 64 (1960):

1-21. -— , Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago and London, 1964). --, “Painted Mycenaean Larnakes,” JHS 85 (1965): 123-48. -. “*Priam’s Castle Blazing’ A Thousand Years of Trojan Memories” in Troy and the Trojan War, A Symposium Held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984, edited by M,J. Mellink (Bryn Mawr, 1986), 77-92.

Thomas, R., Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 1989). --—, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, 1992). Thompson, H.A., The Tholos of Athens and its Predecessors, Hesperia Supplement 4 (1940). -, “The Excavations of the Athenian Agora, Twelfth Season:

1947," Hesperia 17 (1948): 149-96. Thompson, H.A., and Wycherley, R.E., The Athenian Agora, Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, XIV: The Agora of Athens, The History, Shape and Uses of an Ancient City Center (Princeton, 1972).

, “Muxivar. Oixiar cai tagor,” Ergon 1962: 94-104.

——, “Baby Aigisthos and the Bronze Age,” PCPS 33 (1987): 122-52. Vermeule, E.D.T., and Karageorghis, V., Mycenacan Pictorial Vase Painting (Cambridge, MA and London, 1982). Vermeule, E.D.T., and Travlos,J., “Mycenaean Tomb beneath the Middle Stoa,” Hesperia 35 (1966): 55-78. Vidal-Naquet, P., “Land and Sacrifice in the Odyssey: A Study of Religious and Mythical Meanings” in Myth, Religion and Society, edited by R.L. Gordon (Cambridge, 1981), 80-94.

Tilley, A.F., and Johnston, P., “A Minoan Naval Triumph?” [744 5 (1976): 285-92.

, “Athens and Adantis: Structure and Meaning of a Platonic Myth” in Myth, Religion and Society, edited by R.L. Gordon (Cambridge, 1981), 201-15.

Touchefeu-Meynier, O.. Themes odysséens dans Uart antique (Paris, 1968). Tournavitou, 1., The ‘Ivory Houses‘ at Alycenae (Oxford and Northampton, 1995).

Vivante, P., The Eputhets of Homer, A Study in Poetic and London, 1982).

Trianti, I., “Napatnphoers ce 500 ouddeg yAuntav tov TEAOUG tov 6ou aieva and thy AxpéxoAn” in The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy, Proceedings of an International Conference celebrating 2500 years since the birth of democracy in Greece, held in the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 4-6, 1992, edited by W.D.E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T.L. Shear, Jr., H.A. Shapiro and F J. Frost (Oxbow Monograph 37, Oxford, 1994), 83-91.

Wace, AJ.B., “Excavations at Mycenae,” with contributions by W.A.

Trypanis, C.A., Greek Poetry from Homer to Seferis (London and Boston, 1981). Tsetskhladze, G.R., “Greek Penetration of the Black Sea” in The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis (Oxford,

Ith

1994),

35.

Tsountas. C., *’ Avaoxagai Muxnvev tod 1886” Praktika 1886: 59 79. —." -,"

Avacxagai tagev Ev Muntvatc,” Ephemeris 1888: 119-79. Avacxagai tagov Ev Muxivais,” Ephemeris 1889:

- ,° Ex Muxnvöv.” Ephemens 1891: 25: 26. --. “Tpartm oman ex Mucnvov.” Ephemeris 1896: | 22. ."Keoaan ex Muxnvov,” Ephemens 1902: 1- 10.

130

72.

Values (New Haven

Heurtley, W. Lamb, L.B. Holland and C.A. Boethius, BSA 25

(1921--23). -—, Chamber Tombs at Mycenae (Oxford, 1932). ——, Mycenae, An Archaeological History and Guide (Princeton, 1949). -

, “Notes on the Homeric

House,”

JHS

71 (1951): 203-11.

—-—, “Mycenae, Preliminary Report on the Excavations of 1953," BSA 49 (1954): 231-43. ——, “Preliminary Report on the Excavations of 1954.” B&4 50 (1955): 175-89. -, “Preliminary Report on the Excavations of 1955,” BSA 51 (1956): 103-22. ——, “Introduction” to The Mycenae Tablets 11, edited by E.L. Bennett, Jr. in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 48 (1958): 3 9. -, “Mycenae” in A Companion to Homer, edited by AJ.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York, 1962), 386- 98. ——. “Houses and Palaces” in A Companion to Homer, edited by A.J.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York, 1962), 489 97.

268

TALES OF HEROES

Wace,

A J.B., and Wace, H.P., “Dress” in 1 Companion to Homer, edited

by AJ.B. Wace and F.H. Stubbings (London and New York, 1962), 498 -503. Wachsmann, S., “The Thera Waterborne

GNA

West, S.R., The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer in Papyrologica (.oloniensta. vol. 3 (Cologne and Opladen, 1967). -

Procession Reconsidered,”

(1980): 287 95.

-, Review of MLS. Jensen, The Homeric Question and the Oral-Formulaic

Theory (Copenhagen, 1980) in JHS 102 (1982): 245 +6. Whatmough,J., "aENEP OMHPOE oHz1,” 474 52 (1948): 45-50.

~ ~, “The Ships of the Sea Peoples,” 7.X.1 10 (1981): 187 220. ~ —, “Paddled and Oared Ships before the Iron Age” in The «Lge of the Galley, Mediterranean Oared Ships since Pre-Classical Times, edited by R. Gardiner (Conwey’s History of the Ship, Bath, 1995), 10 35. Wade-Gery, H.T., The Poet of the Iliad (Cambridge, 1952). Waldbaum, J.C., From Bronze to Iron, The Transition from the Bronze „gr to the Iron Age in the Eastern Mediterranean (Goteborg, 1978).

Whitman, C.H., Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Cambridge, MA and London, 1958). Wiener, M.H., “Trade and Rule in Palatial Crete” in The Function of the Minoan Palaces, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10 -16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (Stockholm, 1987), 261-67. Wiesner,J., “Fahren und Reiten.” ArchHom (1968) F: 1-144.

Ward, W.A., and Joukowsky, M.S., editors, The Crisis Nears: The 12th Century B.C. (Dubuque, 1992).

Willcock, M.M.. A Commentary on Homer's Iüad, Books I-IV (London. 1970).

Wardle, D.E.H., “Does Reconstruction Help? A Mycenaean Dress and the Dendra Suit of Armour” in Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, edited by E.W. French and K.A. Wardle (Bristol, 1988), 469-76.

Wolf, F.A., Prolegomena to Homer, 1795, translated with introduction and notes by A. Grafton, G.W. Most and J.E.G. Zetzel (Princeton, 1985).

Warren, P.M., “The Defensive Armour of the Mycenaeans,” Review of P.C. Guida, Le anmi difensive dei Micenai nelle figurazioni (Rome, 1973) in CR new series 28 (1978): 103- 105.

Woodford, S., “Ajax and Achilles Playing a Game on an Olpe in Oxford,” JHS 102 (1982): 173-85.

-, “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978 -80,° JHS Archaeological Reports for 1980-1981: 73- 92. — . “Knossos: New Excavations and Discoveries.” ‚Ircharology 37 (1984, July/August): 48. Webster, T.B.L., From Afycenae to Homer (London,

1958).

Wees, H. van, “Leaders of Men? Military Organisation in the /L/AD,~ CQ36 (1986): 285- 303. ~ -, “The Homeric Way of War: The /liad and the Hoplite Phalanx,” GER, second series, ‘41 (1994):

Wood, M., dn Search of the Trojan War (New York and Oxford, 1985).

Wright, J.C., “The Mycenaen Entrance System at the West End of the Akropolis of Athens,” Ffesperia 63 (1994): 323: 60. Wyau, W.F., Jr., “Homer’s Linguistic Forebears.” JHS 112 (1992): 167 -73. Wycherley, R.E., The Athenian Agora, Results of Excavations Conducted by the ‚American School of Classical Studies at Athens, II: Literary and Epigraphtcal Testimonia (Princeton, 1957). Xenaki-Sakellariou, A., Oi @aAapertoi rapoı rav Muxnvav. avaoxagns

Xp. Tootvra (18871898) (Paris, 1985).

1--18, 131-55.

Xenaki-Sakellariou, A., sce also Sakellariou, A.

Weicker, C., “Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1955," Ist\ fiat 7 (1957): 102 -32. -, “Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet

~ , The Iliad of Homer, Books I XII (London, 1978).

1957,” with

addition by A. Mallwitz, /st\fitt 9- 10 (1959--1960): 1-95. Wells, B., Runnels, C., and Zangger, E., “In the Shadow of Mycenac,

Archaeology 46 (1993, January/February): 54 58, 63.

Yalouris, N., “Patras,” BCH 78 (1954): 124

25.

Younger, J.G., “Bronze Age Representations of Aegean Bull-Games, IK” in Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by R. Laffinier and W.-D. Niermeier, Aegarum 12 (1995), 507-45. Zangger, E., The Flood from Heaven, Deciphering the Atlantis Legend (London, 1992).

Wender, D., “Homer, Avdo Mededovic and the Elephant's Child.” AJP 98 (1977): 327 47.

— , “Landscape Changes around Tiryns during the Bronze Age,” AJA 9B (1994): 189. 212.

Werner, K., The Megaron during the Aegean and Anatolian Age, A study of occurrence, shape, architectural adaptation, and function (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 103, Göteborg, 1993).

Zanker, P., The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. translated by A. Shapiro (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford, 1995).

West, M.L., “The Rise of the Greek Epic,” JAS 108 (1988): 151

Zantzen, U., "Archäologische Fund vom Sommer 1937 bis Sommer 1938,” 1453 (1938): 541-85.

-

-, “The Descent of Greek Epic: A Reply,” JHS 112 (1992): 173- 75. . “The Date of the Iliad,” MusHel 52 (1995): 203

19.

72.

Zschietzschmann, W., “Homer und die attische Bildkunst um 560,” JDI 6 (1931): 45-60.

INDEX OF ANCIENT

AUTHORS

SOURCES CITED EXCLUDING THE /LIAD AND THE ODrsser

References to notes are indicated in parentheses after the page number on which they occur.

149 213(35) 149, 225(65), 230(170) 148 148 201(81) 201(81)

244(140) 244(140) 149 212(18), 223(43) 212(18), 223(43) 232(192)

Poetics

229135) 22453)

226(83) 226(83) 226(74) 148 223(44) 231(178) 231(180) 148, 213(36) 225(64) 230(164) 230(170) 147 212(23), 223(44) 2. 45 36. 11 Diodorus

149 231(180)

Siculus

4.2.4

Diogenes Laertius Socrates 2.43 2. 46

223(44) 244(140) 244140) 231(182) 15617), 231(77)

1.48 224(53) 1.57 22454, 60), 227(93) Tımon 9.113 226(85) Xenophanes 9. 2. 231(177) 9. 18 156(17, 25), 231(176) 9. 18-19 231(177) Dionysius Thrax, schol. Bekker, Anecdota Graeca (Berlin, 1816) Il, 768 118(115) Etymologicum Magnum 5.0. UREPOTOV 167(186) Eustathius [kad Book |, introduction 227(104) 1.6 148 1. 22 148 1.30 44 228(115) 1. 32-35 228(115) 1. 41-42 228(115) 1. 399 148 2. 390 148 2. 709 148 2. 865 226(85) 3. 485 148 4.17 148 5.29 146 10. 1 227(93) 11.1 227(91) Odyssey 1.128 171(312) Galen

176(59) 233(207) 234252)

Soon

Hippocratic ibrum iti epidemiarum comentarüi iii, ed. Kühn XVII/I p- 607 227(105) Gellius Noctes Atticae 7.17.1-2 226(74, 77, 83) 20. 7 213(35) Greek Anthology 5. 293 199(11) 11. 442 224(48) 14. 102 225(63) s.v. Opnpidar 148 Heraclitus frag. 42 231(175) Herodotus 1.53 148 2.52 2.53 155(14), 213(49), 228(1 19), 230(158) 2. 116 156(32), 230(169) 2. 116-17 233(41) 2.118 216(118) 4.29 156(32), 230(169) 4. 29.3 212(18), 233(43) 4. 32.7 223(44) 4. 148 210(137) 5.65 22455), 233(209) 5.67 223(39) 5. 90 226(78) 7.6 7.6.3 226(75), 233(205), 233208)

241(76) 201(81) 201(81) 201(81) 241(75) 341(77, 78) 241(76) 241(76) 241(76) 238(73) 238(75) 241(78) 241(77) 201(81) 201(81) 201(81) 201(81) 241(77, 78) 24 1(76) 202(1 10) 241(76)

Shield of Heracles 102 117

Episı Homer

34

216(121)

241(n.75) 231(70) 241(79) 231(790 241(76) 241(76) 231(70) 241(76) 241(76) 226(74)

Schol. on the /liad 1.5 1. 298 3. 39 3.145 3. 250 7. 238 9. 168 9. 169 9. 182 9. 192 9. 197 10. 1 11.12 11.104 14. 241 15.64 -77 16. 236 21. 363

134, 213(53) 226(85)

235(15) 227(93), 230(159) 227(101) 227(89) 227(89) 227(98) 149 227(89)

270

TALES OF HEROES

Schol. on the Odyssey 1. 38 1.52 1. 424 6. 477 7.80- Al 11. 602-4 23. 296

227(91) 227(89) 227(91) 205(3) 227(93) 227(93) 231(184)

Homeric Hymas 2 to Demeter 78 112 182 224 247 319 320 360 374 434 442 3 to Apollo 50 172

241(70) 155(2)

241(77)

ll! 312 314 323 418 451 474 502

241(70) 241(77) 241(76) 241(76) 210(125) 241(70) 241(72) 24173)

+ to Hermes

333 435 5 to Aphrodite 8 86 88 94 107 184

241(75) 2+41(70) 2:1(76), 241(76) 201(B1) 201(110) 241(76) 241(74) 201(110), 241(70)

191

241(74)

20 to Hephaestus 2

241(76)

28 to Athena

2

241(76)

10

241(76)

lo. Tzetzes De comedia Graeca, Ma, 24-5; Mb 32-3,Ph 22

Isocrates Helen 65.1 Panegyricus 159

1.8.5 2. 18.9 2. 28.9 5.17.5 5. 19. 2 5. 19.3 5.19.4 5.19.5 7.26. 13 8. 53.2 9.9.5 9. 30. 3 10. 24.2 10. 25. +

Pericles Solon 224(57) 171(312) 226(83) 233(208, 209) 224(55) 212(19) 212(22) 212(23) 212(20) 212(22) 225(62), 228(117), 230(165) 222(140) 223(44) 22.447) 22447) 223(40)

Pindar Isthmia 4 37-39 Nemea 2 Schol.2.1 Schol.2.1-3

150 223(44) 223(44) 148, 224(59), 231(173) 150, 237(42) 150 232(200) 150

Nemea7 20-24 thia 2 Pythia 4 277-79 Pytia 1 33 Plato Critas 108, 1110-11, 111, 113 4,116, 117, 119

Euthyphro

150 141-142

6,8 530. a- b 530. d 530. d. 7 Phacdrus 252. b. 4 Republic 10. 595- 607 10. 599. e Tunaios 21.b 25

[Plato]

21471) 225(61) 213(36) 148 148 213(51) 148, 213(36) 224(54) 142

Hipparch. 228. b 228. b-c

226(74, 83) 148 214(56), 230(168)

Pliny Ep. N.H.

Theseus Moraka

230(170)

4. 3-4 148 4.4 149 13.11 226(84) 10 224(53) 10. 2 E 20.1 226(75), 227(93), 233(213) 496. d--e 148 1132.¢ 149

[Plutarch] Life of Homer 2.4

146

Proclus In Rep

1.1 04

Quintilian 5. 11. 40 Simonides frag. 32

243(111) 224(53) 231(178)

Strabo 1.1.2 1.1.11 1.2.3 9.1.10 9. 11. 30 10. 4.8 10.4. 19 10.4.12 13. 1. 27 14.1. 18 14. 1. 28 14. 1. 35 14. 1. 35-37 Suda s.v. Apktivog s.v. Darviidns

212(18), 223(43) 212(18), 223(43) 212(18), 223(43) 22453) 244140) 244140) 148, 149 231(180) 226(85) 148, 149, 223(44) 228(111) 148, 149, 228(111) 228(111) 148, 156(18) 156(25), 231(180)

Tertullianus

Ion

147

Isidorus Etymologiarum sive originum 6. 3. 3-5

148

Pausanias

241(73) 241(70) 201(81) 241(75) 241(70) 201(81) 241(70) 201(81) 201(81) 241(70) 201(81)

96

Lycurgos 4

(Lucian] Demosth. Encom. 17.14 Lycurgos Against Leocrates 10 frag. 8.1

9. 36 34.70

Platarch Alcibiades7. | Alexander 7 26

224(58), 225(67) 226(76) 144, 235(2) 226(83) 226(85) 226(85), 227(90) 226(85)

Apologeticus

18.5

Thucydides 1. 25 1.3 1.5 1.9 1. 10.4 Ltd 1.12 1.3. 1-3 3. 104. 4 Valerius Maximus 2. 10 ext. 1 Memorabilia 4.2.11 Symposium 3.5.7

226(74) 207(32) 223(43) 206(25) 143 210129) 216(118) 143 212(18) 223(44) 226(83)

226(85) 230167)

INDEX OF REFERENCES

TO THE ILIAD AND THE ODYSSEY

References to the diagrams are indicated by a d. in parentheses following the page number. References to notes are in parentheses following the page number on which they occur.

2085701

237168 239.271

31020:

123:d. Fı. 208178,.

239.26; hid. C:

211147:

12 lid. Co

123id. F:

12lıd. Cı

40:90: 192: 041: 240:20: 121. 240:30:

123d. F: 210:140:. 240 11

200 1093

23912)

120vcl. B)

218163)

24031) 209(79, 96) 80142), 210110) 20979) 210127) 12] 121 238(77) 21344 20996) 2431) 209791 121 17543) 20979) 200182; 201251 2009:

120:d. B) 230171

120:d. Bi, 2361231. 23418) 120id. Bi

23012, 19) 23412) 120id. B) 210014

16301301, 24166)

240040)

123d. F) 123id. Fj 240041)

123(d. 24042)

123id. F) 123(d. F)

209(96) 209(82)

24031) 240(50) 20117) 202117) 120id. By, 239118)

207415, 222115)

18220 2.41169) I2lıd. Cy, 20979:

23925: hd. C) 12d. Ch 12lid. Ci, 204155 2376-5, 250,36: 1? hıd. C: Pa hd. CG bd cs 200-79), 24100805 bd:

2015-6

2357; 12 lid. Ch

2.58 2.59 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.61 2.62 2.63 2.64 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.67 2.68 2.69 2.70 2.70a 2.71 2.72 2.73 2.74 2.75 2.76 2.78 2.79 2.83 2.34 2.84

2.86 2.88 2.9] 2.93 2.95 2.700 2,108 2.110 2111 2.113 2.134

23097);

278152; 240311 218155 Ihr 210031: 210531: 248%. 243.110: 24073 1; 198-4, 3)

12lid. Cj, 207143. 245121, 244143: 121d. Gai

121ıd. Ca 12d.

Gi

2370-4 23927, 12 Id. Ca 12d. Ch 12lıd. Ch 12lid. CG 12lid. 20,158: 23761 121:d.C: 121:4.C 121:d.C 12d. C 23%27\ 1d. ©) 12d. C) 12d. CH 12h. C)

64 69

69

20479;

240.31 175.31. 240131. 161:101:

2031) IB1:178) 2POQ 100 1730340) 2403) 2015-1)

240131) 188325) 240315 24031; 2082) 24031 20988. Mi 218161: 3431;

121d. C). 20990)

12nd. CG) 235(8) 175(43), 240315 3181158) 114. 121. 23928) 113 14, 235710). 24029;

83

100

3

21) 218163) 209 100:

24031)

2.

240.20:

ict

1.2456 1.253

1921123) 189(336, 339; 220173 241169; 2398; 2021117) 189336) 18%336, 339, 341) 24x31) 175(43) 189(345) 175(43), 240(31) 243(107) 216(123), 241(79)

120:d. Bi. 23916)

2009] Mo: |

110.218 152: 2150 240 20, JO 2K OST 131

2001053 240130: 210:30209079, 81: 200-88, 96; 210-30: 21030: 210030, 20990, 24030, 209/105), 210341 19915: 23877) 185:2745, 240311

hte

20% 104) 1914135 189353), 191391,

120:d. Bs, 23915)

199: 18) 120d. A;

8512741, 240031;

Wists

2-HK50)

236/233, 23013) 240123

)

199.301

2s IN ln . ~

120:d. Bi. 23918)

QS: 209:96) 242:89), 243110)

120d. B: 236(23:, 23912; 120. B, 120:d. B:

WwW toe ia oe con = > 7

240/31;

23014:

st

23134 120d. Bi, 236:23;

15 In IS tNI bsbe Le =

120:d. Bi

2400305 240130;

we ft

2372041, 239126) 121:d.C; 121:d.C: bd ©: hid. CG: 23927; 12lid. Ca 121ıd. Ca

=

120id. Bi. 236123;

20998} 24050) 1737344 120d. B) 202117; 175643: 175043) 1750433, 240031) 20X9R: 192.40) 175443) 134

240.30:

Ibid. Ci, 23027: 12l:d. Ci, 2040154:

120id. Bi. 239112;

tn

213/92: 20979: 192/439) 12]

2020

fo

ILIAD

21031) 24030) 24035) 1781135 el 1795427; 200: 104; 159,401 120id. B 120k.

180-162:

B

ad. Be 121. 23062324031: 2312 Lok B

272

TALES OF HEROES

1801-42). 2107110),

2.071 7 2.672 2.673 2.074 2.676 2.676 7 2.678

2.078 7 2.680

20006), 2140745,

wo!

NS IS vi

ws -

1]

NNNNE ==

2.541

2396: 21+711.217:139: 31479 204156; 18512691. 186.277) 20696), 2147-4). 256) 21501} 227/93) 215102)

21469), 216119

1735316 1811182, 233/210) 237163} 181(182, 183) 1811835 20996), 21479. 21058 151. 21471. 915.801,

208

238

H

22453:.227 03 219-90, 100. 20090: DIET, 259%, 2306: 199; 21510 OPE Ou cd

2.681 2.081 2.683 2.685 2.686 2.692

4

I1.K7h 215102. 21641291 248 151 151, 21-479 151 143 316:130ı 2151102) 20997), 21-4731. 23005; 315710 217:137; 2161131 215181), 2304), 239004 214(76)

193146 1. 1955133.

21206

2.604 2.695 2.096 2.698 2.701 2.707 2.710

21-474) 702

31.477 1731316) 216124 168-4) 21-479 209001 2b 7A, 23956) 21.470 197578) 1971579), 201078) 21612 2101271 21.470 317,130; 20907), QUT. 2391 20996 21,71. RAUET

PIG.

2.831 2.838 2.810 2.812 2.816 2.851 2.856 2.858 2.859 2.864 2.867 2.867 2.87) 2.873 2.873

34 39

61 68 75

197600) 185/269), 1861296; 216 10d 21570: 21570: 193/464, 19515133 QU7 AL) 2171141) 16184; 37141: 212:14. 2177141) 21741) 217041) 212014) 21771475 217il4lı 213146) 217141}

Book 3 3.14 3.16 3.18

17

3.43

3.46 3.59 3.50

215179) 197581) 189336: 192130, 143), 191-486, 490) 20.6154) 209109) 12%d.E)

3.171 3.174 3.186 3.205 3.205 3.228 3.237 3.240 3.250 3.250 3.251

212

6 38 58

3.60 3.61 3.62 3.63

3.64 3.05 3.66 3.67 3.68 3.00

3.096 74 3.70

122. 122%d. 1224. 122id. 122%d. 122d. 12d. 21035; 221d. 122d. 1224. 122a.

By Fi Be Ei Ei Ki 5) Bi, 130 Ki Es Bi, 210:37:

210137;

122.4. Es 210115. QUE VDT.

01

2.653 2.653 2.657 2.601 2.663 2.671

1981603)

| is

2.652

2.809 10 2.810 2.823 2.824 2 2.626 2 2.830

3.125 26 3.125 27 3.125 28 3.127 3.129

we

2395) (210; 173.350: 167.0 2 1#7-H. 23000; 2141695

23.650

2.790

3.119 3.121 3.121 242 3.125

w=! ww

16 16

237::43) 2170139; 21465, 67) 217(139) 2101128). 2174, 234 4) 2147 21.467; 217139: 1671192) 20097), 21-73),

2.615 2.649

72 85 877

3.94 3.95

:=

2.510

213102:

2.64

69

94

3.02 3,03

iS is iy

2.484 2.487 2.494 2494 7 2.495 2.509

2.037

2.766 2.768 2.77) 2771 2.774 2.780 2.780 2.705

23743; 150 151, 198:600), O37 thi 197:600; 150 209:10-+, 109) 215.79; 21579. 219180) 237:5H 2171140) 215:79 21570: 182:791. 215179; 215:79; 3153:79

WN

2.133 2.442 2.443 2.44 2.451 2.158 2.159 2.164 2.460 2.172 2.179 2.484

2.760 2.76] 2.763 67

3.90b 3.90b 3.9]

MENT“ DS Be a] Br wwUs =

2.432

2.610 2.610 2.613 2.618 2.619 2.620 2.622 2.623 2.625 2.630

2300)

3.86 04 3.87 3.88 3.89

>. ww 1 Gm =

2.430 2431

2.609

2091961, 2407 ® 2187, 2161315 23916) 173:347) 2161131) 20:96. 2IH7H.

iWwicis

120id. Bi. 23915: 120:d. By, 23916) 120:d. Bj 239173 120d. By. 239018) 120id. By), 236123), 230) 18) 23912: 17543: 20H15H 1755-13) 209973 17316: 1811191) 240629) 181,29) 20-4154) 203131) 150. 21579. 237-42), 237145)

2.717 2.718 2.749 2.750 2.756 2.759

=

2°30 [23

209101 21591) 2147-5. 2394 215180; 208975. 21.473 21593, 23005: 216128: 21474. 23904; 6105 20988) 230-4 2091791, 21-474 216/126), 2175139) 2171139: 216/126; 207M 209;596,, 2147 fi 23016; 210117. 21471. 21580), 23001 09.2 ET, 23905 193464 14:2. 215:873, 238172) 193:-4-b 209-96), 21T. 21503:,23006: 143. 2171139, 2145703 1935: 16-4) 159136) 21471;

]

2.427 2.427 2.428 2.429 2,130

2.581 2.58] 82 2.587 3501 € 2.602

Nw

120:d. Bi 120:d. B.. 236.23, 23912; 120:.d. B) 236:23), 239013)

1 we

2.423 2.424 2.425 2.427

240351 122d. 1221d. 122ıd. 122d. 24035) 122:d. 122:d. 122:d. 122d. 233/20}

E K: Ei Kj Ei E. 139 Ki By, 210137;

20097)

2021117), 242:89216112: 16056:, 16190), 167; 188: 170057}, 219182: 201(72, 82) 1981)

240361 122. Ba, 1851271. 2.4037) 122%d. Bi 122:d. E: 122:d. Ei 122:d. Be. 178:03.. 191-469 122:d.E 240137: 122ıd. Ei. 19-4469. 122:d.Eı 166172: 21223, 293.404 173351. 350: 173356, 359 921921663 188325) 213.15: 1661721 2431-40) 242:894, 2437110: 23516: 200:52;, 20173: 140 200; 1005 122d. E) 24037) 12214. By, 18327, 2400373 122d. Ei 122id. E) 2373 122id. FE), 194469; 122id. 3) 122:d. 51. 24037) 122id. FE) 122d. By, 216013) 173354361) 188336), 189330), 192419) 130 204: 10% 122:d. Fy. 1881325 24289 2210 195535), 1966544) 193-466) 0d. N 188.320)

Index of References to the Niad 3.330 32 3.330 38 3.331 3.332 3.333 3.334

~38

1781101)

4.118

36, 18111761 120Kd.

137113 167201; 136

Ai

120cl. Ar. 1851269, 272) 36, 120d, Ai

2401301

1881325)

186(283) 120d. AY 178 101, 188:336i, 189.337, 195,388) 178101) 1781015 120:d. A), 17531), 17841, 06), 18%3 12: 120id. Ar. 195:517. 521), 1965 Hy 178101)

3.346b 50 3.347 3.347b- 50 3.348

58

~!

be =)

31-63 67

3

24031:

23860: 1975801 18753051. 19713851.

69

23:00 213:112)

198.600)

1971587; 175.21: 177185: 198.600: 197597: 197:593: 203:1371 203:136) 2031142)

120%d. A, 178101, 1541) 36. 120. AL 178 1015, 106429, 443), 1011175; 1815176). 19-4488 192:-135i, 237168) 188:325; 19389: 177:80; 179 1801140) 18001 10) 177(80) 177180) 180116E 103: 160. 467; 190360) 1804140) 17807) 177761, 179 18001 40%. 1871302) 18011535, 19h 46B: 240137 185:269. 1861287, 2041 19936) 188/336), 1893371, 191(380, 402), 195521} 196538) 1901372) 1914021. 195521), 19745691 189(336), 191/388) 195521, 165 11) 188(325) 195521, 19605 #5, 550) 195032) 178113 185(325) 193466) 166172). 168121 201:99: 166:1721 24:50) 180:15-45. 2019) 166:172%, 167212) 193:450° 193.48: 209:10% 130

|

77:76,

19 31 30

185.269),

186:287, 290, 204; 18-4240) 21031 340130; 203135:

+.193 97

203:136:

4.247 48

4.290 91 30% 309

20:31 21030 218159) 182\205)

212173 217,138; 241(69)

+18

>

HM

24169; 215102; 192442; 240(30) 1964551) 216.106)

3.121 133 142

243137: 21 166) 216(108) 216(109) 21345) 136. 222019)

216100

1BB2) 1651157) EY

2l7ılahı 1852731 1811196 181:10

197569, 230

40

3 4

186.280.

292, 2061, 244145: 194.182: 194-180: 234237, 250: 2161271, 2N7; 139. 18813233) 207A 192: 115

5.182

143 100

100

179

19h 188:

1801401

177.80) 190-41; 190: 369, 199 11. 214: 18321 202. 118: 200.50: 201-76. 77. go, 183214 183,220: 183:220:. 20997;

188:325

201.168; 151 198i 11. 200150). 201578. 98) 183214. 183.2 1 192 433: 16311301, 215104)

190363),

1911389, 402) 1971591) 17811: 187:300; 187,307. 1901 10.

184243.

185262)

QT 20198: 230.30: 1801153;

185.260, 1861290: 1871308. 315) 120id. Bi. 239112) 1938: 165:157: 1651157: 194370; 1946486) 189336, 339), 1K 363) 21207), 207138) 1820200) 243112: 1971585) 243113) 198,603: IB. 27-h 197,593) 19758 IR 150. 1545. 546. 5551 1851269), 1874307: 182.200: OOK? ti DK, 67)

1971600: 160.84: 20 168; 199307; 19-4482: 1820200; 1971582) 18813251 160:7-4.. 1635: 166 139 236630: 193.160. 167; 2714s 185.2695, 199 #11 186.290. 171-316: 182.199), 183,218) 18h 178i

190371) 193: bi: 19-6 168) 189.336. 338i, 1903661, 191390, 19-4170:

1891359),

3.95 3.98 5.98 3.99 3.99

241169

Q7d

185/269), 277

214:55: 193:467: 209.467; 217:141: 192-444. 194:460: 193.462. 464. 194.460 192.445. 1944711 193:46-4. 195651 hı 102444 180:1421.210:110) 193.46 194482,

203143. 1-6 240131; 19763881 1811182, 186; 203:135: 203/443. 146: 181:182. 187; 238:761 210:113: 206158 204.154: 177188) 24 1:69) 173143), 18512741, 219166)

273 1801 1.441, 1861276. 209: 1001 197:375, 19541 571.57 217:139ı 21479: 179123: 239.12. 193: 166: 184:260.,

23-4238) 1733441, 23-4231. 237; 197:600: 180: 166° 180: 165} 231237. 241) 182/207} 19-4482) 182.2071 189.3 $6), 1901383) 234238)

86

194500 2031133) 20996) 1944715 211112, 238:76) 2170s 1814182. 180: 1931464: 190:369 189.336, 100.301 12.431.104 176 191.480:

274 5.615 3.616 5.618 3.620 5.624 3.627 29 3.629 3.655 3.655 5 3.656 3.660 5.663 3.664 3.666 3.669 3.677 3.679 3.602 3.694 5.699

TALES OF HEROES 203133} 1931467)

19 4-486) 2170-41) 196:541.551). 197569, 571, 57-4) 150 183209) 150 150 150 1931466) 19-4480) 2161104

1041481, 482) LOSS. 466) 19-4478} 243114 243110) 19-4473)

217.139; 194484)

194/169; 1930446), 2-43(110. 115i 194484)

192-442)

183(210) 1931 467) 2160104 189361) 20979 216105 193:445), 1946473) 24029; 234215; 150 233.216) 122id. D) 237:61) 122:d. Di 122td. D). 173311), 234229; 122d. Dj 122(d. Di. 200650, 69

194487)

242189). 2:43(110) 21217 242089;

243110. 115) 195487; 1861279. 1976576}

5.700

2099)

3.705 3.711 5.714 5.716 5.719

2-43(133) 2021117)

240:30) 24031) 240630)

18-4251) 185:2533 15701 by, 175136) 18.4247) 200,68; 2001505, 201109)

233216)

93 a7

198111. 201179 199129, 37)

20068, 2400321 122(d. D). 158(3-4.

160474). 200(70)

203104; 17913

179%: 132;

1201. Aj. 178(108), 195{536) 1921428), 194474) 201168) 19.4408; 202117) 1971600)

202(117) 2020117) 18.4252) 21-455) 202117) 21341) 1731355. 370) 19-4468)

3.790 3.796 § 5.797 3.825 3.825 52 3.835 : 5.845 5.851 3.852 3.855 | 3.85). 3.80 3.450

20% 98) QU) 24-4146) 1781 178111) 18H 165: 23075 183-273:

183.225. [BE 252i 196.5 135 102 114

1

1325, 10: 1665

POS Jibei 151. 195

TUE: th. 193 166 117:

6.03b 6.94 6.94 6.94 6.95 6.9% 6.96 6.97 6.98 6.99 6.100 6.101 6.103 6.104 6.111

95 95 97

1221d. D) 122%d. Dj 151 122(d. D) 122%d. D)

97

122id. D) 122(d. D) 122(d. Di

6

6.111-15 6.112 6.113 6.114 6.115 6.116 6.118 6.118 6.118 6.119 6.110 6.123

122id. D), 21033) 1221d. Di. 173:34-h 240133) 122(d. D) 233216. 220) 233216)

1 3 211 256

211 236 31

1821207) 194-482) 122(d. DD). 2332171, 240133) 2332171. 237161). 24033) 1221. D), 23302171, 240:33) 122id. D\ 122:d. D; 122%d.D) 37. 1787112, 1155. 180158). 181175 115. ROAR 183 221: IIND: 193221 he vob 25:22: 23535 2113

6.126 6.136 6.152 6.194 6.199

193(467) 203,126) 161101) 176146). 20510 186:279). 1955161, 197575), 2431120)

6.219 6.221 6.232 6.237 6.237 6.242 6.242 6.243 6.244 6.24 6.2.64 6.248 6.264 6.265 6.266 6.267 6.268 6.269

203134)

33 4 50

48

16118 1831222) 1731354, 362, 363) 236031} 1576), 1G4(143) 23761) 1631125. 127; 165170). 167(212) 13704) 2171145) 165:170). 1671212) 122:d. D) 122d. Di 122id. Dj 122d. D) 122id. D) 122d. Di. 17313441, 240: 321

6.260 6.270 6.271

233210; 1221. Di 122:d. Di. 20050, 6%

6.271 73 6.271 78 6.272 6.273 6.274 6.274b 6.274 6.275 6.275 6.276 6.277 6.277 6.278 6.279 6.280 6.281 6.282 6.283 6.284 6.285 6.286 6.286 6.288

76 78 76 78

233/216) 200168), 240132: 122id. Dj, 158:3-h. 160(7-4), 200170: 122id. D) 122d. Di. 17313-4445 240,33)

23:3:216) 122d. D) 233/220) 122!d. D} 122ıd. D} 151 12%d. Dj 122d. Di, 17351344), 21032) 122td. 122%d. 122%(d. 122(d. 1224. 122(d.

160156)

30-4

Ds D) D) Di D) D}

6.311 6.313 6.313 6.316 6.317 6.318 6.319 6.319 6.321 6.322 6.333 6.336 6.360 6.365 6.370 6.371 6.371 6.372 6.375 6.377 6.378 6.383 6.390 6.393 6.398 6.100 6.4112 6.113 6.416 6.125 6.442 6.467 6.469 6.470 6.472 6.483 6.490 6.490 6.194 6.498

329 20 20

28 26 26

¢ ©

6.497 6.500 6.512 6.529 6.803 Book 7 7.11 7.21 7.22 5+

90

d.

233222) 24030)

213) 20050) 2001715, 2190170) 1610152), 21033) I73 344), 236229) 200150, 67) 2401331 122:d.D) 21033: 1?2:d. D: 151 122:d. Di. 173351 17 >34 12 2d.D: 12 PAD 23 3216, 220 127

194471)

234237, 23% 2308) 1B8i324

240(33)

16071, 1677200,

6.289

1831223), 23312213 1660172; 233(224) 161/90) 23 (230) 19-4486} 192/43 fh, 194479) 193459. 19441925 1651725 17897. 1851269) 122d. Ej 1661172) 1608-5 1608-4 1594 1. 16008H 160184), 202(117} 160(56) 200155) 169238) 166(172), 2021171 2005-4) 20054) 1684 1730354. 362) 18612791 203126) 2910196) MEI 212004 290185. 194; 200515. 2073} 203125. 126) 1971566, 3571) 1951520) 195:520) 2035 126 160184) 219182) 1951520, 1960541) 197:571; 1590-41), 16084 160:8-h 23.4237, 241,242) 1884325) 178111)

D:

> 312

17517 23767)

12%d. EB)

188325)

1977500) 1811179. 1951518) 122id. 3). 1881325)

200; 1095 2O%OB)

173.341, 23-4238)

INH BRI 04154) 209.90: 23020) DIRT 21Osh

13:46 138

197-3981,

198600)

Index of References to the Iliad 203125i ww

—_ wt

~~!

201154

3 154 63 N

191484 242189), 2.431 10) 1886325) 2219) 138, 204(176) 151 193-467)

204154

236(30)

20415 189(36 1} 181(195) 24-4159) 204154 146, 236.21)

175.18) 175117 212(22) 2090 10-4, 109) 2137 2441-45) 18:3(233) 181174 1BI17 8) 193-460. 467) 1904369) 192(-435), 211(2) 175023 193-4673, 244145)

73

he wo om De «wl

NS oh

== >74 182204, 2030133) 180.336, 338),

1901367... 191.3901 12.195 12.204 12.205

12.339 12.351 12.354 12.376 12.378 12.383 12.381 12.395 12.309 12.401 12.402 12.402 12.408

1831219: 235(10) 179 18011404 97 1791251. 1800172) 96 17901198, 1801708 194.490: 195510: 2-431 16; 1851269), 1861276, 2771 177:88), 1545, 55h. 1975761 412 151 185274) 218158) 85 = 1966551) 21454; 196.537, 5-40: 103: 1-45) 195518) 18011531 179127), 180(162) 4 181178) IES 11Bı

12.425 26

1801166:

12.426 12.144 12.149 12.471 12.566

180165; 191480 199-411,21h55 209.97) 20982}

Book 13 13.3 13.51 13.57 SR 13.81 13.8} 13.107 13.110 13.130 13.130 31 13.131 32

180: 154i 180 325: 209-82: 250: 30° 070 JOO EH. WIRD. 17718: 17514 1751

13.132

195 S18 100 OT, 197 Jt, OH, 57]

13.132 33 13.136 37 13.144 1 13.147 13.157 13.150 13.160 13.162 13.162 63 13.168 13.1741 13.177 13.178 13.183 13.184 13.185

13.503 13.506 8 13.507

195525) 21458) 21-458:

19:48, 466) 1875310, 310) 185260, 1862961. 187(307)

1881336:. 19-4472)

179:119:

13.507 8 13.509 13.516 13.518 19 13.518 30

194/484)

1I3.519b

209: 105)

13.527 13.530 13.532

179 1801-40) 19:1:480:

180: 1-40: 194: 185:

19.4 60: 193.445; 193148: 196.480) 193-418. 466; 197:574+. 2161127).

20

92

13.267 13.290 91 13.294 13.295 305 13.296 13.310 13.313 14 13.320 13.366 13.339 40 13.341 13.342 13.370 13.371 13.371b 13.381 13.38-4 13.394 13.397 13.397b 13.401 13.403 13.404 13.405 13.405 13.405 13.408 13.420 13.423 13.439 13.443 13.48 13.119 (3.451 13.451 13.107 13.176 13.177 13.188 13.100 13.902

72 3 ar

98

6 7 23 40

44 > a0 33

186.278: }80. 146) 193464) 1940-4861 23. 171313. 315) 1801 14h 1831269), 1861277, 280) 209:96) 192:444) 194:-468) 1827202: 193.466: QOD 1975825 200:79; 150 19-4460; 1951318). 568) 177:87%, 185:269;. 277.280) 1946-480) 1851271) 185:260), 2101095 217141) 1831200) 183271) 18512691. 183/220), 1934481, 193448, 180140) 181170) 171119 19:3: 466) 183190. 20097: 18612751. 19-4495) 182(201) 142 142 I}? 193:

BO

1976566, 17513, 1861276,

1861296) 1881325) 194480) 466)

185:218) 19927)

461

103: 16-11 177180: 177-805, 178-1131 243.110: 13 118:

196551) 194-485 197562)

1915345. 546° 19-8 168i

183:219; 177:79, 81),

13.576 13.576 13.576 13.577 13.582 13.582 13.583 13.584 13.586 13.587 13.587 13.591 13.505 13.507 13.601 13.606 13.608 13.610

:77 78 92 92 95 87 91

10

17%139) 19:3: 4-43) 189.3361, 191.300) 1891339) 1961551) 1975945 180340. 1970584; 1971590)

1 MICH.

1965458

194482) 1941471) 1871312. 3151 1851269). 187.307: 1861290 185200 193:466; 1941731 IAK3EHN 175179: 177.79. 179139

1881336;. 189337),

13.614

186/296)

2171139

1934-455. 197574 19.4482:

2317:139;

13.190 13.191 13.192 13.210 13.247 13.261 13.264 13.265

187301) 193015. 467) 19414801

13.614 15 13.620 39 13.628 13.646 13.650: 59 13.658 13.680

19436-:. 191:3901 1955-41). 197509, 571) 1961538} 2llch 210/109

177(79) 197:58-H 211112). 238(76) 181182, 188)

13.685 700) 2177149) 17520) 13.710 1955181. 1965.41), 13.714 13.714 21 13.714 22 13.715 13.720 13.725 33 13.731 13.742 13.750 13.789 13.791 13.802 13.803 13.804

13.805 13.816 13.830 13.833

3 5

197567. 571) 181(176) 1975791 18x 1651. 194487) 18612791 211) 227102 20990) 241160 21455 213133) 1800170), 21-458) 179 1801-40) 1794117) 1955201, 19715605 2A 9448 h 235° 10h

Book 14 14.9-11

75:16: 177181. L791 3%

14.11 14.12

QHD, 192-428), 194468, +75, 4971 188:336:. 19413 19-4506: 1881325: 20070) 243110) 208:781. 211147) 202103; 200-88)

14.26 14.38 14.49 14.57 11.67 14.77 14.81 14.97 14.106 14.115 2 14.138 1-4.1 44 14.149 14.159 14.166 14.166 1+4.166-14.170 14.178 7 14.180 14.181 14.182 14.183 14.184 14.185 1-4. 188 14.202 14.219 14.223 14.277 14.292 14.303 14.317 2 14.319 14.322 14.338 14.338 39 1-4.367 14.370 14.371 14.372 14.376 14.385 14.402 14.404 14.404 14.405 14.410 14.420 14.420 14.424 14.425 14.428 re)

Book 12

14.429

14.443 14.446 14449 14.450 14.451b 14.154 14.461 It. Hod 11.103

7

20088}

215104 24169 218: 158i 198i 1) Q3TI7; 1661721 168215) 237(57) 20197; 20198; 65. 201100) 202(103: 202: 106. 110) 65.0191). 202:107. 112) 204178: 164152) 166(172) 161:8H 203126) 203126) 202(117) 2376571 161(8-4) 237159) 2021119)

244140) 1661172) 1681215) 20%97) 240029) 181(179) 195518). 197(568) 17516. 17783) 1893-47). 1903845 116 178111) 52. 192(420) 1891354), 191391) 20979 195.320) 175020 181(177), 188(318) 243110)

1801165)

183226 10-45 1833) 193 168 1937164, 465) 217139)

52 19-168} 57 2llch 65 07

19-4180} 27 190371)

1.108 14.508

16.132 16.133

190:3631. 1911390, 40):

a7)

16.134

19-4168) 150, 245179, 2371}

38

Book 15 198.600) 20990} 243110; 3023117

15.180

80

9

209)

san 137 315:

186-280,

|

18001 42), 2107110) 2429) 233217), 2403) 185(269), 186276, 277) 1941713

15.742 13.7413 15.745

2008)

194-469)

Book 20YAR) 2.4169)

16.1 16.6 16.9 16.18 16.26 16.46

20199) 20997) 193464) 21316) 1977568) 24031)

16.101 16.101 16.104

16.105 16.106 16.107 16.112 16.111 16.115 16.116 16.117 16.123 16.124 16.131 16.151 16.1531 16.131

IS

16.70 16.97

5

-

8:

nw

0:

HO

236130)

32 33 a4

16.135

16.130

189(336, 339), 194472) 1891359), 191403)

15.713 15.727 15.729 15.733 15.734 15.739

36. 120d. A). 186(283) 1201d. Aj, 18813306).

16.138 16.139

209183) LOD

120(d. Ay. 1851260,

16.137

20979)

15.603 15.701 15.705 15.710 15.712

120d. Ab 272)

16.135 7 16.136

21458) 173118) 197560) 192+ H 211155 20979) 139 209795 1851269), 1861276, 277) 21001 2101109. 2110153)

1

_

in|

245110)

1831219) £3. 183.208) W514 197,568) 19-4472) 2006) 2079) 151 20096) 19-4480) 198600) 19715821 186127 1971902: 18111761, 194-4851 2088) 1771723 197,583) 17917, 2, P7139, 1791130 120. A 105.517. 1965 Eh 1781015 20d. AL 196511i 12: 128), 19%: 166%, 19.4175. 197° 275217. 210:335 207 197.3. 21020 210 13h 195.497 177 HI.

15.608 ¢ 15.624 15.637 15.645 15.647 15.650 15.653 15.673 15.680 15.685 15.089

m =

Dr

IS

INN

NN

= h

1890316), 19013831 1831208) 30:07) 188.336), 19-4472) 175093), 2155), 24031) 1801168; 1794129), 1800163) 21713 2171139)

EN

oth Se a Sa Ge Ge Se Ge Os Se Ge 3 = run

2020117) 171316) 162,110. 112), 163122) 179:92), 1971573) 192432). 193-466) 220075 292(117)

186.270

3

194 471)

198480) 209104) 209.97; 1931 46-4, 465) 1951520) 1971560)

24160)

217,139),

1970571) 1931457}, 1808160) 186.290} 197i357-4

209105)

241.69)

Oe

ee

SSS Sle Pyee ur we NS IS .. Mm mm „=. van u So wi = —

15.35 15.55 15.63 15.67 15.78 15.89 15.92 15.120 15.124

HEROES

186.285} 187:307; 15 EL), 1976567,

196:551:, 197561) 1893306, 338;,

wu dr} -

8

236050) 151 197:3605

1971562)

17860153) 17525) 150, 215170, 2375 125 19141873 18005505, 1901387" 1781112: 191 4945 2 FO} 236.31: Pad X 188 520, 178101 214.157:

16.140 16.140 16.140 16.141 16. 1-41 16.142 16.1-43 16.144 16.149 16.149 16.152 16.155 16.167 16.168 16.168 16.173

-

46

-

50

64 |

16.178 16.179 16.184 16.190 16.193 16.196 16.197 16.201 16.205 16.211 16.215 16.215 16.216 16.21616.21816.219. 16.22+4 16.233 16.247 16.249 16.270 16.277 16.284 16.28 16.287 16.206 16.304 16.309 16.312 16.317 16.318 16.32] 16.352 16.332 16.333 16.335 a 16.337 16.3537 39

18%337). 191388) 178101) 120id. A), 175631), 178/06), 189/341) 120d. A), 195(517, 519), 1901541, 54-44 120id. A) 36. 120id. A). 1925425), 194488) 192426} 120id. Aj 194471 178104) 120id. A). 19-4198) 178104). 192126) 1201d. A) 12d. A) 120id. A) 23715by) 22.452) 2375-0 218(157) 181(182. 184) 20979), 2108127} 2171137) 185269), 186(280, 292), 218159) 141 2180159 167(192) 141 218(159) 218159) 218159) 20979) 2107109) 180(1 4-4. 196518} 1961541), 1976571) 1751-6 19515181. 1971568, 369) 1951525) 217(137) 218160) 1984) 1733.47), 1935} 2079) 120d. B). 239(12) 233217). 2400333) 24031) 19 480) 217141) 182(20-4, 197580) 209197) 200.96) 194-1713 1791235, 186120 1946482) 1937 466) 213110: 24K 11: 180336, 341) 190.361: 191.300; 188330: 190.3600: 180 350 16 338

16.338 16.339

1971569, 571) 189350,

1906372),

1911402) 189336). 190(3645. 1911390) 16.342 # 217141 16.346 19-486) 186(279) 16.358 16.360 179117) 16.377 7° 214455) 16.399 194480) 16.399 400 1861293) 173123). 1861293; 16.400 16.406 8 14 16.100 1941480) 16.113 1966551). 1971572, 574) 16.419 175(13) 16.421 243118) 16.463 65 183(209) 16.466 54, 194180) 16.467 -69 183211) 16.467 -76 183235) 16.468 193(456) 16.472 193(464) 16.173 189(3-48), 190(387), 191(391), 192(423) 16.477 19-4480) 16.477 -79 193(458) 16.48881 11551) 181(182, 189) 16.490 16.502:3 21714) 16.504 193446) 16.504-5 193458) 16.5067 183(235) 16.50812 197(582) 120d. B) 16.527 2-43(1 10) 16.535 186(279) 16.536 181(182, 189) 16.541 16.340

=

TALES OF

14.495 11.106

~

278

16.547 16.579

16.593 16.608 16.610 16.611 16.612b- 13 16.619 16.636 16.637 16.638 16.649 16.654 16.656 62 16.664 16.678 16.684 85 16.694 16.702 3 16.704 16.712 16.712 14 16.727 29 16.730 76 16.746 16.755 16.772 16.793 OB 16.795 16.797

20479)

19645511. 1974572, 574) 1810182. 189) 193448).

19-4486)

193448. 466) 194484 19-1495) 193(46-4) 181( 196) 188(336), 194(472) 243(110) 213119) 186(279) 1810192) 209(98) 243110) 183(227) 216104. 217138) 183(228) 178(97), 180(153) 1731354. 363) 183(215) 183(216) 211(2) 144 183(218) 19-482) 1551) 195(5 19), 1966545. 546, 552), 197(563) 195519), 197(563)

Index of References to the Niad 1937-466),

19-4-47-H

19-4198) 17897,

113)

1851269)

186291)

192-444. 183232) 193447), 193-446)

194482) 194487)

21-458) 197(574) 21 1(4)

20997) 19486)

1934-46) 243(134)

120d. A) 179 180(140) 177(80) 244(145) 24-4(145) 16199). 1650171), 167(212) 17.43 177(76), 179-180(140) 17.43b 46 177(80), 179(140) 17.45 180(164) 17.51 193(460) 17.74 241(69) 17.128 175(18) 17.132 175(19, 21) 233(217), 244433) 17.185 17.194--97 198(600) 17.218 212(17) 17.248 218(158) 17.268 177(81, 88), 17% 139) 17.269 195(518), 197(568) 17.280 ISL, 214(79) 17.288-303 217(141) 17.290 1780111) 17.294 19553 17.295 196541, 551), 197:57-H 17.295 96 193:459) 17.296 194477) 17.304 193(-448), 194480) 193CH8, 466) 17.305 17.306 11 216(133). 217(139) 17.312. 15 2170141) 17.314 1851269). 186(296), 17.314 17.317 17.354 17.370 17.383 17.397 17.00

15

11

17.403

17.412 17.416 17.434 35 17.443 17.153

17.54 17.459 61 17.464 65

1871307) 187311) 19-4480) 177(88) 188(325) 209(96) 209797) 236132) 2007 19448 209197; 22163) 138 2007 POURS, 18212) 183.225)

17.466 512 17.479 17.479 80 17.483-90 17.485 17.501 2 17.514 17.516 17.517 17.518 17.519 17.523 24 17.525 17.526 17.527 17.528b 29 17.530 17.574 17.578 17.593 600 17.597 17.605 17.606 17.607 17.612 17.622 17.625 17.639 17.652 17.657 17.679 17.698 99 17.702 17.705 17.708 17.723 17.731 17.736

183(212) 204168) 183(212) 183(220) 185(274) = 183(212) 234(228) 193(-467) 1801140) 194500) 203133} 194-471) 193(448). 1941-480) 193(448, 466) 194484 19-4495) 188(336) 194480) 203(133) 181(193) 42 217(139) 185(269), 186(29-4) 19:4(485) 20105) 20979) 20997) 209(96) 244(145) 165(157) 2441-45) 182(202) 244145) 243(110), 244142) 20979) 42 1880336). 194472) 201X97)

Book 18 18.3 210119) 18.6 20415 18.22 244 159(40) 18.23 201(99) 18.25 199(31) 18.3948 = .213(34) 18.50 51 203(121) 18.58 209( 104) 18.82 85 198(600) 18.122 203(126) 18.132 37 151 18.140 203(126) 18.151 188(325) 18.193 175(22), 18Q(161) 18.203 6 180168) 18.206 171316) 18.219 20 221(10) 18.253 175(43). 240(31) 18.259 209(79) 18.260 209105) 18.267 68 207(43) 18.273 81 183(229) 18.285 134 18.288 92222029, 18.297 210129: 18.304 20097: 18.311 3213-40: 18.338 20908108 18.339 190.3723, 2030126: 18.541 IDEAS HE 18.352

201-99.

18.355 236(35) 18.359 204154 18.368 236(30) 18.369 236(35) 18.374 159(36, #2) 18.382 83° 238(73) 18.385 20052) 18.389 189(3-45) 18.390 179(128) 18.398 203(126) 18.401 202(110) 18.402 20% 100) 18.410 615 198(600) 18.424 200(52) 18.439 209( 10-4) 18.453 173(354, 363) 18.458 177(71), 1961550) 18.458 60 178(110), 181(179) 18.459 188(321, 322) 18.460 185(269) 18.47+:75 = 175(27) 18.478 175(30) 18.478 608 175(26) 18.479 175(32), 178(09), 179(128) 18.479 80 = 175(33) 18.480 1781111) 18.480 81 175(29) 18.483-608 175(40) 18.492 165(171) 18.496 162(110. 111). 163(12)) 18.497 508 232(194) 18.520 33 176(45) 18.534 193(466) 18.550 205(9) 18.573 210(119) 18.595 199(32) 18.595-96 204(166) 18.597 98 192(419) 18.598 178111) 18.607 8 33, 177468) 18.608 175(32) 18.609 175(30), 178(99) 18.610 185(269), 186(280, 283) 18.611 197572) 18.613 188(322), 201(99)

Book 19 19.1 200453), 201(77) 19.3 213(33) 19.25 3019925) 19.45 206( 16) 19.48 242(89) 19.49 194(506) 19.53 19-4(486), 212(21) 19.74 188(325) 19.78 2429) 19.141 242(89) 19.152 193(466) 19.160 20079) 19.212 1621101. 1631122) 19.253 188(336). 189(339), 192419) 19.268 144 19.275 240311 19.276 77a 175431 19.284 85 203121: 19.310 21289: 19.320 16h 1015

279 19.331 19.333 19.335 19.344 19.356 19.359 19.360 19.361

20979. 96) 16084) 195524 210119) 20%79) 195(518). 197(568) 180(1-44) 185(269), 18612771, 187(307. 314). 19-4487)

19.369 19.369- 70 19.369 7! 19.369 91 19.370 19.371

188(320) 178101) 178(109) 120(d. A) 120(d. A), 1851269. 272) 120d. A), 188(336). 189(337), 191(388) 178101) 120id. A), 175(31), 17896), 1890341) 175(37)

19.372 19.372 73 19.373 19.373 74 19.373 82 19.378 19.380 19.380 83 19.382 19.387-88 19.387 -91 19.388

175132). 196(545) 196(553) 196(543) 194474) 186(284) 120(d. A), 1921427). 194(498) 178(104). 192(426) 120(d. A) 120(d. A) 120(d. A) 138 202(117) 195(524)

19.388 91 19.389 19.390 19.39] 19.400 19.407 19.458 Book 20 20.1 20.10- 12 20.11 20.38 20.96 20.112 20.161 29 20.162

20.163 20.168 20.177 20.184 20.213 20.232 20.232 20.247 20.258 20.259 20.259: 20.259 20.262 20.267 20.272 20.272 20.273 20.273 20.274 20.271 20.274

NS

193467)

4 7

w mn

16.801 16.801- 2 16.802 16.803 16.804 16.804-5 16.806 16.808. 9 16.814 16.815- 17 16.818-22 16.820 16.830 -42 16.840 16.862 16.862- 63 16.865

60 91

73 81 76 81

209(104) 163(131) 163(125, 127) 195(516) 193-466) 2021117) 21102) 179129), 180(163). 181178), 197(572: 193(466) 195(510) 240450) 176(46), 205(9) 182(201) 244140) 244140) 20%92) 193(466) 194468) 193459) 190369) 193467) 175(34). 194468) 194473) 175(3+4) 193(460; 1811175) 1801140) 179125: 181.170

280

TALES OF HEROES

20.286 87 20.287 20.200 20.323 20.325 27 20.331 20.378 20.392 20.397 20.398

20.181 83 20.488

197(566,

203(137,

243(121) 19-4482) 234.228) 193/466) 190(371) 189(336, 194367), 19370} 189352) 1914367, 189359), 189(336, 1901365. 188336) 190371} 1891339),

186281,

339), 1911390) 387) 191(389) 341) 1916390)

190(363),

191(389. 402} 196(551), 197561) 19-4482)

1890359), 10367). 1913923 190387) 1809352). 190367, 387), 191(406) LH 191394 19408)

21.19 2 21.21

— ~ DI

~~ _

~ be 72

21.22 21.26 21.31 21.32

20908) 160184) 181(179) 194481) 24169) 19-44821.2130121) D8 336. 338). 1971575 190561 191.390) 189:336. 310: 1-44 IH 300-790. 11:3: 167: 191 100

21.233 21.251 21.271 21.272 21.277 21.307 21.349 21.353 21.377 21.388 21.393 21.402 21.410 21.118 21.429 21.507 21.512 21.514 21.544 45 21.545 21.577 21.579 21.581 21.592 94 21.595

190(366,

1971580) 1901367.

Book 22 22.4 22.4 22.5 6 22.6 22.33 22.46

22.52 22.63 22.71

22.77 22.80 22.97 22.105 22.111 22011 22.112 22.115 22.132 22.136 22.143 22.143 22.153 22.191

78

12

37 44 65 56

1930-464) 195514) 120(d. B) 1201d. Bi 185.269). 1860276. 277) 1914396) 171(316) 1-H 202(117) 221(10) 192432), 193(466) 192( 433),

1946-169)

24030)

202117) 1851269. 20198)

186(277)

2023117) 236(30) 181(193) 243110) 1951510) 243110) 17%140). 18101781 188323) 243110, 133)

177(88) 1781153) 191367) 173354. 365) 20120) 241312) 1608-4 165(171) 162110, 111), 1631121) 2021120) 203126) 179(116), 18001535 200051. 20173) 18001 #4) MB 79) 1971572) 209.98) 1951516) 173/366) 1731367; 191398) 134 20:16),

22.154 35 22.172 22.177 22.187 22.194 22.214 39

204175) 23.4230) 2398)

2-30) 173:355. 368) 1913994

23018)

1916387).

387)

Book 21 21.19

180913491. 192423; 1941487) 1891352), 307, 387) 182201; 1931466) 1-44 182420, 189352).

191(387)

2967. 187(30-4

20.460- 62 20.461 20.462 20.169 20.475 20.475- 76 20.476 20.178 82 20.481

194473}

24169)

18%352), IH I9553H 196551). 57H 192444) 20.402 20.407 243121) 20.407- 17 193458) 20.413 15 203(141) 20.41 tb- 15 187(306), 141) 1852601, 20.415 20.419 20.423 20.435 20.446 20.457 59 20.459

21.155 82

24050) 1937464. 19-4470; 1861296) 193:46-H 190369)

22.260 22.273 22.273 75 22.275 22.276 22.283 22.285 86 22.289 22.290 93 22.293 22.294 22.295 22.306 22.307 22.311 22.314 ~!

20.284

1811173) 179119), 18011705 17% 127}, 180162). 19418 180:336, 338), 19%385) 21331), 2145 199141). 21455 1891352). 190385} 1811178) 182204

~I

20.275 20.275 76 20.281

22.314 15 22.315 22.322 - 23 22.322 25 22.324 27 22.326 22.326 - 67 22.329 22.334 22.34 22.360 22.367 22.372 22.378 22.392 22.406 22.413 22.438 41 22.440 22.440- 41 22.460 22.465 22.468 22.468 70 22.468- 72 22.170 22.472 22.484 22.490 506 22.403 22.508

20997; 24050)

193/467) 1911400) 193466) 191(-400) 19244 19%-466) 193:-460, 467) 1911395) 19-4 $73) 180155)

194484) 189353). 191(395) 17899), 1801355) 18913531. 1911395) 17532), 179128), 197568) 1974570) 1965-40) 185271) 1861295). 1871301) 1961551) 1971574)

191401)

2171-41) 20697) 240150)

173354. 363) 193-466) 24031)

218158} 20697) 203(183) 173(355, 369) 201(72) 161(95). 167(188) 1981). 20184) 160(56) 20998)

20:4( 162) 205(1 86) 198(600) 205(179) 141 158(3-4) 1-40, 219175)

I98CH

2010)

Book 23 23.19 23.39 23.56 23.57

1608-1)

17543) 120(d. By. 230718) 120d. By, 236(23), 239 18)

23.84 23.103 23.148 23.162 23.171 23.173

1618 H 1608 H

1733-455 2100) 103 139 7

139

21:50) 23.178 23.179 1608-5 23.192 218 22102) 20053) 23.227 20890; 23.248 23.25 20100; 23.261 189361), 2031125: 220185) 23.262 538 213/34) 23.269 138 23.272 188325) 23.272.650 22450) 23.276 B+ 23705 H 23.277-78 19816500) 23.290 -92 237154) 23.293 300 138 23.294 244145) 237654) 23.295 23.295 97 2375-4 23.296 99 218153) 23.306 - 48 221051 23.317 209179) 23.347 216104: 193465 23.355 213135) 23.360 243(136) 23.361 23.376-77 237(44) 23.402 47 22451) 23.419 209101) 23.457 2180158) 23.503 4 184251) 23.514 27 22451) 23.522 2.4050) 23.529 195514 23.5H 62 22-451) 23.560 1851269, 271), 186(296) 23.560 62 186/288) 241169) 23.601 171i316) 23.613 21050). 241:69) 23.625 23.655 56 193454) 23.658 1881325) 236120) 23.676 193464) 23.681 203145. 146) 23.683 IH 23.692 23.702 5 193454) 220(185) 23.704 5 23.712 13 17:2(328) 23.721 1881325) 240130) 23.723 2.4289) 23.729 23.741145 21%170) 24289) 23.750 2031125) 23.760 21289) 23.765 23.771 120(d. By, 239(124 242(H9) 23.778 20996) 23.780 23.798 193452, 467) 23.798 897 23639) 23.799 1810178), [965491 189354), 1016301) 23.807 1861289) 23.813 21 180(1 40) 23.818 1851269) 23.819 187301) 23.820 21 19-4480) 23.821

281

Index of References to the Odyssey

157:6}

162110, 112% 1631125, 126, 130%,

18502621 163.121 209,98: 123

24.675 24.677 24.682 24.689 24.695 24.698 24.699 24.700 24.723 24.726 24,731 24.758 24.709

123)

2201991 232196) 220199) 2347.91 241176. 81) 234249) 158(30) 232196) 2-41177.81) 2312-49) 2.413107) 23017, 9) 242(96)

1.44 14+ 1.46 1.63 1.67 1.70 1.80 1.83 1.90 1.99

204154)

1.99 -100 100 102 103 103 4 104

mes

.130

_

.

u

.

u

SE . —

.

mr

Mu .

fer Py

m

ee ——

105 106 108 .119 121 122 125 .127 .127 28 .128

u . .

24.675

161(102), 162(103), 163(132, 136) 159(36), 163(132), 164(137) 163(132) 182204) 120(d. B) 24050) 200153), 201(77) 203125) 150 23-237, 239. 241) 202(117) 158(34) 209197) 198600: 2005 h

243107, 110, 122,

1934661 211665 167(19B} 181(195) 162110, 121) 191(407), 193(466) 241(69) 219(183) 171(310), 191(407) 171311) 1716311, 312), 195(515) 219(183) 17%128) 219183) 158(30). 219(183) 219183) 16-4, 21% 183) 158(30) 219(173) 120(d. B), 239(12, 20

220 188)

Bl

20996)

1631130), 2 11:66) 175431 2006-4, 201:75)

200101 1881325}

191(407), 192(428), 193(466). 194475. 497) 194(496) 194474) 240(30} 162 1631121) 162(110) 16238), 191407).

241(80, 84) 120d. B). 236(23). 2318), 2-11(80, 84)

Wl te So

165(163) 165( 163) 12d. C}, 23927) 2-451) 167(201. 202, 213) 157(6), 167(212) 167(213) 160(56) 203( 126) 2-HN49) 200(63) 19811) 19916) 19917, 21) 157(6) 165(163) 163(125) 163(133) 2079) 2-43(133) 167(201) 185(265) 165(166) 210.49) 1576) 120(d. Bi. 23912) 16812151 168(219) 17 167:212)

20%100)

1.29 1.33 1.40 1.44

240(50)

2-40(50) 240(50) 120(d. B). 239(16) 236(23). 23918) 1651168) 199(15) 163(132) 163(125. 136) 163(132), 198(6) 15935) 240450) 240(49) 240(50) 240(50) 163(134)

150 3311851

t.11-15 1.15 1.21

eee

157(6)

Book 1

—_ ~ ~ —

20%79) 150 180168) 165(157) 202117) IH 20% 100) 21579 205185) 24051) 209(10-4 240(30) 24051) 20104 240(51)

ODYSSEY

o_o

24.1 24.18 24.20 21 24.29 24.55 24.80 82 24.83 24.87 24.93 24.104 19 24.115 24.121 24.128 37 24.136 24.144 58 24.160 68 24.161 24.166 24.174 24.176-87 24.191 24.191 92 24.192 24.209 24.215 24.217 24.229 24.230 24.230-31 24.23] 24.236 38 24.237 38 24.238 24.238-47 24.254 24.257 24.275 24.265 74 24.279 BO 24.299 24.305 7 24.314 24.315 19 24.315 20 24.316 20 24.317

2-40(46, 49) 2400-46, 47) 240146, 49) 2404 16, 47) 210111) 240146, 49) 240146, #7) 123 2400471 2021117) 20979; 210148) 218156) 1651162) 1721328) 165(158) 172(321} 240(48) 240(48) 240149) 123 236023) 217(1-45) 123 240150), 241(69) 24049) 240(50) 209179) 2-40(50) 199(32) 1991171. 240(50)

—

Book 24

24.372 21.378 24.386 24.389 21.396 24.05 24.410 24.423 24.432 24.434 24.438 24.40 24.48 24.449 24.150- 51 24.452 24.453 21.159 24.468 24.483 24.485 24.488 24.495 | 24.507 24.517 24.552 24.558 24.564 24.571 24.580 24.588 24.591 24.596 24.598 24.624 24.628 24.639 21.643 24.643 24.644 24.644 24.647 24.649 24.659 24.068 24.671 24.672 24.673

> pe

23.825 23.837 23.819 23.830- 83 23.852 23.86 | 23.861- 62 23.878 23.883 23.884 23.892 23.893 23.896

1891354, 358}, 1911391) 1780111) 2431133) 20997) 197(395) 2100114) 1951535). 196.544 2219) 2100114) 2098) 193(452, 467) 20998) 193453) 194486)

—

23.824

30

21340) 140, 219173) 241(80) 238, 9), 24175. 81) 20627) 164155). 189361) 24:2(89), 243110) 20008) 2411801. 242(103) 2308, 9) 140 219173) 181180)

2321198) 177771, 1944486), 19515173, 19745631 20080) 234 (228) 140, 141 211x127) 2431110: 2004 232119) 15135) 221x199 20980) 2347, 9) 15831) 213-4)

16812181 234250) 1671196) 241180) 15819), 1661771 205182: 21463)

160184) 16611861 139

15935. 39, 45) 15935) 167199) 219177) 242(89) 24289)

20741) 1681214) I6H 144) 166(176) 164(156) 220(187), 2-44(159) 160(67) 167(212) 168(215) 199(44), 200.49) -199(43) 200(49) 146, 236(23)

146. 163(130), 236(21), 241(66, 80, 82) 203(148) 188(336), 189(338), 191(414) 166(176) 175(-43) 206(16) 175(43) 204(154) 175(43) 175(43) 175143) 193(466), 19-499) 243(110, 122) 20998) 209 1003 209(98), 2-42(89), 243(1105 140 219173 1881327: 175131

TALES OF HEROES

282 2.82 2.89 95 2.91 92 2.04 2.04.95

1735043; 139

139 15935)

= N

KENNEN NN INN NWN

Sos IN ww ~~) Es a = =

2.187 2.1) 97 2.197 98 2.212 2.224

us =

~~ ts

de

+ Ss

EKNKBISNG De De BHeees w ww

2.300

2.130

Book 3 318 3.1 59

239(8) 161479; 215186) 209180, 96)

139, 19871), 219182)

2.94 110 2.3 2.97 2.105 2.132 33 2133 34 2.131 136 2.139 214142 2.160

2.127b 2428 2.129

23625) 21500 1801-42). 210110)

29

139

236123} 120kd. By, 236123),

242189:

II 1757; 141 140 1-1 1535, 37) 1671199, 17543), 240031),

23918)

3 200

242189), 2430110)

2.4289) 23-4250) 188327) 203125). 2201185)

24181)

209(105)

233131, 24x31)

210110) 15X35Y). 160(64) 1955153) 24174, 81) 167(199) 160156) 16064)

175.43), 24031) 218(163), 24031) 167(199) 175(43)

161(100)

241(69)

20980) 165( 168} 161(88) 20698) 167(212) 167(212) 168(217) 167(197) 168(215) 242(91) 166186). 167(196) 242(91) 20%80) 20980) 163(130) 20480) 2088) 15951) 159(41, 50) 188(327) 204154) 235(10) 209(88) 214140) 123d. F. 240640, +3) 123(d. F) 123(d. F) 244K 43) 123(d. F) 123(d. F). 171318) 208(76) 2-40(41. 43) 123(d. F) 123d. Fi 123id. F: 2-H

42:

123d. F) 123d. BS 209780, Ub,

2204198)

9 301

> 403

232(200) 20877). 20984), 21122) 20997) 142 142 142 210(1 14), 239(8) 220(195) 2201199) 140 138, 204176) 1618-4) 140. 219% 173) 159(47) 20741), 222( 16) 120(d. B) 23912, 19) 120(d. B), 160(79) 160(79) 209(98) 236(26) 20980) 1986) 16079) 199115) 160(62) 2348) 209(96) 209(96, 98) 236(23) 120d. B). 239(12) 236(25) 236025) 16194). 163125. 126, 132) 160162) 1619. 1631321 16311301. 241/66) 1621-6 166:1761 233110, 281192 237ı9l:

20906: 23623: 20900,

210.110

3.441 3.446 3.447 3.458 3.458 3.459 3.459 3.460 3.461 3.461 3.462 3.463 3.464 3.467

167(203) 23623) 120fd. Bj. 236(23} 12d. B), 236(23) 62 60 62 69

3.470- 2 3.473

239(14)

120d. B) 236(23) 124d. B) 120(d. Bj 23623), 23913)

120(d. Bj. 23915)

23751) 20-4152), 236(23) 199(17, 19}, 2049), 236(23) 236(23) 12(Xd. B), 236(23),

239(18)

3.477 3.477 -97 3.484 3.486 4 3.490 3.490 91 3.491

241(73, 81) 185(261) 163130). 185(262) 163(130), 185(262) 236(28) 146 163(130), 236(28),

3.492 93 3.493

163(130) 162110. 112), 163(121, 125. 126,

241(66)

130)

3.494 3.497

163(130) 163(130)

Book 4 4.1 2 4.3-19 4.10 12 4.15 4.17

237(49) 237(49) 220184) 157(3) 157(4). 21340), 239(21)

4.20

162(110, 112),

4.20 21 4.20 22 4.21 4.37-43 4.39 41 4.42 4.43-44

4.43b 44 4.45 46 4.45

4.50

46a

163121) 165(164) 237(49) 163(132) 22 183) 165(165) 23, 165(167), 171313. 315) 158(23) 165(168) t6-K152) 204172) 198(4, 9), 200(49) 219183) 218(163) 120(d. B), 236(23), 239(18) 16-41-41) 164152) 161(84) 24156) 15941) 220198} 16110; 159435). 16016-F oor 199156; 1o7:212), 168213 198.1: 2191705. 2207189

4.128 4.130 4.130 4.131 4.154 4.165 4.173 4.174 4.192 4.210 4.211 4.219 4.219 4.229 4.238 4.255 4.263 4.273 4.280 4.285 4.297

31 34 35 32

77 12 21 34

4.297 300 4.300 4.302 4.303 4.304 4.305 4.305 6 4.306 4.308 4.310 4.341 4.350-66 4.351 53 4.351 70 4.356 4.357 4.358 4.368 4.375 4.392 4.03 4.409 4.430 4.431 4.496 4.499 4.499-511 4.513 4.537 4.550 4.557 4.559

4.579b 4.579b

1.615 1.615

80

16 99

220189) 157(5), 1671189) 176(57), 21X182) 167(202) 19914) 160162) 20080) 206125). 220196) 160(64) 160163) 140) 244(147) 15956) 198(9) 160(72) 209(80) 166( 173) 240(31) 242(89), 243(110) 17543) 163125, 128. 136), 19915) 163(132, 133), 1986) 158(34), 15%35) 161(102), 162(103), 163(132, 133, 134, 136) 163(132) 161(95), 163(132) 200(52), 201(73) 146, 236(21) 163(130), 2-41(66) 188(336), 189(338), 191(414) 161(95), 166(176) 240(31) 134 243(129) 220(195) 20997) 241(80) 180(142), 210110) 144 2-41(80) 160(62) 209100) 209(88) 164(137) 163(130), 241(65,66) 20049) 20094) 220198) 20%97) 160(65) 241(69) 159(35), 160(66) 209(95) 243(129) 164137) 163130), 241(65, 66) 210110) 124(d. G) 24159) 124d. G) 220195) 1832371 1671202) 198600)

1.617 19 4.620 1.021

219170: 17 236130), 241180) 1535), 160072

2H 3. 5.255 5.258

109 zu " 7.112 32

| 207035) GAS} 14

283

2191785 ’ 21178)

6.264 6.265

2091105) 211151 211151)

7 7.130 7A: .133

9168: 1651168: 242189; 242189,

4.625 159351 aan we 4.625 27219180; _ ai

4.626

215179),

3.258. 3.258: 3.205 3.26

4.635

20101

3.282 89

235240

6.206 67

200112)

7133

4.660

2080:

5.293b 94

24160)

6.269

2110147)

7.139

242189)

22:80; 19448, 19505 10:

6.305 6 6.305 7

1575) IST 1981

7.201 3 7.224

207146: LOUK

4.646 4.650 4.678 4.708 4.718 4.731 4.741 4.751 4.760 4.763

5.269

2006 140, 2191176) 2101127:

4.768 4.779

5.204 3.208 5.303 3.309 5.313 5.313 5.315 5.333 5.342 3.346 5.351

4.802

16701865. 168215;

| 5.373

209.5) 1671180:

242180)

6.266

5.291 94234253) 5.293b 124d. Gi

163168; 2002, in 167/212), 1691216; 20:96, 98} 213122 1671191) 167/196) 160172. 78), 172-333: 159.35. 39, 45: 20080, 811

4781 4.787

503 67

Index of References to the Odyssey 219178) 6.251 202117 21€ 2. 202117) 208177) 6.262 6720517) 1922 6.263 64 141

12 31 32 53 50

3.354 3.370

6.268 6.268

12d. Gi 24181 144 19-4486: 220:197; 208/60) 2081775. 2101122) 2341253; 203149) 2051180) 205180)

2051805

7.271-77

2201197)

7.7 74

7.283 za za 15 7.311 16

207.413) 21031) 21907 2080585

7.21 7.27 7.4

24280; 23018) 20801

7.320 7334 1.335

21280) 236130) 202117

7.336 39

163132), 1986)

5.13

21.470:

Book 6

7.1

5.29 32

5.33 553 5616 62

242895, 243:110) 142 20623) 236/38)

202119: 1M 1981

6.8 6.10 6.15

142 173:3 80 165:176), 16772120,

204169)

6.2565

219178:

5.02

2191182)

3.97 115 5.90 115

236253) 219178)

5.86

5.108 9

23-250)

3.117

24 1:60

3.110

175.63;

6.10

2201196)

6.25 28

20060)

6.26 6.2628

200.60), 2040161) 1

6.35 37

6.38

3 18 20 3.1 5.1

21. 49 ! } 20080) 20005

6.49 6.52 53

5.175 5.175 76

21011103 209182)

6.8] 6.87

3.204 3.208 5.214 5.225 a2 226 27

240:30: 16O:B4s 24180) PLP ker225 166137:

5.160 64 5.171 5.172 5.173 79 3203

5.228

5220

2. 3.230

210:1781 24289), 243,110) 241169) 21178) 4030, 24r808

163 130: 211 66.

TOR. 200,19),

20

$1

ih

6.53 6.537 59 6.62 6.74

| 6100

6.101 6.111 6.117 6.127 7 6.128 20

6.162

GIB

6.211

20839)

7.4

7.12 7.36 7.43

9

120d. Bi. 239/123 2 |

2083)

7.53

139

7,30

260, 67),

7.64

198/600)

238

204163) 200136) 198

1761375. 219182) 200160) 160161) 1661 76) 20-4168) 141

Basen

2023117) 198-1, 200/603 2.2189) 242080: an WKS

173-3515

20H 2

164152) 204179 iW 16198). 164151) 164132)

7.89

157(14), 1697238)

7.9094 79192 7.91 791% 94 7.92

175136) 1641551 4 198600: RLGO0! 207:17.48)

7.89 90

7.95

7.0

161.98). 20061) 201

.

,

201180: 219 166i

6.221 vet

ie

21299 12

7.103 7 7.1037

31183: 219183

3 2

27

10505 1735 213 1m. ann

7.105

a 4.7.107

FE 20185

12.88

7.109

2b} 523155 212 O14 Go

208123

e126 210 1s 231255

2078 oz

6.217 6.226

RT oa

wwf

212 00. lob

137-

7.100

2204 4

164125, 126)

161051. 163.132) ‘sl

ae

.

Joa gO). 241100) 20616) 20611) ITSCHD 218164 en

Mn

Bis an

Ban

Her

he

: ; 206)

on

°

,

PT

ee 8.57

”

TEE 02 8.66

198:

8.02

166166

2080.

a pane

8.26 218016 IE en a rane 8.42 160172) 345 22088

In.

1761537;.

1631251, IML:

ZEN)

nee

16.4155)

„! 7.98

3.232 am ın less 367

FO

a 845 8.5 Bo 8.11

TEL UST

6.214

5.231 32

10% 17-, POO

7.8485 78 Ada 7.86 7.87 7870

7346 Boo!

10

16132)

74

7.6465 2430140) 7.66 7720740) 21° 7.82 83 164153) men

7 937

32° ] 32

7.338 733

1 +1. 207028;

LOO 18:

d=

7.336

141. 1800142)

200160)

7.56

IKT ZI 200719) Ze 20080)

7312 14

7445

1988, 10913).

202117)

7254 | 7 7249

160162. 204117)

Lahti, [OHI 3 7,

242189)

3.233

210110) 20611

20117 26

6.313

7.230

16187) 161/88; 243140; 236120) 1751433, 24031) 189:3:45) 219183} 24289; 159135: 2181164 160172;

162110, 111) 162 166176) 20105)

6.328 6331

6.1 6.3 6.3 8 6.46

7.142 7.144 7.146 7.154 7.158 7.162 7.172 76 7.177 7.179 804 7.186 7.190

21289. 213110;

3.159 205:180) 3.176 772050: 54 24200

159533), 160) 20005: 282196 208177:

2060265 2107110) 176146), 20519) Mt ) 16 1:a6\ 161186; 158128) 161186) 16185} 16186) 16101)

158123)

15%561

21811643 160179)

212189:

220;

Id. Gi, 240611

45

7.136 7.136

6.322

Book 5 5597 5.14 5.16 5.2321 5.27

24291;

3.390

200196) MH

219182

20098;

1608

7.133 34

6.306

4.817

4.834

5.387

6.270 6.271 6.29] 6.202 6.296 6.207 6.297 312 6.299 6.300 6.303 6.303 4

141. 206111)

72 8.72 ‘

ne

lear 5 1631125, 2131405

133:

157.13, 1711310: ; t20:d. Bs. 236:23:,

Doo

LE

TALES OF HEROES

gg 3

30

64

8.490 520 1731350;

DEHTEL 237.32: 209,90) 311815 199211

48

60

366 320 367 366

#.325

~

R.32H 8.333 8.316 8.363 8.360 8.301 8.387 8.300 8.390 ¢ 4.392 8.1017 8.403 8.103 8.103 5 8.405 8.106 8.406 8.407 8.414 HAL 8.116 8.425 8.138 8.430 8.441

2MDIO4, 242100. 16063; 230220), DEBT: 160572) 200 100: 20620. 218165, 160:174: 238173) 213140) 2llill: 162110, 11. 1631121; 1621110. 111: 16301215 24031. 21:8]; 23630) 241169 1730345) 20094) 24289, 243110) 218 164) IH 318162) 199117. 20%. 20049) 23754) 189352) 1893413 144x377), 2201189) 189337) 189(336), 1901380) 192(417) 241(69) 189336) 10381) 189336, 337) 19917. 20), 2004 #9)

2201189)

1671203 199117.211. 200045, 49)

2-41(69)

8.442 8.445 BAO 8.155

209(96) 248 LOBE, 19%. 200495, 23662533 21169 157:1:. 171:310:

8.160 8.473 3.485 5.180 3.404

Qt: 1692538, 197.4 19918) 190215 21463: 2IBIGH. 207-46: 23510 206117) 2191180:

ar

120d. Bi. 2361231 IIa 18. D3 5 21280:

8.531

13

8.557 50

207765; 209188;

9.177

206:15: 240131;

9.178

244145; 1951500:

9.178 9.179 9.179 9,180 9.18-4 9.224 9.226 0.236 9.239 9.279 9.283 9.300

21-63: 21R:16h 2061271

2081771. 210:122: 8.365 69 8.567 8.567b 68

207128)

31011), 2101125

Book 9 9.30 9.31 9.39 940 9.40 9.49 951 09.535 9.60 9.62 9.62 9.63 0.64 9.67 9.67b 9.68 9.68 9.69 9,74 9.75 9,75 9.76 9.77 9,78 9.82 9.85 9.85 9.86 9.87 OBS 9.88 9.89 9,90 9.99 9.101 9.103 9.103 9,104 9.105

61 12 43 50

2007 100) 160:6 4) 223124

134 220185.

194:

183233} 200:RON

63

84 69

1934661 13813271 124d. Gy, 24054: 240553), 24158. 50: 124d. Ca: 209 105:

20860)

2201197; 1?4d. G)

69 75 76

2411605 124id. G) 16-5137) 2461 124d. G) 124d. Gj 12 Hd. G), 241162)

12:4d. Gj, 24162)

104 87

243125) 124d. Gy 24163) 12 Kd. G), 20801

90

4

9.105 15 9.116 50 9.125 9.127 9.136 09.136 38 0.137

124d. G) 124d. G) 24164 124(d. G) 124(d. G), 235716) 20997) 2083) 12Hd. G) 24056. 57), 24159) 124d. G) 124d. G), 24005. 241(58) 2336) 208(64) 210117), 236(38) 20988)

211147) 2111150) 208178), 21081 10}, 211475

9.148 9,150 9.152 4101 9,169 4.170 9.172

20088) 51

164137) 1631130%, 2111661

31178, BT, B2) 16-4137; 163: 130%, 236137. 76

2S 120:

124d. Gy, 2400.45).

24159) 124d. G). 210(1-40).

79 80 86 29

86

9.306 9.307 9.322 9.338 9.391 93 9.404 9.437 9.162 9471 9.171 72 9.472 9.182 9483 9.539 9.540 9.514 9.548 9.550 9551: 9.555 9.550 9.560 9.562

ot) we

82

9.562 63 9.563 9.563 64 9.564 9.565 9.565 -66 9.566

240156, 57) 240545), 24159) 124id. Gi 24056. 37) 12d. G; 1650157) 243(127) 20980) 16197) 1651157) 210011 208(60) 188(336), 189(338), 1911410), 192(423) 161371 163(130), 241166) 20996), 2101127; 1650157:

222( 1-4) 20743) 163130). 2:4 1166) 1651157)

12-tid. Gi 207% 124d. G) 214+ 21:1¢156, 157) 210114) 2110157) 209(88) 2097) 188(327) 23921)

20988} 164137) 16311303, 241166)

12Kd. Gi, 21014), 210057) 244 15) 124d. Gi 24057; 124d. G) 12-Hd. G) 2.4158) 124(d. G)

Book 10 10.3 10.5 10.10 10.13 10.19 10.23 10.28 10.37 10.46 10.56 10.56 10.57 10.58 10.62 10.77 10.91 10.92 10.95 10.096 10,99 10.100

15 27

55 58

208(6-4) 160(62) 165168) 164137) 234253) 209797) 16-4137) 2431) 208(60) 12d. Gi 241(63) 124d. Ga, 209(80) 1d. G) 169216) 12-4d. (5), 241150: 209105) 2007100.

101:

20496) 211.117, 148)

1621105

Ibid. Ge:

10.100 2 10.101 10.102 10.112 10.124 10.126 10.127

241(64) 124d. G) 124d. Gj, 235(16) 151 144

188(336). 189(336, 338), 191410), 192(423) 210119. 211147, 148)

10.133 10.133 34 10.134 10.143 10.143 44 10.144 10.145 10.154 10.156 10.162 10.164 10.169 10.170 10.176 10.186 10.187 10.203 10.206 10.206 10.211 10.220

124d. G) 241159) 124d. G) 124d. G) 24161) 124id. G) 189353). 19411). 194505) 209(80) 209( 105) 194486. 505: 19-4486. 505)

296)

—

284 8.73 8.80 8.83 BB 8.88 8.03 8.07 8.100 8.104 8.109 B.111 8.119 8.123 8.133 8.161 8.165 8.186 8.186 8.191 8.100 8.227 9.234 8.242 8.257 8.258 8.259 8.265 8.266 8.266 8.267 8.304

10.221 23 10.222 10.244 10.253 10.261 10.261 62 10.262 10.272 10.275 30: 10.294 10.314 10.31-+4--16 10.315 10.321 10.332 10.333 10.340 10.348--74 10.352 10.361 -65 10.364 10.365 10.366 10.366 68 10.368 72 10. 401 10.402 10.407 10.408 10.430 10.435 10.130

194505; 20%80) 164137) 16311301. 241:66, 67) 188(327) 195(517), 196(544) 221(9) 164(156) 162110, 112), 163(121) 1981)

1 76(57). 219182)

20980, 96)

164156) 189337), 191410) 189(339) 184342) 209(96, 98) 234(253) 188(336), 189(338), 191(410). 192(423) 189345) 179(128) 227(102) 189(349, 351). 190(382), 192(423) 209(80, 96) 189(352), 190(382) 166(174) 236(27) 198(8) 204(152) 236(23) 198Ch. 19915). 20049), 23623) 189(345)

179(128) 219183) 240(30)

209(80)

20980, BI) 20980) 241169) 165157)

189348. 351), 190;382), 191(387). 192423)

Index of References to the Odyssey

vw

10.541 10.542 10.543 lO. 1 10.545 10.552 60 10.558 10.563 65 10.569 10.571

160172) 21030)

207-411, 222161 15439,

13)

11.198 11.209 11.231

1660178} 16-4137) 9411695

240730

11.328 29

20096) 20:30:

159:35:. 160172, 78). 172:333; 1911-412) 1887336), 189:338). 19214231 211167, 68:

198-41, 20049;

199:18) 90% 123) 205. 18-4: 16441401,

172.329)

1660177) 234253. 290.80: 209-96)

Book 11 11.3 11.6 11.12 11.12 11.13 11.14 11.24 11.31

22

11.40 11.45 50 11.48 11.51 78 11.51 80 11.56 11.58 11.60 11.61 65 11.63 11.63

11.68 11.70 11.80 11.81 11.82

65

200-96; 2101145 163/130: 23:75; 177:70: 190/382; 189351), 1921423) 15935), 160172. 783. 1721333) 195: 166: 1911412 188:336;. 1890338), 19K410.412,, 192/423) 135 IH 241:69 HU: 240:30) 172329) 1661771 16-4 1.401 160623 2111 1914135 191-412) 189359. LOT) 210130) 183531, 191012) 189: 336, 337), 191:410, #12) 231253) 210010 24131223 223.10; 2325199) 150:35: JOD 18) 256.20: ODL: 160.0 110 159-99.

16069

11.603 11.600 11.610 11.613 11.614 11.617 11.631

12 14

11.632 11.637 11.637 38 11.638

2326195} 1986), 1915). 200% 48). 204163) 160465) 241169 189135 1. 190/382), 191(387), 1926423: 203124 2431139) 2-437 1-40) 239175)

20980;

2381751 236120). 238175) 15935. 30, 44) 20201175 23875; 23431137) 20742: 2310188) 21100: 24181. 83: 2.40:301 1605563 150 180:359:, 191-408} 241:811 221K 198%) 150. 151.21 K79; 240:30) 1801425. 209798}, 210110) 188i3271 2431107. 2440143) 227 102) 218165 1891336). 191(¢-416) 19 4-186) 2431152) 151, 214791 238175) 238175) 1731350) 238175) 202(119) 2010-4. 23875: 1781]; 23875; 178111) 24030) 216123), 227(93). 233213) 2:38:75) 12.kd. G), 2100140) 2404-45, 36), 24159) 124d. G)

Book 12 12.6 7 12.8

12.32 12.37 12.50 12.69 12.71 12.82 12.83 12.84 , 12.93 ı 12.100

16-4137}

1631130), 24 166, 110

67, 68) 2101-1 234253) 20080) 210109 20997) 20% 97) 209097) 20% 1001 20O 100i 210i

l Ih

12.102 12.142 12.145 12.145 +46 12.146 12.146 4 12.147 12.148 12.166 12.171 12.182 12.186 12.218 12.228 12.228 29 12.245 12.247

-

11.187 96 11.189

ı

198-4, 95, 2000 19)

12.310 12.313b 15 12.314 12.31+-12 12.315 12.316 wa

10.532 37 10.535

20998)

w

10.417 10.451 10.152 10.456 10.178 79 10.479 10.179 80 10.480 10.482 10.488 10.502 10.504 10.923

12.317 12.320 12.331 12.346 12.348 12.354 12.358 12.360 12.360 61 12.361 12.362 63 12.363 12.364 12.364 65 12.365 12.367 12.368 12.375 12.387 12.305 12.402 12.403 19 12.403b 6 12.106 12.415 19 12.418 Book 13 13.1 13.2 13.4

13.11 13.18 13.25 13.26 13.27 13.27 13.20 13.530

12

28 Sha

1951517) 241(683 12-4d. 65), 210(1 40)

24045). 241139) l24id. G) 241(59) 124id. G) 21061 1-8 21111) 209197) 20%83) 20996} 20997) 19-486) 19-448-H 20997 20980: 144 20096; 20906; 2OOBO: 24160: 2100. 210111) 120id. Bi. 2360231, 23918: 209971 2201971 124d. G: 24160: 124d. G; 1631301, 2-+41(66.68) 164137) 209180, 96) Lit 173(344) 210019 21114) 20%88) 12Kd. Bj 23% 13) 120%. Bi, 23623) 23413) 160179) 120xd. B) 236023), 23813) 12d. By. 23915) 209(80, 81) 209(105) 20052), 201473) 2080) 181195) 124d. Gi), 2.162) 208(60) 320107) 209(97) 220197)

20996)

236120) 15935. 39, AH 15712) 2244189) 163(130), 241(66) 23921) 15733 L574). 230021) 2130105 W716i 1533:

285 13.56 13.58 13.63 13.65 13.67 13.71 13.74 13.77 13.78 80 13.8] 13.95 13.101 13.107 8 13.113 15 13.116 13.117 13.118 13.126 13.130 13.134 13.149b 13.157 13.158 13.161 13.162 13.166 13.167 13.168 13.173 13.1751» 13.179 13.18013.186 13.187 13.210 13.216 13.218 13.227 13.236 13.250 13.253 13.256 13.256 13.259 13.267 13.283 13.290 13.329 13.354 13.337 13.353 13.361 13.375 13.378 13.380 13.388 13.392 13.403 13.412 13.420 13.125 13.434 13.532

3) 50

2:12:80), 24301103 241169; 2:12:89; 20980)

19X17, 20%. 200049) 20097) 209197}

2111147, 149; 164137) 139 2101109) 20088:

176657: 219 182: 211153; 20993;

20997) 1986), 19915), 204163; 243110, 122, 123) 219173) 20:80) 210:112) 200:80)

227:102) 64

210109) 207/20 209:44;

240314 209/80} 77 207528) -76 2100112) 240129; 87 2071301 21816h 21289) 218168 20998) 198(-4) 241169) 2348) 242,89) 24169

70 86 72

219:176) 143 131 1911186) 209:97)

21160)

239:7)

160162) 160166)

24280) 2348)

24030) 243122) 81

139

205182) 233047)

33

Book 14 14.3 +4 14.4 11.5 14.6 14.7

160462) 216113) 23097) 2096) 1917), 20049) 164157)

2446950) 242/89), 243710) 1610102), 16210 164.156) 164157

286 14.10 14.10 14.12 14.18 1.4.34

TALES OF HEROES 12 16

14.40 14.48 14.55 14.72 Vdd 14.132 14.134 14.135 14.148 14.154 14.182 14.202 10 14.216: 19 14.222 26 14.224 14.229 31 14.230 11.244 47 14.244 86 14.247 14.248 84 14.256 14.258 14.258 64 14.264 14.271 72 14.276 14.277 14.285 86 14.295 14.297 14.301b + 14.304 14.305 9 14.308 14.311 14.316 26 14.320 14.324 14.325 14.326 14.327 14.339 14.34] 14.342 14.345 14.357 14.377- 78 14.385 14.396 14.401 14.409 14.413 14.122 14.424 14.430 14.131 14.417 14.151 11.460 11.177 11.478

165158) 164157) 1721321) 2313128) 1621110. 118). 1631122; 2431122) 244151; 24180) 19%43). 2006-49), 203132, 133) 241169) 198-4, 20049) 1811195} 144 241815, 242(89) 198-4), 20049) 2431122): 134 219(179) 2081701 209495)

219169) 209182) 208(70;

220195) 2431122) 134 12 Hd. G), 241162) 2001105)

219169). 2200104 ZUX185) 21%179 19565177, 1960544) 177(77;. 181182) 208(68) 2104109) 22187) 221197) 20997) 220197) 20%96) 210114) 208(68) 198(4), 20049) 189(361) 173(347) 15935) 174346) 210109; 198(4, 5). 2006-49) 19%17), 20049) 20%88) 20%97) 167(199) 243(122) 198(4), 200/49) 244151 236(30) 244151) 236(231

2.4296) 121d. B), 236/23), 23915) 120id. Bs, 230:16° 160179; 120:d. B:, 23623). 25185 19:15. 177:77: 198:HF. 200:19

14.479 14.480 14.480 82 14.482 14.486 14.488 14.489 14.500 14.50+ 14.513 14.516 14.517 14.520 14.520 2 14.528 14.529 14.532 33 14.533

15.256 - 78 15.258 15.259 15.269 15.272 -73

20049), 2031147) 19914) 19915) 198(-4), 200(49) 198(4), 200649) 164(137) 19816) 19912) 189(336, 338). 19114155 199413) 164157) 209( 100), 236(35)

15.280 15.282 193466), 194(499) 15.283 20% 105) 15.284 210109) 15.286 210(1 40) 15.287 123(d. F) 15.287 88a 240(43) 15.288a 123(d. F) 15.289 123(d. F), 171(318) 15.289-9] 2443) 15.290 123(d. F) 15.291 123(d. F) 15.292 123(d. Fi, 240(43) 163(130) 15.296 15.300 236135) 15.301 236(35). 244151) 15.303 120(d. B), 236(23),

19915)

Book 15 15.1 15.5 15.8 15.9 15.10 15.10 15.33 15.52 15.56 15.59 15.60

12

61

15.61 15.77 15.90 15.94 15.98- 108 15.99 15.102 2+ 15.104 8 15.104 29 15.105 15.107 8 15.115 16 15.117-19 15.123 29 15.124 15.143 15.145 46 15.146 15.162 15.171 15. 182-93 15.184 --92 15.185 15.188 89 15.189 15.190 92 15.191

15.192 15.204 15.205 15.217 15.218 15.237

212(28) 2080, 96)

17477) 144, 19915) 203146. 147) 177(77) 24430)

236(35) 1611102), 162(103) 207/43) 2-430) 1G1(84; 140, 219(173) 210111) 195(511) 241(68) 203(1-48) 200146. 49), 204(164) 199(18) 15%35) 243(122) 159(35) 167(202) 167(213) 220189) 200(58) 200(66) 201(7-4) 240(33) 167(202) 219170) 200(58) 200(67) 120(d. B). 236(23), 23918) 163(130), 185(262) 162(110, 112), 163(121, 125, 126, 130) 165(168) 200(52), 201(733) 185(261) 1631130), 185(262) 163(130) 236(21) 163130), 24166) 183(262) 152110. 1125, 1631121. 125. 126, 1301. 1851262) 163.1303, 18572625

15.272- 76

195(512) 124(d. G). 240(45), 241(59

241(69)

124d. G). 2101140) 240(45, 56), 241(59) 124d. G) 188(330) 192(428), 193(466). 194475. 497. 499) 2100140) 164157)

209196) 21%176) 232194) 210110)

23% 18)

15.331 15.338 15.340 15.350 15.352 -57 15.354 15.363 15.365 15.368 15.410 15.+13 15.419-14 15.416 15.420 15.427 29 15.150 15.450- 53 15.452 53 15.456 15.457 15.460 15.464 15.465 15.466 15.469 15.471 15.473 15.482. 15.483 15.183 15.485 15.489 15.493 15.496 15.497 15.497 15.498

198(4), 200(49) 198(4). 200(49)

242(89) 160(84)

166(178), 232(195)

160463, 66) 200(52) 201(73) 198(4), 200(49) 198(600)

220(186)

244158)

20%96) 209(98) 22187, 194), 244(159) 160(62) 22(( 186, 187) 244(159)

209(97) 209(98) 202(1 10)

209(98) 220(186) 161(102), 162(105), 163(130)

70 83 84 -90 164137), 236(30) 97 -99

210(140), 24044) 123d. Fy, 208781, 211147

15.499 15.501

123. Fi 120d. Bi. 2361231. OS

JES

TR:

20006;

IHN: 123%:d. FF. 240543.

13.503 15.518

20990:

15.517

25138:

13.510 22

17

L981: 167187. 219; 182) 140

16.56 16.76-77a 16.79 16.80 16.90 16.95-98 16.104 16.106 16.120 16.122-27 16.122 -28 16.129 16.136 45 16.164 16.165 16.167 16.173 16.180 16.186 16.221 16.225 16.229 16.247-51 16.258 16.266 16.274 16.285 16.295 16.321 16.322 16.325 16.333 16.340 16.341 16.342 44 16.343 16.348 16.359 16.368 16.393 16.399

244151) 158(23) 242(89) 1621110, 118) 244(151) 220(184) 160(62) 166(173) 159(35). 160(69) 171311), 191(407), 193(466), 19-4499) 169(238), 170(256) 120(d. B) 120(d. B), 236(23). 239(18) 24-4149) 159(35) 198(4), 200(49) 189(336), 192(417)

219173) 234(228) 232(195) 242(89) 15%35). 164149, 157)

240(30)

199(17, 20), 200(49) 241(69) 242(89) 171310) 242(89) 20%80) 15714), 163(131) 242(89) 24289) 161(88) 161(97), 168(214) 189(359), 194(486) 236(30) 240(111) 209(96) 244(150) 171(310) 159(35), 166(185) 168(218) 159135), 164(149, 157) 209,96) 209496) 20980) 236.20: 17543: 24080)

Index of References to the Odyssey 16.402 16.416 16.424-30 16.425 92 16.149 16.450-51 16.452 16.461 16.461 -63 16.472 16.474 16.479 16.480 16.481

Book 17 17.1 17.4 17.22 17.28 17.29 17.30 17.36 17.36 37 17.49 17.50 17.54 17.62 17.71 17.85 17.86 17.89 17.91-95 17.96-97 17.99 17.101 17.101-6 17.102 3 17.116 17.132 17.143 17.145 17.147 17.151-56

17.260 17.261 63 17.262

173(347) 205(182) 2321197) 220119 164138), 166(186;, 167(193, 196), 20-K170) 139 244151) 244149) 2200184) 20%X80) 177(77). 194(470) 239(18) 120(d. B), 236(23), 23918) 16-4137) 1631130), 241166) 120(d. A), 178101).

191(408), 19-475, 190(382) 159(41) 171(310, 191(407), 169(238, 170(256) 166(186) 166(176} 167(191) 236(23) 243(137) 194(499) 195(512)

192(429), 499) 311). 194/499) 240),

120(d. B), 230(23), 23918) 167(187) 167(196) 139 195(511) 240(31) 15935), 160(66) 20995) 195(511) 212(29) 209(88) 236(30) 159(35) 219({180) 215(79) 15941, 54) 198(7) 244(154) 173(345) 244(155) 189352), 191(382) 24031) 161(88) 209(88, 96) 198(600) 2H UID

2131401 209 100:

17.264 71 17.266-68 17.267 17.275 17.280 17.288 17.290 17.324 17.328 17.328 35 17.332 17.336 17.339

1, 157(7) 164149, 150) 164151) 159(41)

18.187.90 18.198 18.206

24:2(89)

18.210 18.212 13 18.235 18.237 18.239 18.243 18.259 18.259-70 18.267 18.275-80 18.280 18.281 18.281 83 18.292 18.292-93 18.292--94 18.294 18.295 18.295 96 18.297 18.298

209(93) 236(30) 159(41. 54) 170(257) 220184) 161(88) 170(257) 169(238, 240, 246), 170(258) 171(310) 17.340 17.391 160(62) 17.398b-99 159(35) 17.413 169(246) 17.419 24 219176) 17.427 20%105) 17.427-38 134 2200195) 17.427--41 17.428 34 219169) 17.433 220185) 17.440 41 219179) 17.466 169(240, 246), 170(256) 17.492--93 167(187) 17.498 241(80) 17.499-505 168(218) 17.505-6 168(218) 166(179), 242(89) 17.506 244(149) 17.507 244149 17.508 17.508 11 220184 160(64) 17.521 17.534 36 140 17.534--38 219173) 17.541 42 168(218) 198(4), 200(49) 17.550 198(4), 200(49) 17.557 242(89) 17.560 244(150) 17.589 17.599-609 2201184) 159(35), 170(260) 17.604 170(261) 17.605-6 236(35) 17.606

Book 18 18.1 18.10 18.24 18.31 32 18.32-33

146, 236(35) 162(110, 113), 163(122), 170(262) 159(35) 170(263) 162(1 14) 169(238, 240) 122(d. E) 240(31) 240(31) 209(96) 242(89) 162(115) 1621110). 163(122) 1631125) 241(69) 169240) 242(89) 160179) 19-4499) 209/98} 159(35)

18.300 18.302 18.304-11 18.313-16 18.366-75 18.377 18.378 18.386 18.399 18.400 18.422 18.428 Book 19 19.1 19.1 52 19.3 46 19.16 19.17 19.30 19.32 19.33 19.37 19.38 19.41 19.47 19.48 19.51 19.53 19.53 54 19.53 56 19.56- 58 19.60 19.75 -80 19.102 19.106 19.107 22 19.109 14 10.130 35

139 202117) 16-4138), 1671193,

196}, 20-4170) 205(182) 140 24031) 165(168) 165(168) 236(30) 188(327) 140 160162) 140 167(199) 242189) 140 20059) 201(72) 20189) 2021115) 202110) 20100) 201/91). 202110) 20191). 202107, 112) 201(92) 166(186). 167196) 159155) 139(55) 219178) 177(77). 181182). 194486) 195(517), 196544) 162(110). 163(122) 15935, 39. 45) 24431} 235(13) 15955) 159(35, 55), 164(137), 242(89) 170(266) 238(74) 170(267) 167(210) 159(35, 41, 52) 177(77), 181(181, 182), 195(517). 197(564, 572) 194(469) 157(9), 171(318), 1721323) 157(1)

241(68) 159(35), 170(268) 166(176) 15935, 55). 164(137), 242189) 166(186). 170(269) 166(176) 15955) 166(181), 2180151) 15955), 202:117) 219176) 24289) 24168) 219176) 144 140

287 19.138 19.139 19.139: 40 19.141 19.142 19.164 19.172 77 19.173-74 19.174 19.176 19.177 19.178 19.178-79 19.179 19.180 19.182 19.184 19.188 19.193 19.216 19.217 19.220 19.225 19.225 19.225 19.226 19.227 19.232 19.232 19.234 19.238 19.241

26 27 31 34

19.242 19.243 19.247 19.254 19.256 19.259 19.261 19.274 19.295 19.296 19.302-30 19.308 19.318 19.322 19.335 19.337 19.339 19.349 19.382 19.386 19.425 19.428 19.430 19.437 19.438 19.448 19.453 19.456 19.490 19.497 19.199 19.503 19.526 19.528 19.535

29a 30.

199(22) 159(35) 139, 1981), 219(182) 242(89) 199221 241168) 142 14: 215(87), 238(72) 142 142 142 142 142 142 20% 104) 21479) 142 209104) 2-43(122) 160(72) 2-41(68) 166(180), 1991 4. 242(89) 19819. 10) 19915) 201193) 202(1 16) 20049). 2041164) 20-4165) 164152) 209/80) 189(352), 190(382) 200(47. 49) 20% 209, 88) 238(77) 160(67) 167(204) 20%X98} 241(68) 20%97) 15%35) 173(346, 347) 208160) 241(68) 198(6), 199(15). 20-4163) 160(76) 241(68) 1986), 199(15). 204163) 20994) 241(68) 241(68) 171(316) 120Xd. B). 239(18) 163(130), 241(66) 242(89) 242(89) 193(467), 1944507) 194(485, 507) 19-4480, 5073 243(110, 122. 123) 160(62; 160162} 241168; 15%35: 160-84: 150.35, 16061:

288

TALES OF HEROES

19.554 19.559 19.572. 74 19.573 19.577 81 19.582 19.588 19.595 -96 19.600 19.600- 2 19.602 19.603 -4 Book 20 20.1

—

20.1 3 20.1 -6 20.4 20.44 20.58 20.68 20.91 20.91 -£ 2 20.92 20.95 20.95 96 20.96 20.96 111 20.102 20.104 20.105-8 20.105 11 20.107 8 20.117 20.120 20.122 20.122.23 20.125

241168) 241/68) 160173) 170274 170274) 241168) 241168) 139 16

20.306 20.320 20.329 20.343b-44 20.351: 57 20.354 20.355

138}, 167(193),

20-4(170) 15935) 166(186), 167(196) 139 161(102). 162103. 105). 16-4(137), 2-42(89) 164(138) 15935) 198(6) 2398) 139 160162) 24168) 139 242(89} 199(15)

160(77) 162(105) 1650168) 120(d. B) 242(89)

167,190) 15823: 2191183}

160(72)

242189)

161184), 219(183) 15823)

188(336), 189338). 191414

192428). 193(466).

20.127

20.: 277

20,279 20,20

20,102

-63

58 50 61

21.5-19 21.8 21.10 21.19 21.34 21.38 21.39 21.42 21.43 21.45 21.51 21.55 21.58 21.65 21.68 21.74 21.75: 21.80 21.118 21.119

236130) 19Bi7) 1701270) 170281) 1702715 150.58. 12. 160.761, 160238, 240. DOE 154 240 33 163-125 171 315

21.235 21.236 21.240 21.242 21.212 21.251 21.262 21.267 21.271 72 21.272 21.208

15%35) 19 499) 188(327) 21% 183) 160(67)

236(30) -82

21.5

160162 2.4206)

16111021. 162(103), 198(6)

20.144 20.145 20.146 20.157 20.167 20.172 20.173 20.176 20.189 20.194 20.198 20.208 20.214 20.239 20.2.0 20.219 20.257 20.257 20.257 20.258

Book 21 21.1 21.14

21.120-24 21.194 21.136-39 21.137 21.137. 39 21.144 46 21.146 21.149 21.160 21.160-61 21.164 21.164-66 21.175-84 21.190 21.191 21.204 21.213 21.234

194475. 497, 499} 20.143

20.369 20.371 20.382 20.387-89

171(290) 163125, 163(126, 218163) 2-41(69) 160184}

126. 133) 133)

19-4469, 499) 236(20) 242(96) 139135) 212(29) 157(9), 171318) 162110). 163122), 165(168) 243/110, 122) 159(41) 20990) 1711300), 236(35) 236(35) 160173, 82), 170273) 15819). 167(206). 236(35) 1661177) 1661179), 1670205) 189(361} 20%90) 1894336. 338), 192(417), 194475, 501) 24289) 20996) 167(207) 169(238) 168(215) 167(209) 139 161(89) 205182) 170273) 160173) 1700274) 244150) 199/14) 1891336, 338), 191414) 160(73), 1701275) 16%2-40), 170(276) 171(309) 1714310) 170(277), 171(309) 16%249) 161(97) 1691240), 170(276) 200(57) 170(287) 171(310) 170(277). 171(309) 171(290) 24289) 165168), 1700278) 24296) 221(201) 161189. 92), 244149 170627 159351, 1601571 16511685 150415 170281; 243: 110, 199; 159:35, 198:600) 23912, 19% 160:79% 1G) 88,

21.299 21.307 21.339 21.341

162(110). 163(122) 209(96

198(4), 200(49) 189(336, 338), 191(409), 192(417) 21.350 160484) 21.356-58 168(218) 21.357--58 139 21.359 244(157) 21.360 160(82) 21.362 244156) 160(82) 21.367 161(89, 92) 21.378 21.380 170(280) 21.382 15%35). 160(57) 21.387 15935, 41, 52), 21.388-89 21.389 21.390 21.396 21.409 21.414 21.419-23 21.431 21.433 21.434 Book 22 22.1 22.2 22.19 20 22.23 22.25 22.56 22.72 29.74 22.76 22.79 22.79- 80 22.81 22.84 22.85-86 22.90 22.92 22.95 22.97 22.98 22.101 22.101-15 22.102 22.108 9 22.109 22.110 22.111 22.120 22.121 22.122 22,123 22.123 24 22.124 2.1243 29.125

160157)

170(280) 164149) 163125, 133), 209105) 2431) 1701282) 242(89) 170(282) 189(338) 194499, 502) 146 146 169(238, 240), 170(283) 171(306) 161(89) 177(77), 181(181, 182), 194(475) 160/72) 16%23#) 1691230, 191(408) 16%240 18%35 3, 191(408) 189353. 357) 24289) 189359), 191(408) 1711306) 189359), 191(408) 194486, 502) 193467), 194(499, 502)

son

194(499,

189(359), 191(408) 177(77), 19-K486, 503) 23874) 196544) 1700284 167(210) 194503) 195(517), 196(5-44) 15% 35, 38, 42), 16081), 171(309) 23, 171(313) 175(17, 29). 177(77) 120id. A). 1951517), 195548 178108 120id.

22.126 22.126-28 22.127 22.128 22.129 22.129-30 22.131 22.132 22.133 22.1351 22.136-37 22.137 22.139-40 22.140 22.143 22.144 22.145 22.146 22.148 22.148 -49 22.151 22.154 56 22.155 22.157 22.157-59 22.160 22.161 22.162 22.164 22.166 22.171 22.171 -77 22.174 22.178 22.179 22.180 22.183 22.184 22.187 99 22.191 22.199 22.203 22.211 22.225. 28 22.227 22.239 22.251 22.257 22.260 22.261 22.265 22.270 22.272 22.274 22.279 22.282

Aj

178: 108; 1204. Ai 1927488), 1945-186, 488. 5031

22.293 22.205 29.999

157(10) 18, 16%2-43) 159(38, 42). 16081), 169238, 240), 1701251) 169(247) 244(153) 169(244), 170(285), 171(297) 171(313) 157(10), 169(243, 245) 157(10) 171(290) 169(248) 165(168), 169(247) 171(291) 167(210) 157(9), 16081), 167(210). 171(292) 177(77), 181(182), 194(503) 195(517), 196(544) 171(302) 1941484) 194503) 160(62) 171(294) 167(210) 1671210), 24-149) 171(293) 236(30) 167(210) 244(153) 170(254), 240(30) 167(210) 160/82) 171(293) 167(210) 170(255) 167(210), 177177) 161(96), 167(210) 195517),

196(545)

177(77), 204171) 171(296) 242189) 161(88) 1692430), 170(283) 160(82) 166(179) 202(117) 159(40, 48), 160(81), 204(173) 194(484, 503) 159(35, 38, 42), 160(81) 194503) 24289) 170(254), 194(482, 503)

160(81) 194482, 503) 159(35, 38, 42). 160(81) 177(77), 194(469, 504) 19-4482, 503) 161189), 243(1 10, 122) 194469, 304) 1941503) 160181)

Index of References to the Odyssey

22.449 22.452 22.455 22.457 22.458 22.450 22.465 22.166 22.474

=

3%

167/193, 196). 20-4170) 1501351 1711304; 16 1:89: 150135. 38, 42) 1641491. 17232 1891336. 343). 191/409} 163/125), 16-4149) 1711304) 16 1:89) 160:81) 159:35, 38, 42) 16-# LADS, 17223245 2101145. 2110147; 1721324)

162(110), 163122). 1651168)

23.159 60 23.162 23.176 23.178 23.180 23.190 23.190 23.192 23.229 23.231 23.234 23.240 23.247 23.269 23.269 23.271 23.288 23.291 23.295 23.296 23.297 23.299

160167) 241169) 161:97), 16752123 165: 168) 160:62) 16%238, 240) 157:1). 171:3101 2.4289 1601711 2001 19) 160162) 20049 203125: 199:17, 19), 200: 19), 236.23; 175:35: 236,23: QO, 159738), 1661175). 16712125. 169(240)

19816}, 109155

200 46

48 81

166184) 166180). 201/96) 1661751 1661175. 1677212) 164137: 21h) 202118; 231186) 2321199 223640), 2310180) 210118) 236130; 163132) 1661175) 106. 231190) 106 15939, 13, 1661178)

23.306

23.310 41 23.319 23.320 23.324 23.330 23.357 23.364

160/70) 242/9])5 2310187), 240038; 188327)

20%96) 209190) 209180) 220194) 167191)

Book 24 24.15 97 24.18 24.36 94 24.37 2.4.50 24.53 24.54 24.70 24.98 24.115 17 24.116 24.117 24.120 24.128 24.129 24.129 42 24.131 24.132 24.144 16 24.147 24.148 24.152 24.154 24.162 24.176 24.179 24.182 24.184 85 24.187 24.203 24.226 360 24.227 24.228 29 24.23]

2200198: 151.21#79 231188) 161:101) 200/98) 17543). 2431) D40315 21570) 236130; 2181535 2413137: 244145; 209: 88; 2310188) 198: 1), 2191182: 1590333 139 242.80 19522: 139 19922; 164152) 209:96) 20990) 160169) 242: 89) 218163: 232: 190; 171306: 160°68) 236: 30) 232193) 200-48, #9) 49, 188(328) 195(317, 524), 1965-44)

289 24.232 24.241 24.204 24.276 24.276 24.277 24.278 24.291 24.299 24.300 24.31524.318 24.348 24.362 24.367 24.372 24.376 24.383 21.399 24.4112 24.419 24421 24.424 21.128

242189) 242180 160184)

19811} 199165 19917. 19), 200119; 16972401 IH 20980:

243122: 15940: 171301; 242589)

19:41) 19915), 2400315 241/69)

240:31) 236/305 241169) 159135), 160172: 209180)

1731433 2421891 20%97) 232.196) 1681; 17543} 175(43,. 240,3h) 2321196) 232119) 242189:

24.413 -

24.4490 24.452 24.453 24.151 24.478 24.482 244188 24.190 24.501

240730:

242189; 242189 193( 467) 196551) 193467). 19-4500) 19515173, 197564, 572), 218163: 19-4500: 189:336:, 19-4170)

he

1641381, 1667186), oe

23

23.302

IE

144 209( 100; 160(57. 62) 15035, +1,52). 160.57) 241669) 16062) 160(60, 62). 167(190), 219183)

Book 23.28 23.34 23.41 23.49 23.56 23.88 23.90 23.011 23.113 23.131 23.132 23.142 23.147 23.155

160/81} 198-2000 19) 16191: 15935). 1631132) 163131)

24289)

wi

172331)

22.482 22.487 22.494 22.497 22.199

NS

161/89) 17 113061 1601621 18913361. 191,409) 1701288) 1691249; 1691243) 16081). 172/331) 171310) 1692.49) 189345; 166: 186; 16082) 1657168) IHR 1711298)

> + > +>

~J m De}

~

~ _

22.307 22.308 | 22.313 22.326 22.329 22.331. ° 22.333

48

240130) 232199)

INDEX Diagrams are indicated with a “d.” in the parentheses following the page number. References to the notes are in parentheses following the page number on which they occur. A Acamas, 193(463). 195(518), 196(551), 197(574), 212(14, 23), 217(141), 223(44) Achilles, 6, 23--24, 30-31, 34-37, 39-42, 45-48, 50 56, 58, 61, 67, 80, 83, 85--90, 94-95, 97 -100, 103-104, 108-109, 114-116, 119, 120(d. A), 121, 123, 130, 138-141, 144, 150- 151, 156(31), 163(132), 173(363), 177(88), 178(91, 96, 102, 104, 110), 17%128, 130, 139), 180(168), 181(179), 183(229), 185(271), 186(283--84, 286,296, 299), 187(306), 188(325), 189(342, 353), 190(363) , 191(387, 389-91, 398, 402, 412-13), 192(426, 442, 444), 193(455, 463-64), 195(518), 196(540, 545, 551), 197(578), 198(600), 199(35), 201(99), 211(155, 11), 212(14), 213(44), 21474, 79), 215(80, 94), 216(113, 114), 217(137, 141, 149), 218(154, 156), 220198), 228(113), 231(186), 232(194), 236(35), 237(45), 23%4), 240(50, 51), 241(72), 242(104), 243(121) - Embassy to, 127, 131, 151, 230(159), 235(16) - final fight with Hector, 27, 52, 165(171), N89), 179(116), 187(301), 202(120), 216(11 - Fameral of, 231(188) hut of (see houses, epic references to, hut of Achilles) - shield of (see shield, belonging to Achilles) spear of (see spear, belonging to Achilles) sword of, 189(337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 349) Actor (two different people with same name), 166(179), 214(71) Adrastus (five different people with same name), 192(442), 212(17), 215(104), 217(141) aegis, 65, 180(163), 186(284) - belonging to Apollo, 180(168) - belonging to Athena, 39, 41, 53, 179(129), 180(168), 202(104) - belonging to Zeus, 41-42 Aegisthus, 6, 77, 140, 160(56), 191(408). 216(1 11), 220(199) Aeneas, 31, 38, 40-42, 51, 53, 58-60, 109, 126, 139, 150, 160(74), 165(166), 178(90), 182(200, 204), 183(214, 234), 193(448, 463), 195(518), 196(558), 199(27), 209(92), 212(14), 217(141), 237(45) Aeolus, 123-124, 161(101), 164137), 234253) - island of, 123-124, 164(137), 208(64, 72) ~ palace of, 165(168), 16%246) Aeschylus, the tragedian, 223(40), 232(193, 200) Aethe, horse of Agamemnon,

138, 218(153),

237(45) Acthon, 237(45)

Acthra, 84, 212(23, 24), 223(4) Agamemnon, 6, 36

41, 43, 46

48. 50, 53: 55,

58, 60 61, 84, 46 92, 94, 100, 113-114, 119. 120(d. A}, 121.130 131.138 141, 1601791, 178(94, 98, 101. 102, 113), 18312173, 186/290, 296), 190363), 191388. 390

91, 402. 408), 192449.444),

1931455,

461, 463), 195(518), 197(588), 203(131, 138), 211(1), 212(14, 21), 213(44, 45), 21474), 215(94, 104), 216(105, 111, 113), 218(153, 154), 231(188), 232(200), 237(45), . 238(76, 77), 241(72) cuirass of, 46-48, 185(272), 186(283) - dream of, 113, 117, 121-122, 131, 233(218) gold-studded sword of, 37, 50, 53, 186(284), 18%337, 345) - scepter of, 140, 143, 198(600), 218(152), 219175) shield of, 36, 38-41, 46, 48, 53, 177(75, 90), 179(128, 137), 180(162, 163), 185(272), 186(284), 189345) Agapenor, 91-92, 2394) Agastrophus, 47, 177(90), 186(296), 193(464), 195(518), 197(574) Agelaus (two different people with same name), 191(409), 217(138) Agenor, 41, 48, 177(90), 179(123), 180(140), 181(193), 193(463), 212(14), 243(110, 133) Aghia Triada, archaeological evidence from, 33, 57, 67, 69-70, 174(9) Aghios Ioannis, helmet from, 59 ios Kosmas, archaeological evidence from, 162(120), 168(227), 205(1), 206(25) Aglaie, 238(73)

Agora,

— epic references to, 73-74, 109, 206(12, 15, 18, 21 in ace periods, 104-105, 163(135),

190(375), 206(14) Atthiopis, 133-134, 151, 156(20), 229(137) aithousa, 8-9 Ajax, - son of Oileus, 35, 47, 50, 182(270). 185(270), 193(463, 464), 212(14), 21469), 220(198) - son of Telamon, from Salamis, 30-31, 34-35, 37-40, 47-48, 50-53, 55, 58, 84, 88, 97, 99, 108, 114-117, 127, 130-131, 133, 150-151, 172(328), 175(25), 177(79, 81, 90), 178(91), 181(176), 186(294, 296), 187(301, 302), 188(319), 189337, 341, 350, 354), 191(390-391), 193(463), 195(518), 203(134), 204151), 212(14), 21474, 79), 215(80), 216(117), 225(72), 235(15, 16, 17), 23%4), 241(72), 244145) - shield of, 30-31, 34-35, 37-40, 52, 98, 175(25), 177(79, 81, 90), 178(91), 17%139), 180(140, 159), 191(391) Alcandre of Thebes, 220(189) Alcathous, 186(275), 199(27) Alcibiades, son of Cleinias, 226(85) Alcimedon, 218(159) Alcinous, 5-6, 10-11, 64, 73, 76, 95, 116, 127. 141, 159(39, 56), 163(132), 176(46), 189(345), 207(47, 55), 214(63), 220(189) = Palace of (see palace, epic references to, of Alcinous) Alcmaeonidae of Athens,

108, 148, 211113),

233(208) Aleman, Spartan poet, 134. 149, 21335),

226(79)

Alexander, - the Great, 226(83, 85), 227(90) - son of Priam (see Paris) Alexandrian Library and librarians, 100-101, 106, 108-109, 111, 131, 146, 226(78), 227(88) alphabet, Greek, 93, 130, 144-147, 228(123), 232(191) - introduction of, 98, 102, 109, 129, 136, 144-145, 155(13), 156(21), 212(19) altars, ~ archaeological evidence for, 24, 26, 172(331, 336, 339, 341) - epic references to, 24, 26, 130, 160(81) amber, 64, 71, 137, 201(90) Amphimachus, 91, 195(518), 197(574), 217(139) Amphimedon, 231(188), 232(196) Amphinomus, 56, 189(353) Amphius, 47, 185(270), 186(296), 217(141) Anchises, 139 anchorfs), 81, 208(78) Andromache, 63-64, 69-71, 115, 140, 160(84), 161(95), 167(188), 198(1), 201(72), 202(117), 203(125), 204(162), 205(183, 186), 20856), 21%175, 182), 233(224) Angelaus, 18, 169248) Antenor, 84, 100, 183(217), 217(138), 226(83) Antigonus Gonatas, 101 Antilochus, 34, 50, 99, 115, 127, 175(21), 177(79), 178(91), 179(119, 139), 182(202), 186(296), 193(463), 197(575), 212(14), 22451) Antimachus of Colophon, 226(85) Antinous, 64, 66, 106, 202(114), 218(163) Antiphus (two le with same name), 47, 92, 143, 186(292, 296), 193(463), 212(14), 215(102), 217(141) Aphareus, 177(90), 195(518), 197(574) Aphrodite, 12, 43, 54, 63-64, 69-70, 117, 127, 151, 166(172), 178(113), 183(214), 198(600, 1), 200(50, 57), 201(81, 98, 99), 202(118), 204162), 211(11) Apollo, 43-44, 47, 49-51, 57-58, 60, 81, 108-109, 123, 125, 127, 134, 145, 148, 151, 178(113), 180(168), 181(193), 183(208), 186(291), 188(324), 191(387), 197(578, 600), 231(174), 234(238, 244), 239(12), 243(133, 140) Arceisius, 243(122) Arcesilaus, 87, 217(139) Archelochus, 217(141) archers. See bowmen Areithous, 197(598), 198(600) Ares, 12, 43, 53, 55, 57, 59, 68, 145, 151, 167(192), 178(91-92), 192(444), 193(464), 195(516), 196(543), 197(598), 198(600), 203(131. 144), 21111), 212(14), 21459, 71) Arete, 5, 13 14, 73, 76, 139, 15956), 161(99). 167(203), 198(1), 20045), 20117), 21181, 182), 2201189) Aretus, 177901. 180(1 40)

292

TALES OF HEROES

Aristarchus of Alexandria, 26, 100 101, 106, 108, 111,131. 1716318), 1721320), 19940), 201991, 22589, 227197, 102, 103, 104,

108, 109), 23515. 238/78)

Aristophanes of Byzantium, 100 101, 106, 227(102) Aristotle. the philosopher, 100, 103, 105, 145. 22-453), 226(74, 85), 227190). 2321201) Arktinos, eighth century poet, 133. 148, 156:20; arming scene!s), 30, 36 37.46.48. 51.53, 58.

119 120,122 12-4, 178:91. 98, 101. 102, 104, 108, 1101. 1791139), 1810179, 188(325), 1891337. 342. 3453. 1965544), 20068). 239(1 1)

armor of a hero, 40

42. 46.48, 53. 58

B

59, 62,

179(129), 180161, 1810176), 1851268) Armoury Tablet, 48. 184243, 253) arrowis), 19. 41, 68, 17002861. 181176). 187(315), 1971578. 582, 587, 596, 500), 1981603) Artemis, 109, 201(98) Ascalaphus. 167(192), 195518). 196(5 #5, 551), 21-4715, 217139) Ascanius, 217141) Asius, 44,47, 1861296), 2170141). 2181159 Asteropaeus, 46 +47. 1851271). 186(296). 193464) Astyoche, 16711921. 21471} Athena, 2 3.6. 14, 23, 26, 43. 18,52 53, 55-58. 60.63 -65. 73, 88, 106 I11, 115, 117 118,120 123, 126-127, 131 132, 139, 1.43, 145. 147. 151. 15947). 160174). 162110, 112, 121). 168/218), 1720340), 173353, 363). 1745). 1751351. 17777), 1781085. 1811801. 1837223. 225), 1842521, 186(286}, 1921428), 1930463), 194474), 195518). 1965543. 19Bi600. 1), 19%29, 37). 200150, 60, 65, 67, 68), 2021104, 203 144), 206(13, 27), 21170, 183), 2321196, 2035, 2337211. 21h, 23-4228, 245, 248. 251, 252, 253), 237163), 239(12), 240030, 31, 33) aegis of, 39. 41. 53, 179(129),180(168), 202104

Athens. Acropolis of, 91. 107, 109, 163(123) controversy with Megara, 99, 101 102, 104, 107, 150. 22453. 55), 227(93), 228112, 118), 232191) in Dark Age, 221x191). 22-453) in epic tradition, 42, $4. 89, 91, 108, 181(183), 192-432), 21-469), 216121) in Hellenistic Period,

Atreus, in the epic tradition, 140, 143, 218(152), 21%175) Treasury of, 29 30, 136, 157015), 163(127) Attalus of Pergamon, 226(83) Attic dialect and script. See also texts of Homer, Attic, 102 103, 111. 130, 145, 228(123) Autolycus, 56 Automedon, 30, 53. 95, 99, 183/212), 189348). 1911391), 193i 163, 46-4), 212014), 21701375. 243013-4 Autonous, 217(138) ax(es}, 19-20, 170/286, 287)

101, 109, 226183)

Babylonian weights and measures, 76, 207649, 220(190) Bacchylides, lyric poet, 213:35), 22340) bardis). Ser also oral tradition; Homer; texts of

Homer, 233212) accuracy of, OF 82, 212031), 229145) ancient.

1.9. 20, 22. 38.62, 71.841

87,

91 92,95: 96.98 100, 102, 104 105, 113-114, 118-119, 125. 129 131.133, 139, 146, 148 -150, 15502), 156121. 31), 158119, 23), 162(112), 163130, 131), 1644152). 1671861, 168218}, 1691235), 176159), 17775). 1822021. 183(235), 185(2651, 18713151. 1881322), 1910402, 412), 193446), 20199, 205(188, 1), 206127), 21101, 11.135. 212115. 163, 213(40, 44,45, 46), 215(102), 216118. 121). 218161). 220/188), 22216, 24), 22:H46), 225i 61), 228( 113. 119, 123), 229% 1333, 2301160, 161, 162. 163), 231(181, 186, 188, 190), 232191, 200), 2331218. 23-246, 247, 251, 253), 235(3, 18). 236027. 29, 39), 237(65), 238175, 76, 77, 1), 239(2, 8, 22, 23, 24, 27), 24168, 85), 242/86, 90, 104, 105) - Cretan, 146 147, 222(23), 225(61) - Tonian, 98, 102, 130, 216(121), 2211200),

228123). 234(246)

modem, 84, 117, 146, 212(31), 213(47), 225161), 2280119), 229145, 1 46, 1-49, 150, 15h. 2301152. 156, 163), 236134. 40), 237050). 2381), 23927) basements). 1,4 5. 14, 16 17,24. 1578), 167(195), 169235) Bassac, Temple of Apollo, 23-4241) bathing, in the epics, 68, 114 115.131, 204152), 236(23, 24, 27, 29) bathrooms, archacological evidence tor, 16-4146), 207/38)

bathtub, 220189)

in Mycenaean Period, 8+. 88, 91. 108, 137,

beard(s), 204(158)

1891345), 21-60) in sixth and fifth centuries, 64.99 111, 130 132,135. 145. 145 198.150 151. 163123. 135. 170.62, 190.362, 375), 2057. 210132.218:162..221452.55., 225 66,67. 226.72. 71.85.2238 116. 119, 229132. 231 18S. 252 LOO, 201,.205:, 255 206, 208..231215.25525, Panathenaic Fesunalın, 099 100. 10. to8 TOO, 111. 151. 117.22158.00, 2561.07. 22651,. 235 11.295254

bedisi. 12.6) 62, 68, 76. 106. 162110b, 16-4137), 1660173. 174, 178, 182), 20-4163), 208: 78) formulaic sequence for setting up. 9 10,

Atlantis legend.

PEE

112,207

50, 20801

163.132.

13h,

Berbati, archaeological evidence at, 24. 26,

138, 16-4(142), 168(227) Bible, trumpets in, 97, 221(10)

blanket(s), 163(132), 198(6), 199(15) blood feuds and homicides. 96. 106-

220) 190), 201.0, s-,

archacologicabes idence for. 67. 72.137.

87 306. 202 195.205 129.

107, 131,

219(176), 2201199), 232(193, 194) Bocotia,

- archacological evidence from. 179(12-H - epic reference to, 92, 21463. 74), 217(139) booty and loot, 44, 47, 61, 95 -96, 100-111, 126, 131, 134, 143. 177(90), 183(212), 180277, 296), 192(442), 216(1 13), 219(1 76), 220185), 237(45), 244(159) bowisi. 34. 42. 44. 59-60. 75. 126, 138, 1811176), 182(200), 18-4243), 186/298), 187(315), 197(578, 579, 581. 582. 596, 600) - belonging to Odysseus, 5. 14, 19 20, 23. 161189). 1681214. 169/233, 2-40), 170(266), 171313), 23635) - contest of. 5. 19 20. 1691240). 170(286). 231(188) bowmen, 42, 49,59 60, 8-4, 181(176). 182(200), 187(315). 197(578, 582. 594, 596; Briseis, 67, 121, 163132). 203(125), 2114. 213(4-4). 2201185), 23877), 244159) broach. See jewelry, broach bronze. See also cuirass, made of bronze: shield, made of bronze - in archaeological remains, 1, 20, 38, 40,

46. 49, 56, 58- 62, 67, 98, 13-4, 136- 137, 157(15), 1747), 177078), 1800149, 150), 185(268, 271), 186(277, 297), 187(317), 188(33-4), 189(360, 361), 190(379). 195(530, 533), 203( 128), 222(189) epic references to. 1,6, 10, 14.17, 29

31,

34-38, 40. 42.46 51, 53-54. 56. 58- 63, 68, 70, 132, 14T, 137(14). 161(98), 164152, 155). 169(238), 170316). 177(78, 81), 179119). 1804171), 183223), 1851271). 186(279. 292, 293, 296). 187(301. 315), 188(325), 189353), 1906382), 192.434), 19-4486, 488. 493, 495), 1966544), 197(575), 208(64), 220(189) Bronze Age,

- Early, 73, 206(25), 208(63), 222(10) Middle, 15, 21. 45. 138, 168(223, 224), 22216) - Late, 15.24.28 31, 38, 45, 48 49,50 51. 53. 56-57, 59 61, 72. 80 81, 96 -98, 110, 134 138. 142 143. 164148), 168(226), 174(4, 115, 17%132), 183(239), 18-K243), 185/268), 1881332), 1951530. 531).

1961542). 1981602), 2051, 207(27),

208178}. 22102), 232( 198)

bull leapers, in prehistoric Knossos, 69, 20-4160)

1986)

made by Odysseus, 12. 17, 1661173. 180, 181.201 96,210 178: Bellerophon, 97. 116. 155.0), 203.134. belt

- epic references to, 48. 65, 67 68. 71,97, 1871306). 202( 104, 105), 203(126, 131. 134. 136, 146), 238175)

Cc Calliste, 81

Calypso. 67. 70 71,77. 124id. G), 164(137), 1761575. 198.15. 20-4169. 219181, 182), 231.253 island of, 106. 110. 219978), 241160) Cassandra, 93,109.

134. 150

151. 234241)

293

Index catalogueis), 41

43. 45, 80, 87 -89, 91-94, 97,

99, 101-102, 104, 116-117, 119, 122, 130 131, 133-134, 142-144, 147, 150-151, 214(64, 79), 215(79), 217(140, 149), 230(153, 163), 236(40), 237(47, 60) in the Jhad, of Ships, 41 +3, 80, 87. 94, 97, 99, 101--102, 104, 116, 119, 122, 130- 131, 133 134, 142-143, 150. 151, 185(270), 193(464), 204156), 212(14), 21.462, 67.72, 73, 74), 215(79, 80, 91, 99, 102, 104), 216(105), 217(137, 139, 140, 1-41, 1-49), 22294). 227(93), 228113, 127), 237(43, 65), 23%4, 5, 6), 242(87) - smaller catalogues, 136, 214(6+), 217(140, 149), 237(60), 238(75) in modern epics, 230(153, 163), 2361-40) chamber. See also thalamos, upper, 12-13, 15, 70, 164(138). 166(186), 167(187), 168(218), 204170). 214(71) sleeping, 1, 12, 14, 17, 132, 165(169), 167(212), 168(213, 214) Chania, Linear B tablet from, 143

chariot(s), archacological evidence for, +5, 48, 97, 99, 130, 138, 155(9), 1801169), 182(197), 183239, 240), 184241, 242, 243. 246, 249, 253). 185(258, 259, 260), 187(317). 197(594), 21334), 223(34) epic references to, 8, 11. 42--45, 59-60, 63, 70, 87, 96, 126-127, 132, 136, 138 -139, 157(14), 160(74), 165(164, 165, 167), 171(313, 317), 175(36), 179(123), 180(169), 182(200, 202, 204, 205), 183(208, 209, 212, 217, 225, 226, 229, 233, 235), 184(251, 252. 253), 191(391), 200(67), 213(345, 214(69), 222(12), 223(34), 230(160). 237(44, 65 forces, 42-45, 48, 60, 139, 182(204), 183(208) - travel by, 45. 96 Charis, 117 Charybdis, 234253)

Chersidamas, 177(90). 179123). 180(144) Chest of Cypselus, 84, 134, 223(39) chimney pot, 1-2, 16, 132, 158(24, 25, 27, 33), 159(49), 169(235) Chios, claims Homer and the Homeridae, 101, 148--149, 155(2) Chiron, 216(214) chiton (tunic), - made of bronze (see cuirass) made of cloth, 46, 61-63, 67, 69-71,

186(277), 198(4), 199(17, 35. 37), 200(46, 47, 48, 49, 60}. 201(99), 203(147) Chromis, 217(141) Chromius, 21217), 217(138)

Chryses. 53. 121. 123(d. Fj, 220(185), 24415 Cicones. 123 124, 126, 183233) Cinytas of Cyprus, 178(106), 1861283) Circe, 24.52.56, 67.70 71.77. 12-#d. Gi. 159395, 16-6137. 14401, 1661174, 1765571. 189.345. 191.412, DOB 2041525, 210181. 182. 234253; house of we houses, epic references to. house of Circe: island off 52,56. 34056:

121. 172.3205, 2101201,

Cleisthenes.

- of Sicyon, 223(39), 226(7-4), 228114) -- the Athenian,

147

Cleitus, 197(582) Cleomenes of Sparta, 100 cloak, 14,61 63, 71, 132, 163(132), 198(4, 5, 10), 199(17) Clonius, 87, 217(139) clothing, 14. 61 :72, 76, 83, 108, 130, 164(152),

180(154). 1B2(197), 1982, 4).

200(60, 63, 65), 201(99), 202(108, 119), 204151, 161, 177), 205(186), 236(40) animal skins used for, 61, 71, 132, 199/25) dress worn by Hera, 65 66 dyed purple, 61, 198(9, 10), 199(14,

15)

- in Linear B tablets, 61, 71, 76. 138. 198/4, 9, 10), 199(12, 21), 200(48) made of linen, 41, 46-47, 61, 70, 185(271),

186(296), 199(21), 201(75) made of wool, 61, 138, 198(4), 199(15) Clymene, 223(40) Clytemnestra,

epic referneces to, 6, 139 140, 160156). 191(408), 219(181), 232(200) - Tomb of, 136-137, 195(533) Ciytoneüs, 127 coinage,

106, 231(183)

Colophon, 172(339), 228(111) colonnade(d), 1--2. 8-10, 28, 163(135), 164142), 165(163) column(s),

1-2, 5, 8-9,

17-18, 23

24, 110,

158(22), 163(127). 164142). 170(286).

171310, 318) Conculus, scribe in Athens, 147 Coon, 84, 177(90), 17%123), 180(1 4-4), 183(217), 193(463) Corfu, 207(32), 234(244) Corinth, -- ruled by Agamemnon, 89. 215(99) ~

in later times, 84, 103, 145, 206(13),

223(34) corridors, |, 5, 132, 157(8), 168(229, 230) corselet. See cuirass cosmetics, 76, 201(97), 202( 108) courtyard, - archacological evidence for, 1-3, 6, A 11-13, 16, 19-20, 24, 26, 28, 104, sa, 158(21, 22), 15946), 162(104, 116), 163(129), 164(142, 144, 146), 165(162), 166(183), 168(229), 170(286), 171(307), 172(325, 336, 339, 34 -

epic references to, | 3, 6, 8-13,

19-21,

23-24, 26, 28, 76, 130, 157(8), 15954), 160/81), 161(98), 162(104, 114, 117), 163(129, 133), 164(144, 149, 152, 155, 157), 165(158, 162, 163, 168), 168(214), 169(238), 170(286), 171(317), 206(12) crafts, absence of in the epics, 33, 176(57)

cremation, 97, 117, 130, 15519), 221(2) Creophylus, one of the Homeridae. 98,

Crete. archacological evidence from.

Ctimene, 63, 200(52) cuirass (corselet), archaeological evidence for. 46- 48.61 62, 97, 136-15:37, 176(53), 181(176), 185(255, 256, 268, 273). 186(277, 297, 298, 299), 187(299, 300, 301, 306, 308, 317) - from cuirass tomb at Dendra (ser Dendra, cuirass from)

epic references to, 36 -37, 41, 45 +8, 67-68, 177(90), 178106, 113), 181(176). 185(269, 271, 273), 186(280. 283. 291. 293, 296), 187(302, 315), 1881319). 198(600), 199(29, 35, 41). 203(131), 21-469). - belonging to Achilles, 36-37, 46 47. 181(179), 186(283), 1981600). 199(35) - belonging to Agamemnon, 39, 46 48, 53, 185(272), 186(283). 185(272), 186(283), 189(345), 203(131) from historic periods,

10,32

186(297, 298, 299).

187(317) made of: -

bronze, 45-46. 47,61

62, 185:271),

186(296, 297), 199(27, 29, 35) leather, 41, 47, 185(273) linen, 47, 185(271). 186(296), 21469; cults. See temples, shrines, and cult areas cycle. See Trojan Cycle Cyclopfe)s, 74, 81-82, 115,120, 123, 124d.G), 126, 20861), 236(38) Cynaethus, one of the Homeridae, 98, 105, 148, 231(174) Cypria, 87, 134, 136, 145, 186(286), 198(600), 229(137) Cyprus, - archaeological evidence from, 39 40, 137, 172(341), 180(149, 150). 18-K245, 249), 189(345), 196(539), 197(594), 208(74) - epic references to, 186(283), 226(74) D Daedalus, 32 dagger, 30-31, 34, 37--38. 51. 136, 176(53), 178(1 14), 188(329}, 190(369, 375), 19-4492) Damasippus, 99 Damasus, 195(518), 196(551}, 197(574) Danaans, 43, 151, 218(16+4) Dana, 202(1 19)

dance, 18, 32 33, 176(52). 206(22) Dardanian Gate, 26- 27 Dark Age, 28-29, 40. 66, 70, 83,96 97, 129 130, 136, 139-140, 149, 155(9), 172(330), 179(131), 197(599), 201(90), 206(13, 25), 220Q(189, 191, 193), 221(200). 22.455) Dawn, 56. 63 64, 115. 125. 20181), 222116). 2+1(B0) 177(90)

Deiphobus, +0. 53, 177(90). 180(1-40), 33,

138. 142. 1-43,

161:85:. 1641-48). 1670195), 190:374), 1961539, 20211081. 2031129), 204158. 154), 207:38, $3), 20B62. 2197171),

232 108:

Cesippus, 56, 171313)

Deicoon,

148-149

Cretanis), 146-147, 185(274), 210(138) 56. 66. 7-4, 76. 135. 137

epic references to, 87, 89, 117. 142-143, 176043), 207143). 23875) - oral tradition of, 146 147, 22223. 22561) Croesmus, 54

193(463), 212(1-1) Deipyrus, 195(518). 196(545. 551) Delos,

- archaeological evidence from, 1721341). 173(351) epic references to sanctuary, 26, 97, 173(351)

294 Delphi, 15, 168(220), 22 K48)

TALES OF HEROES between Ajax and Hector, 30, 35. 51, 84,

archaeological evidence from, 97, 1U9, 134, 173(350), 206(13), 223(37, 40) epic references to. 26. 97. 169(238) Demeter, 201(8!) Demetrius II, 101

Demodocus, 12, 86, 117. 207(-45), 211011), 214(63), 220(188), 222(23) Demolcon, 195(518), 196(551), 197(574) Demosthenes, the orator, 212(23). 229(132) Dendra,

cuirass from, 46-48, 61, 97, 176453). 186(277, 298), 187(299, 300, 301, 308, 317), 195(530) - other archacological evidence from, 31, 58, 66, 136-137, 176(53), 188(332), 195(530}, 202(105) Deucalion (two people with same name). 142-143, 195(518), 196(551), 197(561) dictation. See texts of Homer, dictation of Didyma, sanctuary at, 26, 109

Diepyrus, 196(551) Dicuchidas, Megarian historian, 224(60), 227(93) Diocles, 162(1 12) Diogenes Laertius, 105 -106 Diomedes, 40, +2 +4, 46 -18, 50 51, 57 -58,

60, 62, 68, 89-91, 94, 99, 108, 115, 117, 126- 127, 150 151, 173(363), 177(90), 17891, 114), 179119), 180(153, 165). 181(177, 179), 183(209), 18-251. 252), 1861286, 290, 296). 187(301, 315). 189339). 1901363. 387). 1911389. 402). 19242, 444), 193460, 463, 464), 195/318, 524), 196(545, 551, 558). 1976575), 198(600), 199(41), 203(144), 212(14, 17), 215(1O4), 216 114), 233(223, 224), 237(45), 239(6), 241(72) Dionysus, 61 Diores, 91, 217(139) Dioscuri, 8+ Dodona, archaeological evidence from, 26, 173(348) epic references to,

26, 97, 173(3-17)

Dolon, 51, 57, 127, 131, 181(179), 192(444), 193(-463), 1950518, 524). 1966551) Dolops, 48, 54, 186(290), 1931463, 195(518B). 197(574) doors and doorways, archacological evidence of. 2.6. 8 15-18, 21, 27, 158(26). 15946), 161098), 1621108). 163(123), 1661182). 168(221, 222), 1623-4, 236, 241, 243), 170(253) epic references to. 1, 3.6.8 10,13 21, 23, 27, 52, 15%+1, 42), 162(105), 163121, 122). 1641-49, 155). 167(208), 1691248), 1716300. 301, 310,331. 175.425. 206115. 21), 236135) Dorianis), 130, 142 143 absence of Dorian manuscript of Homer, 98, 130, 150 Drakon's law, 106 drinking. 2.133.115

dual, 56, 138, 104 400: in Book Qolthe 235% duels. nn N 137

01.0937

115 os

Mad. 110.

TA

151,

122.182

227.100), 198.

116-117, 131, 151, 186(294), 191391), 203(134), 216117) between Menelaus and Paris, 47 48.51, 53 -54, 57, 60, 67, 126 127, 131, 139, 166(172), 186(294), 189(337), 191(402),

187(302), 27, 34 36, 90, 117, 181(176), 193(460)

E cagle, 15, 17. 22, 168(220) earthquake, 135 136 eating, 2, 18, 33, 97, 119, 120Xd. B), 125, 133, 143-144, 176(47), 229133), 2-41(80), 234151) Echepolus (two people with same name), 179123), 195518), 1966551), 197574), 218(153), 237(45) Egyptian), 45, 100-101, 103,117. 141, 163(127), 184(243), 207(55), 210(138), 222(10), 226(87), 227(102), 22% 131) - epic references to, 96, 127, 208(62).

2191170), 220(189), 222(19) - influence on and trade with Greek mainland, 134, 137--138, 185(259), 208(62, 73), 210126), 219171), 222(19) eighth century, 29, 47, 71, 73-75, 81- 82, 103, 105, 109, 129, 150, 155(9. 10, 13), 156(15, 23), 157(8), 172(340), 183(240), 203(130), 205(1), 206(24, 27), 210(1-45), 221(1), 222(16), 225(70), 231(179) Electra, 223(40) Elephenor, 177(90), 17%123), 217(139) Eleusis, archacological evidence from, 109, 168(226), 172(341), 210(143), 223(35) Elpenor, 24, 52, 164{140), 166(177), 191(412) Enkomi, archacological evidence from, 184(245, 249), 196(539), 197(594), 208(74) Ennomus, 217(141) Enyo, 201(81) Epean(s), 185(27+), 214(74), 217(139), 230(160), 239(4) Ephesos, sanctuary at, 26, 109

epic. See also bard, Homer; texts of Homer; oral tradition, - embellishment, emphasis and exaggeration in, 10, 30, 34, 38-39, 48, 58. 59, 62, 75, 81, 88- 91, 94-96, 116, 141, 163(131). 16%238), 175(17, 29), 176(57), 191(402), 194492), 19941), 2100133), 21 1(1 1), 215(94), 217(145), 220(189), 222(26), 230160) - improvisation in, 148, 223(33), 235(25-4) Epicles, 58, 195(518), 196(540, 551) Epiconcylus, scribe in Athens, 147 Epigeus, 195(518), 196(551), 197(574) Epistrophus, 91-92, 217(141) epithets, 125, 127. of groups of people,

182(20-4), 185(274),

188/324, $25). 19346 8, 194(470), 199(26), 2031126), 213(51). 214175). 222022) of individuals, 125. 127, 156131). 1861279), 1991516), 197/600), 2020118. 119. 21346).

237150), 24001, 24180, 81). 2420103, 105), 243120. 120). 24-4142) Eratosthenes of Alexandria,

101

Eucleides of Athens, 226(7+4) Eudorus, 167(192), 218(159) Eugammon of Cyrene, 223(40) Eumaeus,

I, 6, 8, 10-11,

18- 23, 52, 62, 67,

95 -96, 106, 119, 128, 160(82, 89. 102. 105), 171(311), 177(77), 189(338), 199(43), 203(13-4), 208(7 1), 212(30), 219(170), 220(184, 186, 187), 221(201), 232(194, 195), 236(35), 241(72, 80), 244(149, 150, 159) - house of (see houses, epic references to, house and farm of Eumaeus) Eumelus, 99, 116, 127, 198(600), 214(74) Eupeithes, 106, 197(564), 218(163), 232(197) Euphemus, 217(141) Euphorbus, 44, 192444), 193(463), 21-458) Euripides, the tragedian, 213(35), 22674), 229(131) Euryalus, 50, 89, 94, 116, 189(337, 341), 190(379), 212(14) Eurybates (possibly two different people), 121, 238(77) Eurycleia, 3, 14, 19, 56, 167(212), 1681217), 220(187) Eurydamas, 66 Eurylochus,

165(157)

Eurymachus, 140, 189(353), 191(-408B) Eurymedon, 238(76) Eurypylus, 50, 191(389, 402), 1931463), 212(14) Eustathius, twelfth century commentator on Homer, 171(312), 225(6t), 226(85), 227(91, 93, 104), 228(1 15), 229135) Eutheias, 99 Eutresis, houses at, 143, 168(223, 226),

170(256), 206(25) Exekias Amphora, 99- 100, 102, 151, 225(72) F faience, 137, 175(41), 176(49), 177(66), 195(526), 196(539), 233(227) fame, 38, 60, 76, 83, 86-88, 93, 96, 101, 105, 107-108, 110, 114, 131, 150, 178(106). 179(126), 21456), 22445), 225(61) feasting, 1,5, 114 115, 120, 159(47), 160(79), 162(105), 236(23) fish, 97, 143-144, 203(149) fixed seats. See furniture, fixed seats floor(s),

archacological evidence for, 2, 5, 16, 19, 22, 159(46), 163(127), 164142), 166(183), 170(288), 171(307) in epics, 1, 14, 19-20, 22, 32, 70, 157(13), 159(49), 161(89), 167(209), 170(288) foot soldiers, 43: +4, 48, 182(204, 205),

187(317), 237(65) footstool. See furniture, footstool formula, 1, 46, 48-49. 95, 111, 125, 149, 175(43), 177(76), 178(110), 183(212), 2U8(60), 21 1(1), 218(158, 164), 225(61),

2301163), 238(1), 238. 10). 242(104)

for departure scenes, 9, 45, 162(112),

1630130)

Erechtheus. 233 213)

for setting up beds, 9 134), 198 (6)

Kreiia. sanctnary at, 109

possibly misplaced, 34. 37, 162(104)

Ervlaus. 150. 195 518: 196.9351. 197 571:

fortifications,

10, 163(132,

295

Index archacological evidence for, 26-28, 91, 96-97, 134 137, 173357), 205(1) - epic references to, 26 -27, 97, 17893), 179116), 198(600), 202(120), 206(15) Francois Vase, 99-100, 102, 134, 176162), 201(87), 213(34) funeral,

- of Achilles, 231(188) ~

of Patroclus (see also games, at), 99, 127,

138-139, 22 1(2) furniture. See also bed, 22, 162(105), 166(181) - fixed seats, 6, 76, 161(98, 99), 164148, 155) - footstool, 94, 166(181), 218(151), 219(183) throne, 2, 5, 161(99 - in Linear B tablets, 164(15+4), 166(181) G games, - at Funeral of Patroclus, 47, 54, 60, 68, 99, 127, 138, 177(90), 180(140), 184251), 185(271), 186(289), 187(301), 188(319), 18%354, 358), 191(391), 213(34), 22451), 236(39), 237(44), 243(133) held in the land of the Phaeacians, 95, 116, 207(47), 218(165), 219180), 229(133), 23%211) Ganymedes, 244140) gate, 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 17, 19, 23, 26-28, 43, 45, 136- 137, 146, 161(85), 162(111, 119), 163{129, 133), 165(264), 16%238), 173(357, 360, 362, 363), 182(204) Geometric Period, 28, 66, 97-98, 100, 129, 136, 139, 149, 155(9), 156(16), 157(8), 1744), 17%124), 182(198), 183(240), 184246, 249), 198(602), 202(1 19), 204150, 159), 210(143), 221(2), 223(34) gifts, 14, 56, 63, 96, 178(106), 190(382), 200(47), 220(189 - exchanged on battlefield, 42, 44, 52, 67,

183(223) - given as part of marriage settlement (see also marriage and bridal gifts), 140-141, 222(15) given to mortals by gods/goddesses, 31. 58. 69-71, 76, 196(549), 197(598), 198(600). 2374 5) - given to Penelope by suitors, 63 64, 66, 140-14 Gilgamesh epic, 144 Gla, archacol evidence from, 24, 137, 157(16), 198(602), 205(1) glass paste, blue, 10, 32, 38-41, 46, 179131, 137) Glaucus, 41-42, 44, 87, 115, 126, 161(101), 181(178, 189), 183(223), 193(463), 197(582), 212(14), 217(138, 141), 233(224) gold, - in archaeological remains, 29, 31, 38, 45, 66-67, 85 86, 96, 136-137, 166(181), 167(202), 1748), 175(24, 35), 180150), 181(174), 184(243), 188(334), 189345), 190(379), 202(105, 108) epic references to, 12, 14, 30-32, 36-38,

41, 45-46, 51, 53, 56, 58. 65, 67, 70-71, 76, 138, 141. 16-4155), 167(202), 175(35),

178(106), 1791126). 180(168), 183(223), 184251. 252), 185(272), 186(284),

188(334), 1944935.

189(345), 1960553),

203137. 2201189;

190(379), 192(434). 1986001. 201/94),

Gorgon, 39, 97, 179(132) Gorgythion, 195(518), 197(563) Gouncus, 92 greaves, - archaeological evidence for, 29, 46, 48 49, 137, 185(268), 188(329, 331, 332, 333, 334), 195(533) - epic references to, 36, 46, 48-49, 132, 181(179), 188(320, 322, 323, 325, 329, 334)

Helenus, 48, 50. 60, 108, 117, 121, 122(d. D), 131, 150, 186(290), 189(339, 344), 191(390), 196(551), 197(594), 212(14), 233(218) Helios, - cattle of, 234(253) - island of, 120(d. B). 124(d. Gj, 160(79), 164{137), 208(72) helmet(s),

Greek alphabet. See alphabet, Greek

- archacological evidence for, 29, 38, 46

Greck-speaking people, 78, 93, 142, 217(145), 221(200) H Hades, 91, 160(840, 176(43), 196(543), 238(75 hairstyles, 76, 188(325), 204(155, 156, 158, 159, 160

Halitherses, 232(196) harbor, 81, 141, 175(41), 207(32), 209(100, 101)

Harpalion, 60, 193(463) headdress, 69-72, 205(185, 188) hearth, | -8, 12, 16. 19, 21, 76, 132, 158(23, 24, 27), 159(49), 161(99), 162(104), 169(234), 170(286), 171(307) cooking food on, 2, 158(23)

Hebe, 185(253), 202(119) hecatomb, 88-89, 142 Hector, 64, 84, 116, 123, 202(120) - armor of, ‚50-52, 57-58, 178(99), 181(179), 185(271), 18%337, 350, 353, 355), 195(516, 518), 196(545, 551), 197(574, 575), 198(600), 199(35) - death and funeral of, 63, 97, 165(163), 180(168), 205(183), 209(101), 217(141) final fight with Achilles, 27, 52, 165(171), 178(99), 179(116), 187(301), 202(120), 216(117) in the city of Troy, 70, 108-109, 115, 117, 121-122, 140, 160(84), 166(172), 205(186), 208(56), 219(175), 233(218, 224), 234230), 240(32, 33) - leaving battlefield and entering Troy, 27, 115, 117, 131, 183(223), 188(318), 191(387), 233(224) on the batdefield, 27, 30, 35, 40-44, 51, 80, 84, 92, 115-117, 122, 126, 131, 137 139, 150-151, 173(363), 180(158, 159), 181(176), 182(207), 183(208, 224, 225, 233), 186(294), 187(302), 191(391, 398), 193(446), 197(594), 199(33), 203(134), 211(155), 212(14, 30), 21458), 216(117), 217(138), 218(159), 237(45), 24037), 241(72), 243(133) - ransom of, 14, 63, 123, 162(112), 185(265), 199(16) shield of (see shield, belonging to Hector) - spear of, 53, 55-56, 192(434), 193(463), 194(492) Hecuba, 14, 64, 70, 108-109, 117, 121, 122(d. D), 200(71), 203(126), 205(183), 208(56), 233(224), 240(32) Helen, 12-14, 54, 63-64, 84, 90, 122, 127, 139-140, 148, 159(56), !61(90), 163(132), 166(172, 173), 167(202), 168(213). 176157), 191(412), 198(1), 200(52, 66, 67). 201(72, 99), 202(1 17), 20(186), 208(56), 213(45), 216(113, 121), 219(182), 2201189), 22340, 41)

+47,

57--59, 69, 97, 137, 185(268), 187(300), 190(369), 195(523, 526, 530, 531, 533), 196(539, 544, 558 boar’s tusk, 29, 38, 46. 57 58, 97, 132. 134, 137, 185(268), 195(527, 529, 530, 531, 533), 196(539, 544) bronze, 59, 186(279), 195(525). 1966544). 197(575) -- epic reference to, 31, 36--37, 40--42, 48, 54,

57-59, 97, 132, 149, 178(113), 180(160), 181(176, 179, 182), 186(279), 191(402), 195(517, 518, 524, 527), 196(538, 544, 551, 553, 556, 3 „7069, 564, 575),

198(600), 22 1(9)

~ leather, 57.-59, 195(524, 526), pee - with bronze attachments, 57: 58, | 196(544) with horse hair plumes, 38, 58 59, 180(160), 196(538, 541, 542, 544, 553, 558), 197(569, 571) Hephaestus, 30-34, 37, 46-48, 58, 76, 117,

141, 163(131), 164(155), 175(35), 177(90), 178&(99,110), 17%130), 181(179), 186(280, 283, 286), 188(322), 189(345), 198(600), 207(48), 218(152), 220(189), 236(35), 238(73) Hera, 27, 35, 45, 65-67, 70. 71, 97, 108 -109, 117, 121-122, 136, 157(14), 165(167). 166(172), 168(216), 171(313), 175(36). 184252), 185(253), 198(1), 201(91), 202(104, 105, 117), 204(178), 236(35), 239% 10), 240(30) Heracleidae, 143

Heracleides, Hellenistic philosopher, 106 Heracles, 61, 125, 134, 143, 201(94), 213(34). 214(70), 220(199), 233(206), 238(75) Heraclitus, son of Bloson of Ephesos, 98-99, 105, J11, 131, 224(46) heralds, 21, 163(131), 213(44), 219(183), 235(16), 238(77) Hereas of Megara, 226(75), 227(93), 233(213) Hermes, 110, 123, 167(192), 218(152), 219(165, 175), 231(188), 234(253), 240(46, 49) hero, 40, 42-44, 48, 53, 56, 60, 62, 69, 76-77, 83, 85-86, 94, 100, 108, 110, 116-117, 119, 125- 126, 131, 139, 143-144, 150 -151, 156(31), 164(137), 176(46), 177(88), 180(164, 168), 181(176), 185(268), 186(290). 187(315), 207(55). 211(1). 213(31, 46), 215(80), 221(9), 222(16), 230153, 163), 231(188), 235(18), 236(34, 38), 23875). 241(68), 242(105), 243(120) Herodotus of Halicarnassus. 26, 81. 86. 104,

107, 130, 1-45. 147 149, 155(14), 15615), 176659). 213(39), 223(41, 43), 22455), 226(78) Hesiod, 86, 125. 133 134. 148 149, 176160), 20181). 22061935, 22675. 23210, 233,209), 238173, 755. 241177:

TALES OF HEROES

296 Hipparchus, son of Peisistratus, 99 100, 105, 224(58), 225(67), 226(78) Hippothous, 93, 99, 195(518). 196(551), 197(574), 21 7(141) Hittite(s), 45, 136, 184(242), 185(260), 221(2) Homer. See also texts of Homer, 53, 84, 91,

112, 116. 135, 138 -141, 143 -151, 15956). 160(83), 171(318), 182(205), 190(376), 200(65), 211(5). 212(23), 213(35, 51), 21-456), 218(162). 221(9), 222(19), 223(33, 43, 45), 224(54), 225(61, 67, 69), 228111, 116, 123, 126), 230(156, 163, 171), 231(172), 232(194), 236(42), 238(1), 239(27), 244(159) - blind, 113, 155(2) date of, 97-111, 133-134, 155(2. 10). 156(14, 17, 18, 19, 29), 22445, 46, 47, 48), 225(70) different bards with same name,

102, 111,

130, 149 - founder of the clan, 98, 111, 131, 148,

155(2) - illiterate, 113, 144 - Lives of, 99, 146, 22448), 227(110), 22%142) male, 125, 139, 242(105) - sixth century, in Athens, 98- 100, 103-110, 130-132, 149 -151, 156(17), 231(179), 235(254) works attributed to, 86, 212(23). 22344), 232(201) HomericHymns, 86, 125, 133 -134, 146-147, 201(81), 223(44), 22%133, 142), 231(174), 23519), 238(1), 241(74, 76, 77) Homeridae, 91, 98, 102-105, 111, 130- 132. 148-151, 213(36), 223(42), 228(118), 2291142), 230(171), 235(254) homicide. See blood feuds honor, 37, 83, 87, 92, 94, 108: 109, 111, 131-132, 151, 186(291), 213(36), 214(56, 71), 219177), 220(184), 221(201), 243(120) hoplite, 39, 42, 47, 49, 97, 155(9), 156(21), 181(188) horschair. See helmet, with horsehair plume horses,

- belonging to Achilles, 99, 115, 138,

198(600), 21:3(34)

breeding and care of, 6, 11-12,

160(74),

165(165- 167), 212(16), 220(183), 222(19) - Catalogue of, 116, 131, 151 -

four horse vs. two horse chariots, #5. 97,

138-139, 222(12) images of, 43, 45, 97, 138, 182(207), 184246) -

in Linear B tablets, 45, 1841253),

185(254-255) killed in battle, 45, 54. 191(391) names of, 15, 54, 99, 198(f00), 213(3+4).

216(104), 218153). 237045)

- racing. 127, 138: 139, 23744) -- riding, 97, 139, 18-K2 #6) seized as booty, +4. 183/212) used in warfare. 43 45.57. 97. 132, 139. 182;2073. 183:208 209, 220. 237%. 1902387) wooden horse. 206613; houses. Ser abo palace. archacological evidence for.

in Mycenacan Period. 1 3.56. B. 11 12,15 18.20 24, 26, 28.59. 95, 96.104. 120,135 157, 116157-8. 10.

17, 18), 158(20, 23, 24, 25), 159(46, 54), 160(83), 162(104, 108, 120),164(142, 146), 165(160, 162, 169), 166(177, 178,183),167(195), 168(221, 223, 224, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231), 172(339) - in Geometric Period, 157(8, 16), 158(23), 160(58) in Iron Age, 96, 160(58), 172(330)

- in later periods, 163(135), 172(331, 339) epic references to, 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 14, 17, 23-24, 26, 32, 52, 70, 73, 108, 132. 134, 156(29), 157(8, 9, 10), 158(23), 160(83, 84), 161(85. 90, 101), 162(104, 105, 112), 163(132). 164(152), 166(172), 167(186, 188), 169(233), 171(317) - house and farm of Eumacus, 6. 8, 10--11, 119, 158(23), 160(79), 161(102), 162(104), 164(137, 157), 165(162). 169(238), 170(256)178(101). 206(12), 244151) house of Circe, 24, 164140), 166177. 178), 172329), 21183), 236(27) hut of Achilles, 6, 24, 109, 114, 127, 159(36), 161(102), 162(104), 163(132, 134), 165(158, 162, 168) - huts of other heroes at Troy, 94, 162(104, 105), 171(313, 315, 317),

180(144)

Hypereia, 74 Hypsenor,

191(402)

I lalmenus, 167(192), 214(71) Icarius, 141

Idaean Cave, shields from, 17%137) Idaeus, 122

Idomeneus, 23, 35, 38, 48, 53, 80, 142-143, 171(313, 315), 177(90), 179(121), 1800140, 144), 182(202), 186(275, 296), 193(448, 462, 463, 464), 199(27), 212(14), 219(176), 239(6) Ilioneus, 195(518), 196(551), 1971561) llium, 93, 109, 234(238) Itioupersis, 223(35), 229(137) industry, 33, 176(57) Ino, 70, 202(1 19), 205(180), 234(253)

used in Mycenaean Period. 20, 31, 35. 60, 97, 136, 189(360 -361), 198(601 603), 222(14) - weapons, 60, 197(598). 198/600), 213(31) Iron Age. See Dark Age Irus, 8, 18, 146, 236(35) island, 73-75, 77, 81, 89, 99, 101, 106, 110. 117, 119-120, 141-143, 16.4148). 189345), 204158). 207(32), 208(55, 63, 66), 236(38) floating, 78 79 - of Acolus, 123-124, 164137), 208(6+4, 72) - of Calypso, 106, 110, 219(178), 241 (60) - of Circe, 52, 56, 124, 172(329). 210(1 26), 240(56) - of Helios (Sun), 120(d. B), 124(d. G). 160(79), 164(137), 208(72) - of the Goats, 115, 123, 124(d. G). 126 Isocrates, the orator, 104, 214(56) ivory, - in archaeological remains, 29, 39, 45, 59. 65, 94, 136-137, 174(8), 184245, 249). 192(422), 195(533), 196(542), 218(151) epic references to, 12, 45, 50, 218(151), 220(189)

J jewelry, 60, 65-66, 71, 137, 202(108), 204160) - broach(es), 61, 64-66, 71. 132, 201(89), 202(113, 114) - belonging to Odysseus, 14, 64-66, 97, 166(180), 201(93, 94, 96), 238(75) earrings, 64-66, 75 :76, 202(108, 110, 113) - necklace, 64, 69, 136-137, 201(90), 202(108, 110) - rings, 31, 38, 67, 136, 166(181), 17412), 175(24), 180(150), 181(174), 18-4(243) Judgement of Paris, 212(22) K Kakovatos, amber from, 201(90) Kallithea, finds from, 48, 51, 137, 185(268), 195(533) Kampos, bronze figurine from, 203(1 28) Kcos, archaeological evidence from, 33, 73-74, 100, 172341), 175(41, 42). 1764. 47, 48, 54, 59), 177(67), 183(238), 205(1)

locasta, 219181). (see also 140)

Kition, archacological evidence from,

lonian(s), 172(340), 176(59), 205(1), 221(1), 229134), ~ bards, 98, 102, 130, 216(121), 221(200), 228( 123), 234(246)

172341) knives, 32, 136, 176(53), 1780111). 1900373), 192(419), 1981602)

rarely mentioned by Homer. 94, 130, 136,

217(149) - text of Homer missing, 98, 102 103, 130, 228(118, 123) Iphidamas, 84, 165(171}, 179(123), 183(217), 186(290)

Iphis, 203(125) Iphitus, 92 Iris. 122 123, 221101). 240/37) iron, arrowhead used by Pandarus, 60. 97. 132. 198:603) epic relerences to, 14.20, 60, 97, 189361), swords. 49, 130, 156:2 11. 189.360. 361)

Knossos,

- archaeological evidence from, 33, 66-67, 74, 142-143, 161(99). 174(9, 12), 175(41, 43), 176(43, 48, 49, 52, 55), 177(66, 74), 179(132), 190(375), 192(436, 422), 201(82), 204(160), 206(22), 233(227) ~ epic references to, 32. 1-42 143, 175(41, 43) Linear B tablets from, 35, 45 48, 142-143,

1804169). 18-4253), 185(257, 258, 271), 187(300, 301), 1971565, 596), 199(21), 2332271

Korakou, archarological evidence from, 15, 168225}, 1701256) Kourion, shield fragments from, 39 40, 180; 149. 150;

Kymatothea, 85

Index L Lacedaemonia. See Sparta lacrtes, 34, 36, 49, 56, 70, 106, 139, 162(104), 166(178), 177(77), 188329), 195(524), 196(544), 20048, 60), 218(163), 220(187), 231(188), 232(195) Laestrygonians, 124 lamp(s), 23, 76, 97, 172(322) Lampetie, 63, 20052) land, 6, #1, 79, 184242), 187(317) - of the Cyclopes, 74, 81, 115, 120, 126 - of the Lotus Eaters, 78, 115, 123-124, 126 - ofthe Phaeacians, 10, 12, 14, 50, 68, 73-77, 81, 95, 116-117, 120, 141-142, 158(23), 159(56), 160(79), 163(132), 164(137, 148), 206(25, 27), 207(32), 208(69), 21%183), 229(133), 234(253), 239(21) - other lands mentioned in the epics, 76,

106, 116, 124, 142 143, 206(27), 208(68), 216(113)217(144) - tenure of land as a basis of wealth and

lions, 32, 165(157),

-

latest elements in, 102-103,

111,

129-130, 136, 228(120), 232(203) - missing digamma, 102, 130, 228(121) Lasus of Herminone,

100, 107, 213(35)

Laurion, silver mines at, 137 Lefkandi, archaeological evidence from, 220(191, 200) Leiodes, 19, 161(97), 169(249) Leitus, 87, 212(14). 217(139) Lemnos, 88, 216(124) length, - of Homeric texts, 37, 90, 103 104, 110-113, 113-119, 130-131, 229(133, 134, 137), 130-131, 229(133, 134, 137) - of other oral and literary texts, 103, 146 147, 216(115), 222(25) 229(133), 235(19) Leonteus, 50, 182, 189, 191(390), 212(14), 243(133) Lerna, houses at, 168(224, 225), 206(25) Leto, 109, 201(81), 238(75) library, . -

early, 226(74, 82), 228(88,

114, 116)

- of Alexandria, 100 101. 131, 226(78), 227(88) of Peisistratos, 100: 101, I 11, 147, 226(74, 75, 78, 83) of Pergamon, 225(69}, 226183) Linear B, 14, 26, 33, 45 47, 50-51, 59-61, 71. 76, 81, 86.89.93 94, 137 138, 142 143, 1661815, 172(3:40), 17418), 17657), 17765). 1790131), 18011571, 189345),

1901376).

197(596),

19864. 9, 101,

199/21), 20048), 206273, 207/495, 20BI60), 21011181. 212016, 21-4673. 215 103), 21611133. 2170150), 218162), 219170, 178), 2201185. 180, 1901. 2332227),

244159:

176(59)

literacy,

in the ancient world, 97, 130, 144-147, 155(13), 221(9) in the medieval period, 223(32) Little Itad, 145, 151, 229 loin cloth, 57 58, 204(160) loot. See booty Lotus Eaters, 78, 115, 123--124, 126 Lycaon (two people with same name), 36, 60, 160(74), 177(90), 181(179), 186(283), 195(518), 197(574) Lycomedes, 193(463), 212(1-4) Lycon, 191(402), 193(463) Lycophontes, 243(133) Lycurgos, the Athenian orator, 99 the Spartan lawgiver, 98 99, 148- 150 M

acquisition of land, 74, 78, 95 -96, 134,

140- 141, 219(176), 221(201) language, 78, 93, 129, 142 144, 156(22), 173(2), 217(144) - epic, 95, 103, 106, 111, 149, 156(25), 182(201), 211(11), 228(120), 237(56), 238(1), 239(2), 242(86) - formulaic (see formula)

297

linen, +1,46 +47, 61, 70, 185(271), 186(296), 199(15, 21), 201(75), 21469)

Macedonia, 101, 138, 218(162) Mallia, archacological evidence from,

161(85)

Margites, 223(44), 232(201) Maris, 193(463), 244(142) Marpessa, 202(1 19) marriage and bridal gifts, 12 13, 63, 70, 77, 96-97, 116, 125, 131, 139-141, 148, 156(25), 165(171), 166(173), 167(192), 175(42), 20060), 204163), 205(186), 220/184), 222(15, 18), 237(49, 50) Marseille (Massalia), 227(91) Medinet Habu, 137, 208(74) Medon, Achaean in /lad, 160, 197(579), 217(139) - herald in Odyssey, 21, 24, 160(81 -82), 232(196) Mcgapenthes, 14 Megara, the town. See Athens, controversy with Megara megaron/megara, - archaeological evidence for, |- 3, 5-6, 8--9,

12-13, 15 22, 28, 132, 157(8, 16), 158(22, 23), 159(46, 49), 160(58, 80), 161(98, 99), 162(106, 117), 163(129). 164(144), 166(183), 167(195), 168(222), 169(243), 170(286, 288), 171(307), 174(10), 175(41), 176(44), 183(238), 234(242) - double in palaces, 3, 5, 19, 158(22),

15%55), 160(58, 74) - epic references to, 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-13, 17 -24, 28, 56. 61, 70, 72, 76, 117, 132, 157(8, 16), 158(23, 34), 159(35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. 46, 49, 54, 55, 56), 160(63, 74, 76, 79, B1, 82, 84), 161(89. 90, 91, 92, 97, 98,

99), 162/105, 114), §63(122, 131. 133), 16-4148),

166(1 78). 167(187, 211),

1681218). 169(243, 246, 249), 170(286, 288}. 1714300).

1771771. 2031188)

Meges. 35, 46-48. 54. 17891), 186(280, 290), 1931463. 464). 2114.

217149:

Melanchius, 6. 18,20 22, 52,96. 128. 160182 1, 169248), 17072665, 171291: 177177, 18101821, 191400:

Meleager, 166:17 11,202: 119, 201251,

20340:

Menelaus, 6, 10, 12, 14, 27, 34-36, 46-48, 50-54, 56-57, 60, 67- 68, 89 90, 94-95, 99, 117, 122, 124, 126-127, 131, 138-140, 15956), 163(132), 166(176), 167(202), 181(176), 18-4290, 293, 294), 186(306), 187(315), 189337, 338), 191390, 402, 414), 192(442, 444), 193460, 463, 46-1), 195(518), 196(538, 556), 197(587), 198(600). 19925), 203(136), 212(14), 218(153), 220(184, 189), 237(45), 239(4). 241(72), 243(137), 244(1-45) - palace of (see palace, epic references to, of Menelaus) Menestheus, 42, 88-89, 91, 108, 181(183), 192(442), 21469), 216(121), 237(65) Menesthius, 47, 218(159) Mentes, 2, 206(27), 219(170) Mentor, 15%47) Meriones, 53-54, 60. 99, 177(90), 182(202), 193(463, 464), 212(14) mesodmai, 23 24, 97, 171(318). 172(319, 320) Mesthles, 217(141) Mestor, 243(133) Midea, archacological evidence from, 32. 167(202), 176(56) Miletus, — epic references to, 93 -94, 97, 132 Mycenaean remains at, 93, 201(1)

Minos, 142-143, 176(43), 238(75) mistakes in the oral tradition and in the texts, 83, 85, 111-114, 118, 131-132, 213(44), 217(149), 218(161), 234(247), 238(76, 77) Molion, 243(133) moon, 31, 164(152), 175(39), 180(154) Morgantina, archaeological evidence from, 135 Mouriatada, palace at, 168(227)

Mt. Hymettos, archacological evidence from, 145 Mt. Ida, 198(603) Mt. Olympus, 6, 162(112) Mt. Parnassus, 15, 56 Muse(s), 116, 132, 144 :145, 149-.150, 201(81), 215(102) Mycenae, - archaeological evidence from, ~ artefacts, 29-34, 37-38, 41, 45, 48-49. 59, 65-66, 86-88, 136-138, 167(202), 173(3), 1749, 12), 175(41), 182(197), 184(249), 190(362, 373), 191(402), 195(526, 533, 542), 196(539), 197(594), 200(47), 201(90, 97), 202(108, 113), 203(122, 129), 222(18), 236(25) chamber tombs,

137, 174(8), 189(345).

190(373), 195(533), 215(99) citadel, 89, 134-135, 137, 161(85), 167(195), 175(43), 205(1), 215(98). 218(153). 234(246) cult center. 26, 109, 200(47). 202(105) fortifications, 26-27, 136 137, 161(85). 173(360), 205(1) houses, 1 2.6, 8, 12,15 22, 24, 59, 135 137. 157016. 18), 15818, 23, 24), 164,142. 146), 168/228, 230), 169233. 234, 235. 2370, 17468. 175411, 19526. 333. 3421, 236.25; palace. 3.6.8 9. 12017. 32. 135.

137.

TALES OF HEROES

298 157.164. 158118, 22, 23), 16185. 98),

162116), 1641461. 165: 164), 16802221,

16236, 243), 1711307), 183.238). 23-4242) palace workshop, 17:48) roads in area ol, 45, 185(265), 215(99)

tholos tombis), 29, 31. 129, 136 137, 15715), 1631275. 1747). 1950533). 203128). 21598) wall paintings. 30, 158(25), 167195). 175741. 44). 174010), 177175, 18302381. 195533), 200647). 2021102, 105) epic references to, 37, 39. 70, 89, 108, 136, 138, 140, 143. 243(137) Mygdon, 243(140) Myrmidonis), 24, 42, 45, 47. 94-95, 115, 19515135, 217(137), 2180159, 161) N names, - duplication of, 93. 109 Hellenization of, 217(142) in Linear B tablets. 212(16). 215(89, 91), 216(136) made up or fictitious. 84, 91

92

numbers of, mentioned in epics, 83, 92 93, 95, 211410, 11), 212(14, 15), 21.458, 59, 67), 2161124, 2170139), 219159) of anchors, 20978) of horses (see horses, names of) Nausicaa, 2, 5, 63, 68 70. 73, 77, 16185, 91). 1664176), 200(60), 202(117), 204(152), 207(55) laundry done by, 63. 70, 77, 134, 198(8), 200460, 67) Nausithous, 73 -75, 142 necklace. See jewelry Neleids of Pylos, 108. 130 Neleus, 127, 134, 226(74) Nemea, sanctuary and copper mines at. 109, 137, 148, 150 Neoptoleme, 85 Nereus, 151 Nestor, 6, 30, 34-36. 43, +5. 56. 80. 88 -89, 97,99, 108, 110-111, 113-114, 117, 131, 134, 139, 143, 162(114), 163(132), 1661176), 178(94), 1814177. 179, 183), 182(205), 190(386), 191(391), 192(428), 193(463, 464), 195(518), 196(545, 551), 197(578, 598), 19%25). 212(17, 30), 21469), 216(123), 218(152, 153, 154. 159),

221(2), 22448), 230(160), 233(209), 237(65), 238(76), 239(5)243(1 10), 244142, 143)

shield of, 35, 38, 58, 127, 177(90). 179(126), 181(179) Nestor's Cup, 97, 90, 1891345), 1951529) Nicocrates of Cyprus. 226(74) Niobe, 213(35), 222(28) Nireus, 92, 2147-6. 79.215102) nudity, 68, 71, 76, 97, 132, 19865), 203149). 20-4150, 151, 152), 2362 oO Oveanus,

32

53.177:70.23875:

Odev of Pindar, 103.347, QL 13. 23919,

Odin. LET U H

148, 150

151.

Ocdipus, 103, 140 Orneus, 2031134) Odysseus,

Oracles of Musacus,

absent from Ithaca, 21

22, 41, 70.

139 140, 166(173, 178, 179. 171(288),2201199), 2430122, 123) at Ithaca, I

3,5

6.8, 10

14, 17-21,23.

42. 52, 56. 69, 98, 102, 104, 106- 197. 110, 117. 119. 128, 131, 140-141, 150, 15938, 55). 160176, 81, 82), 162105), 1651168), 1661178, 179, 169(240, 246), 1701264, 266, 281. 283, 287), 171313). 177(77). 1780108, 108). 1811182). 18312175, 189343, 345), 191409. 19917), 204(164), 205(188). 20753). 221(201). 223(40), 231(186, 187, 188). 232195. 196, 197, 199), 236(35), 24038), 241(68) at Troy, 34, 36, 46 48, 53. 56-58, 80, 88, 94, 99, 104, 114. 017,127, 150 151, 172(328), 178101, 108), 179(123). 183(217). 186(290, 294), 192(438, 442, 444), 193/463, 464), 195(518). 211(155), 212(14, 17). 21474, 215(80), 218(152), 235(15, 17), 238(77), 239(4), 240(30), 243(133, 137) bed of, 12. 17, 166(173, 180, 181), 201(96), 219(178) - bow of, 5, 14. 19 20, 23, 161(89), 168(214), 169233, 240), 170(266), 171(313), 236(35) broach of, 64 66, 97, 166(180), 201(93, 94, 96), 238(75) epithets of. 125 128, 139, 156(31). 241(72), 242103), 243(110, 122) false tales of, 26. 68, 80, 134, 142 143, 177(77), 199(16), 200(47), 203(147), 208(61, 67, 70. 71), 219(176, 179), 232(194), 24:1 (62), 244(1-49) - in Land of the Phaeacians, 2-3. 5, 14, 50,

73,75 77, 82, 115-117, 158(23), 161(85, 91), 163(132), 164(155), 189(337, 341, 348), 190(379), 200(45), 208(55, 69), 211(11), 220K 189), 222(23), 238(75). 243(129) - palace of (see palace, in the epics, at Ithaca) - shield of, 34, 36, 48-51, 177(75, 77, 90), 178(91), 179(139), 180(140, 153), 181(182), - swords of, 49 51, 116-117, 189(337, 338, 339, 341, 342, 348, 349, 351, 353), 190(379), 191(412), 220(189) ~ wanderings of, 10, 52, 72. 77, 80 82, 91, 101, 195, 117, 120, 123--124, 126, 140, 161(97), 166(174, 178), 169(246), 188327). 189(342), 203149), 204152), 2050180), 20856, 61, 67. 72), 2100126, 127). 219178), 220192), 222(17), 22335), 234228, 253), 236(27), 237(65), 238(75), 240(56), 241(60, 69), 243(170) Oikhalia, Capture of, 223(44) oil, 14, 69, 138, 201(75), 22K 190) - perfumed, 201(78) Old Epidauros, archacological evidence from. 53 olive tree, used in bed made by Odysseus, 12. 17, 166(180), 201(96) Olympia, archaeological site of. 84. 109, 223034) Olynthus, archarological evidence from, 172:330: Onomacritas in Athens, 100, 107, 1-47, 22703. Oppianus Anazarbensis,

171.312:

100, 107, 147, 227(93)

oral tradition, I. 3, 9, 38, 45, +8. 60:62, 68. 71, 76- 78, 83:88, 91, 93-94, 96 99. 102. 104, 113, 117, 129--130, 133-134, 141, 144-145, 148--149, 156(20, 27), 163(131). 175(43), 176(59), 182(201), 203(130). 207(55), 212(18). 213(34), 217(145), 220(199), 221(200), 222(24, 26), 223(30, 32, 43), 224054). 225(61, 69), 228(119), 229133), 230(157, 163, 170, 171), 231179), 232191, 194), 233(212, 214), 235(3), 236(38), 238(1), 239(27), 242187) accuracy of, 85, 88, 91, 212(31), 224(55) changes and additions to, 84-85, 105-111, 115-117, 130, 207(55), 236(40) early beginnings of, 1, 3, 9, 77-78, 94, 97, 149, 208(60, 61) later stages of, 22, 62, 66. 185(265), 198(6). 232(194) mistakes in. 83, 85, 114, 118, 131. 213(44), 217(149), 218(161), 234(247), 238(77, 76) variants of, 85. 97, 149, 213(34), 223(41).

230(163), 233(214), 235(18) Orchomenos, archaeological evidence from. 174(7), 175(41). 1921436) Oresteia, 232(193) Orestes, 2204199)

Onientalizing Period, 33, 65, 129, 179(137).

201(90, 94), 238(75)

Orpheus of Croton, 147 Orsilochus, 219(176). 232(194) orsothyre, 17, 21 Orthyoneus, 47, 185(27 1), 186(296) Otus, 243(140) P palace(s), 1, 3, 45, 160(58), 162(104, 106), 165(162, 164), 166(185), 170(286), 172(325), 173(353), 185(260), 220(183) - epic references to, 3, 5-6, 8 9, 11, 24, 26, 28, 73, 76, 89, 96 97, 157(10, 13), 158(23), 159(56), 160(74, 83), 161(102), 162(t 12), 164(152), 165(168), 167(192), 169246, 247), 171311), 176458), 21331), 21K71), 220(183), 234230) - at Ithaca, 3, 5. 8, 10. 12, 13-14, 17-24, 26, 56, 70, 106. 130, 157(10), 158(23), 159(39, 40, 41. 54, 55. 56), 16079, 81, 82). 161(89, 102), 162(121), 163(131. 133), 164137, 149), 165(157, 168). 166(179), 167(186, 190, 212), 168(218). 16%X238). 170286, 288), 171(318), 176(58). 204170), 219(176, 183), 2204188), 221(201), 243(137) - of Alcinous, 1,5, 6, 10-11, 64, 73, 76, 141, 157(12), 158(23), 161(85, 99), 163(133), 164(155), 165(168), 169(238), 175(36), 176(58), 198(600), 204172), 219(183), 220(188) of Menelaus. 9 11. 115, 157(10), 1581231.

161(95,

102), 162(103,

112),

16-4152), 165/16-4, 168), 1714313, 315), 176158), 20-4172), 213(40) of Priam, 10, 13 14. 108 109, 157(6),

162111, 112%. 1651163, 166), 20615, 21:,.23:4.242,

Mycenaean, 1 3.6.8 12.15: 17,20, 22, 24.28.89, 100, 135. 137, 1578, 16), 158:18. 22, 23. 24, 253, 15%56j. 160(58. 80, 83:

161/85, 99.

169: 116. 1171. 163(127).

299

Index I6-H1 +4, 146). 1651162, 164), 166/183), 1681222, 227, 229, 230), 16232, 236, 213). 1700283. 288), 1710307), 1721336), 173:353). 17-4(8), 183238), 20501). 222016), 23-242) Minoan, 10, 2-4, 26. 64 66,73 74, 76, IH. 143, 161(99), 1721337) Palaikastro, archaeological evidence from, 232(198) Pandarus, 35, 40. 42, 48, 58, 60, 126--127, 1827200), 183:23-H. 1861290). 187315). 1934631, 1961558), 19716001, 1981603;, 217:138, 141), 2430120, 121) - using iron arrowhead to wound Menelaus, 48. 60, 67, 97, 117, 126. 132. 1975871 Panope. 85 Panthalis, 223/40} Paris, 93, 115, 117, 120rd. A), 16501571, - 16611721. 177:90). 17891, 97. 102. 113. 1801140, 153). 18111761. 1861283, 204), 1871315), 189337, 3421, 191402), 19243,

193(460, 463), 1951518),

1966545.

551, 5561, 1977581). 199033), 212014. 2171463, 2331224), 234237, 241. 242), 24035, 371 Parry. Milman, 98, 212. 223(31), 225(61), 2291-46,

148, 1-495, 230163)

Patroclus, 30, 34,36 37,42 45, 47-48. 53°57, 92. 94-95, 97. 115. 120(d. Ap, 126, 151, 177181, 17891.97. 102, 110, 113), 179123, 18001531. 186(283, 293, 299), 189:337, 3421. 1921-444). 1930-416. 463).

195:518}, 1965-45, 5511. 1976563, 574). 1981600, 1995425. 212114. 21458). 2171371 220198). 23635), 24301 3-4), 244142) funeral of (see funeral, of Patroclus: ser also

games, al) Pausanias, 84, 102, 22.447}, 22683). 2320209) Peiracus. 56 Peiros, 21214

Peisistratos, son of Nestor. 6.9, 11.45. 116, 162(112), 1636132), 164152), 212630), 234209. 237(50) the tyranı, 99 108, 110 111, 130-131, 134, 1:46 150, 22-454, 60), 22681. 84), 231(177), 233209, 211), 235(254) Homeric texts of, 99 105, 107 108, 110 111.130 132, 146, 148-149, 151, 212124, 26), 225166, 69), 226175, 78, 83:, 227193. 104. 228118, 123, 126), 2301159, 170), 2323203, 233213), 239245 library of, 100 101,111. 147. 226(74, 75, 78, 83) Pelegon. 193464) Pelops, 218152: 219175.

Peneleos, 12, 50. 87, 189.338), 190 363: 107 300, 402), 193.463), 195.518. 21214 27.13%

Penelope. 3.5.12

18 19) 21. 28.63) 66.

69 71.77, 106, 110.125. 128,150 112, 198 19% 15955, 56,161 89°, 166137. Lie. leo 175. 176. 177. 178.179, 180.

167 187. 10. 1). 100, 208. IH

218.

169:233. 210.171 .300.17657. 18 340, 181,202 111.117. 118.201 170, 205 182. 188.207 53.209557. 21103,

219176. 181, 182), 220(18-h, 231(186, 188), 232195. 199), 236135). 2-40(38), 241(68, 80), 242(103, 105), 2431122, 137), 244(149, 150) peplos, in epic tradition, 63 65, LOB 109, 115, 121 122, 198(1), 200465. 66, 67, 68), 201(73, 81, 99), 203( 126), 234(228) in historic periods, 64

66, 108

109,

200(65) Perati, archaeological evidence from, 143, 198(602), 22172; Pergamene

Library

and librarians, 225169),

22683) Pergamus, 100, 23-4237, 242) Pericles, the Athenian statesman, 100, 111, 226(84) Periphetes, 37 39, 177190; 1951518) Perseus of Macedon, 101, 2020119) Phaeacia(ns}, 3, 10, 12, 14. 50, 68, 73

Alcinous)

relationship to ancient Thera and Adantis myth, 75 77, 141- 142. 207132, 43; Phaedimus, 1981600) Phaestos, - epic references to, 142 palace at, 32, 74. 175(43)

Phegeus, 19:3(4633) Phemius, 2, 21, 24, 86, 110. 160181. 823,

168(218), 16% 249), 214163), 2201188) Pherae, 115 116, 62(12), 185(262) Phidas, 217(149) Phidippus, 92, 1-3. 2151102) Philaidae, 108, 151, 211(13). 233208) Philip of Macedon, 101 Philoctetes, 88, 197(578, 579), 21474), 216(124), 217(139) Philoetius, 18 22, 96, 106. 128, 160(82), 163(133), 164(149), 221(201) Phocylides, poet from Miletus, 105, 156(25), 231(180, 181) Phoenicians, 97, 145. 155(9), 163(127), 206(27), 208(73), 2191170), 232(191) Phoenix, 10, 0-4, 11-4, 127. 141, 145, 161(102), 162(105), 21601 14), 2181159), 235£15. 16, 17: Phoreys. 47 +8. 186/296), 21771405 Photius, Byzantine scholar, 84, 133 130, 218161, 2220125

Phehia, 217: 149° Phylakopi. archacological evidence from, 1-44, 168 230,

17241:

104,

130 151.147 Wal 22 13, 21335, 227 16.251172.232201.255 19, 24717 Prroms,

193

IH

8.2170 Hl.

Polycaste,

11-4, 131, 20-4152). 22448)

Polycrates of Samos, 1-48, 226174), 231(174) Polydamas, +1, 44, 181(178), 183229),

187(318), 193(463, 464), 212(14) Polydorus, 47. 67, 186(296), 187(306). 203(137), 243121) Polymela,

77, 79,

BL 82,95. 115 117, 120, 141 142, 158123), 159156), 160(79), 1631132), 16-4137, 5-48), 175143). 189733373, 2058). 206125. 273, 207/28, 32, 43.47, 53), 208/61, 69), 2004), 2120163, 218164), 2191183), 2201189, 220(133), 234253, 236(38), 238(75), 23921). 240(38), 243(129) palace at (ser palace, epic references to. of

Pindar. Whrie poet,98 100, 103

Polybus, 220189;

polygamy, 217(145)

Peristeria, finds from, 20190)

phratries,

Pisander, 177190). 18%337), 193463), 218(159) Plato, the philosopher, 100, 130, 141, 213(51), 21471), 22-H54), 232(201) Pliny, the younger, 144, 235(2) poctic embellishment. See also epic, embellishment, emphasis and exaggeration, 38-39, 42, 139, 185(272), 1974571), 208:64) polis, 73-74, 131, 206114). 21467) Polites, 212714)

167(192)

Polynices, 24:3(137) Polyphemus, 82, 115. 126. 16197), 164137), 165(157}, 222171. 22335). 243107), 244152) Polyphetes. 2.431331 Polyportes, 150, 193463), 212014. 21-K7-h Polyxinus, 91 92 Poseidon, 35,49 51, 67, 73, 75, 88, 110, 116, 126, 134, 141, 18141791, 182204, 1931463), 198600). 199(27), 203131). 207(28). 215185). 216(118). 2311186), 234252, 253), 237145), 243129; pottery. See vases pre-Greek people and their language, 29 30. 53, 78, 140, 142 143, 173(2) Priam, 10, 12, 14, 27, 90.97, 108 109. 119. 122(d, E), 123, 134 135, 149-150, 1571-4, 160(56), 162(104, 112), 163(132, 133, 134), 165(163, 166, 171), 167(212), 173(357), 185(265), 199(16), 202(120), 203(137), 212(17), 214(59), 215(145), 237(56), 240(46, 49. 241(72), 243(121, 133) palace of (we palace, epic references to, of Priam) Proclus, writer of fifth century A.D.. 84, 133, 243(111) prodomos. See vestibule Pronous, 177(90), 17%123), 186(293) Prosymna, archaeological finds from, 137. 221(2) Protesilaus, 88, 216(124) Prothoenor, 87, 217(139)

Prothous, 92 prothyron, 6-9, 162(119) Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt, 101 Pylaemenes, 42, 118, 131, 181(189), 211(12), 2170141). 23878) Prlacus, 2170141) Pylos, archacological and historical evidence, 38 39, 45. 81, 130. 134135, 142, 1748), 185,265), 210/139), 218153, 161, 162) from excavated palace. 2.3.5. 8, 24, 26. 135.137, 157.16: 158 18, 22. 23, 24), 160805, 161055. 981), 162116, HOR TE Do. 165. 16h

300

TALES OF HEROES

-

1661183). 168(222), 169232, 243), 171(307)

sanctuary. See temples, shrines and cult areas

from Linear B tablets, 45. 47. 50, 89,

Sardis, sanctuary at, 26, 109 Sarpedon, 38, 41 42, 44, 54, 58. 87, 126, 175(13), 177(90), 179(119), 180(140, 153, 162), 181(178, 189), 186(279), 193(446, 463), 1956516), 1960545. 351). 1974575). 2120114, 2170141), 22102), 243110, 120, 121) shield of, 38, 41, 177(90), 179119), 180(140, 153, 162), 181(178) Scaean Gate, 26-27. 43. 115 Schedius (possibly two different people with

174(8), 185(257), 187(300), 189345), 197(565), 215(89, 91) - from wall paintings, 29- 30. 59, 62, 17411, 12), 182(197, 198), 188(329, 331, 332), 195533), 211(8) - epic references to. 14, 45, 56, 88 -89, 108,

110, 114-116, 119, 120(d. B), 12-4(d. G). 131, 140, 160(79), 163(132), 188(327), 214(73), 21591. 94), 232(195), 236(25), 237(50) Pyraechmes, 217(1-41)

Sappho, lyric poetess, 105, 156(25), 213135)

same name), 92, 217(139)

- Periphetes, 37. 39, 177/90), 17%1 18) Sarpedon, 38, 41. 177(90), 17%119), 180(140, 153, 162), 181(179) evidence from other archacological remains, 18- 19, 29--32, 34, 37 -40. 48. 81, 137, 173(3), 174(4, 9, 10, 11, 12). 17777), 17%124), 180(150), 1811197), 182(198), 190(369), 195(531) - made of: - bronze, 30- 31, 34 -35, 38, 40, 177(78)

- leather(oxhide). 29-30, 3+ 35,40 41, 52. 175117, 36). 179117, 119), 195(529) shipfsi,

- archaeological evidence of, 97, 138, 208(78), 221(10)

Schenia, 74+ 75, 142, 207(32) Ramses III of Egypt, 137, 141, 208(74) rank and power, 36- 37, 39, 41--43, 53, 69, 86, 89-90, 94 95, 114, 143, 149, 1821204),

202102). 218(150, 152, 153, 154, 161, 162, 163), 219(175)

through marriage or inheritance, 139 141, 218(152), 2191175, 181), 222(18) symbols of, 35. 68-69, 178(93), 188(332), 204(159, 160), 218(152), 219(175) repetition(s), 9, 87-89, 98, 106, 113. 117,

119-123, 125, 131, 151, 157001), 1620112), 163(132), 168(229), 174(12), 187(306), 20981). 21579, 22455). 231(188), 232195). 233(218), 235(10), 236(23), 23743. 64), 2382). 2348, 22, 27), 240(28, 51,52), 241(68, 79), 242(86) resin, trade in, 80, 138 return, - of Achaean warriors from Troy, 85, 98, 124, 220(198) of the Heracleidae. 143 - of Odysseus, 6, +2, 77, 98, 103, 106, 110,

200(67), 223(35), 238(75) Rhadamanthys, 176. 24-1140) Rhamnous, temple at, 234(245) Rhexenor, 243(1-40)

scribes, 102- 104, 107, P11, 113-114,

Semitic words, 206(27), 219(170) servants, in epics, 3, 13, 19- 22. 6+. 96, 139, 159(55), 160(84), 163(131), 166(1 79), 167(190), 176(57), 198(1), 200(48), 219183) seventh century. 73. 97: 99. 106, 149,

163135), 172322). 1832-40), 184246), 206(13), 223(34. 35). 233228) sherds. See vases

shields, 29- 42, 46, 48,51 52.57. 132, 134, 191(408) archacological and literary evidence for:

103, 145. 223(34)

139

Ss 89, 108

109, 117,

120, 131, 176(47), 183(223), 19942), 21585). 216118). 233(2 14), 234230).

236(23j. 237150), 23912). 240031), 243120)

salling), 61, 74 75, 79 81,123: 124, 126, 136 137, 19822). 20081), 2101123. 212116. 23), 223-441. 2400531. 241160) Salaminioi,

in prehistoric art, 75, 79, 208(74, 76).

210121, 123, 138, 139. 144) - how beached, 82, 97, 210(145), 201(152, 155) ~ rams on, 81, 131, 210x143, 145) - steering oars on, 79, 97, 132, 210(123)

shrine(s). See temples, shrines, and cult areas Sidon, 198(600), 200(71), 219(170) silver, - epic references to, 1, 12, 14. 30, 32, 36

177(69), 179(137), 180(149) figure -of-eight, 19-31, 34-36, 38 +1, 173(3), 174(5, 9, 11, 12, 13), 175(24), 177(77), 179(121, 124), 180(152), 181(174), 182(197)

108, 151, 271613), 233/208)

Salamis, BB. 99, 101, 108, 130. 150 151, 21580. 22451 227-93, 232 1915 controversy ive Athens, controversy with Meuara:

Samos, in historical period, 26. 101. 109. 148 149

-

small, round shields, 29- 30, 33

3-4.

36-37, 38 40, 42, 173(3), 174(4. 10, 11), 175(24, 39), 176(24), 177(69), 178(113), 17%116, 121, 123, 124, 129, 137), 180(150). 181(174, 197), 188(329) - tower, 29 31, 34-36, 38: 40, 17-4(12, 13) 175(24, 25), 177(77), 1780114), 180(150), 181(17-h in epic belonging to: - Achilles, 30: 37, 39, 48, 98, 165(171), 175(29, 41, 42, 43), 176(50), 177(69, 75, 88, 90), 178(91, 99, 110). 179(128, 130, 139), 181(179), 192(419), 198(600), 232( 194) - Agamemnon,

36, 38

41, 46, 48, 53,

177(75, 90), 1791128. 137), 1800162, 163), 185(272. 284). 186(284), 189345) Ajax, 30 31.34 35, 37-40, 52, 98, 175:25). 177179, 81, 90), 178491), 179131. 1801140. 159), 191391) Hector. 30. 35. 37 40, 48. 98, 17790). 179:116, 1171. 180140, 1-4, 153%. 1811174. 179 Nestor, 35.38.58. 127. 177:00\, 170.126,

181:179%

37,

45. 48-52, 67, 71, 76, 85, 141. 16-4153, 155). 167(202), 175(29, 35, 36). 184252), 186(284), 188(320, 334), 189(337, 341, 345), 198(600), 220(189)

bosses on, 30, 3+, 37- 41, 175(24),

rhoges, 20- 22, 171(292, 300) roads, in Mycenaean Greece, 45, 185265). 215(99) roof, 11, 14, 16, 21, 24, 162(104), 165(160), 166(177). 167(212), 169(235), 172(318, 329. 330)

sacrifices, 5, 24. 37.88

48-49, 52, 75 -76, 78 82, 96, 115- 117. 119, 121-124, 141, 164(137), 171(318). 180(142), 182(204), 183(208), 188(327, 330), 206(27), 208(73), 20981, 92, 94, 101), 2101119, 126, 127), 2110146, 155). 21462, 73, 74, 75), 215(80), 2161118), 21%170), 222(16), 223(345, 236(38), 239(4. 5, 6). 240(56), 243(124, 129) - Catalogue of (see catalogue, of Ships) - in historic periods, 131. 145, 1559). 206(27), 208(73), 210(132, 143, 145), 22334)

Seleucus Nicator, 100, 111, 226(77, 83)

epic reference to, 143, 21-475). 217(139)

routs, on the battlefield,

epic references to, 23, 27, 39, 42, H.

130. 143. 146 1-47, 1871300). 227(103), 228(122, 123), 229149), 236129). 237147), 239(23) Scylla, 124, 23-4253) Sea Peoples, 129, 13-4, 137 138. 141-142, 196(539), 208(7+4) seal(s), 31-32, 34. 44-45. 58. 65, 67, BL. 83, 85. 137. 17419. 12), 176048, 49, 50. 51, 52), 182(198), 18:4(246), 190(369), 192(422), 196(542), 232(198)

Rhodes, - in the historical period,

217,

-

in archaeological remains, 30- 32, 41. 45,

51, 59, 136- 137, 175(35. 41), 178(1 1-4), 188(334), 189(345), 195(529), 196(542). 197(594), 203(129), 220(190) similes, 15, 17, 36 -37, 42, 45, 56. 60, 97, 104, 116, 139, 144, 165(157), 167(201, 208). 175(36), 17659), 18-5249), 201(99), 21165), 216114), 221010), 222(14, 16), 230(156, 162, 163), 231(179), 239(22) Simonides of Keos, 98- 100, 105, 131. 231(178) Sirens, 78, 23-K253) Sisyphus, 161(101) sixth century. 98-101, 103-106, 130, 132-133, 146-148, 150-151, 156(17), 223(33), 224(58). 225(61, 69), 226(78), 228(116, 120, 126), 230171), 231(183), 232(201), 234245), 235(254) slaves, in epics, 26, 63, 96, 128, T98(1),

203(125, 134), 219(183), 220(184, 185, 186, 187). 244159} Smyrna, claims Homer,

101

Socus, 34. 177190). 18011-4H. 186(290),

193.463)

Solon of Athens,

2245-4, 601

100. 106, 141, 147, 151,

301

Index Song uf Roland, 85, 222(25) Sophocles, the tragedian, 103 Sounion, sanctuary at. 23-4245)

Sparta(ns), - epic references to, 9, 11- 13, 45, 52. 63, 108, 116, 127, 131, 136, 140, 158/23), 15%56), 162(112), 163(132), 165(164, 209101). 214(74), 216(113), 219(183), 222(17), 236(29, 35), 237(50), 239(21) - in historical period, 98-99, 108 109; 135; 145, 149 150, 218(162), 226(79) in prehistoric, 218(153) poctic tradition of, 98, 134, 149- 150. 226(79) Spata, archaeological evidence from, 57 spear(s), ~ archacological evidence for, 29, 35, +1, +5,

47, 52-53, 56, 97, 100, 130, 155(9), 184(243), 190(369}, 192(424, 426, 436, 437), 194(492), 195(531), 223(34) epic references to, 23, 29, 31, 36-37, 39, 41 44, 46-48, 50 57, 60, 67, 68, 132, 171311, 313, 315), 1790118. 123), 1810176, 179, 182). 183(225), 187(302), 189350), 190(368, 369, 387), 191(391), 192(424, 425, +28, 429, 433), 193(446, 448, 462), 19+(471, 474, 480, 485, 486, 493, 501.

508), 197(564), 199(27), 204(151), 214(69)

- belonging to Achilles, 36, 41, 52-54. 56, 67, 178(110), 186(284, 286), 198(600) - belonging to Hector, 44,52 53, 55- 56, 178(99), 192(434), 194(492) spear racks, 26, 171(311, 312) spinning and weaving in the epics, 2, 13, 61, 63 64, 72, 76, 96, 139, 161(95), 167(187). 176(37), 198(1), 201(72) stairs, 1, 21, 76, 157(8, 18), 158(19, 20), 161(85). 165(164, 169), 166(177}. 169(233, 234), 236(35) Stesichorus, lyric poct, 105. 131 stele, 33, 44. 45, 48, 87. 97, 173(3), 182(197) Stentor, 27 Sthenelus, 89 90, 94, 183(225), 213/45), 216(109) stoas. See also colonnade,

163(135)

stone, used in building, 1-2, 10--12, 14, 17-19, 23. 32, 43- 44, 50, 65, 67, 74-76, 82, 85, 136 -137, 157(14), 161(99), 163(127), 167(212), 16%238, 240, 241), 170(256, 283, 288), 171(315), 175(43), 206(12, 13), 215(98) storerooms, |, 4, 13-14, 16, 157(8), 167(208), 169232), 205(1) suitors, of Penelope, 1-3, 5,8, 13 14,17 24, 42, 52, 56, 63-64, 70-71, 85, 106, 125, 127-128, 139--141, 159(54, 55, 56), 160(81, 82), 161(89), 165(168), 166(178), 167(187), 168(218), 170(266, 287, 288), 171(300), 177(77), 178(108), 181(192), 191(408, 409), 192(438), 205(182, 188), 21%173, 176), 221(201), 231 (188), 232(196), 243(122) numbers of. 157(14), 163(131) relatives of. 13, 106, 163(131). 232(196)

sun, 31.68 16211.

70, 76, 80, 119 1661525,

120, 124. 144,

1711316),

17539,

18743171, 20-4151, 178), 222016) island of. 120(d. Bi. 124d. G)160179),

164.1373, 20872:

swimming, 68, 177(66), 203(149) swords, 37, 46, 49-53. 57. 60, 178(102, 11 t). 181(176, 179), 196(538), 237(65) ~ belonging to Odysseus. 49 51, 189(338. 339, 342, 348, 349, 351. 353), 191(412) given to Odysseus by Euryalus, 50 51.

1986011. 205(188). 2066551. 21101), 212(24. 26. 28. 30). 21580). 2161144. 2170149), 222(1-4), 22340). 225(72), 227(93), 228127). 230159, 160, 163). 2311179), 233(214), 234253). 235(16). 236127. 29), 237(65), Attic (Peisisuratid), 99-111, 107- 108, 130.-132, 146, 148-149, 151, 212(24, 26), 225(66, 69), 226(75, 78. 83), 227(93. 104), 228(118, 123, 126), 230(159, 170), 232(203), 233(213), 239(2-4) city, 111. 130, 22791) - conflation in, 57, 62,85, 117--118, 141, 166( 186), 238(75) “corrected”, 100, 111, 114, 118, 131, 226(85), 227(90, 104) corruptions and contradictions in. 50 51, 82, 166(173), 191(412) dictation of, 102 104, 110-111, 113-119, 121 122, 130 132, 144, 146, 151, 22%146), 233(225), 235(2), 238(75) breaks in dictation sessions, 113 116. 118- 119.121 122,131 -132, 146 147, 170(264), 191(412), 236(20, 21, 29, 34, 35, 39), 237(50), 238(75), 239(23)

116 117, 189(337, 341), 190(379), 220(189)

gold studded belonging to / emnon. 37, 50, 53, 186(284), 189/345) in Linear B tablets, 50 -51, 189(345). 190(376) iron, 49, 130, 156(21), 189(360, 361) silver-studded, 36, 49, 50-51, 97, 186(28+4), 189337. 341), 195(329) types found in Mycenaean period, 46, 49 52, 136-137, 188(334), 189345), 190(373, 374, 375, 378, 379), 191(402), 192(419, 422, 424), 1954529) T Talthybius, 121, 197(588), 238(77) Teiresias, 52, 191/412). 223(-40), 231(186), 232(199), 234253). 237(65) Telegony, 223(40), 229(137)

Telemachus, 2 3. 5-6, 9-14. 18 23, 42, 45, 52, 56 57, 62. 63, 88 89, 106. 110. 114 117, 123, 125, 128.131, 139-141, 158(23), 159(37). 162(110, 112), 163(121. 132), 164(144, 152), 166(173, 176, 178}, 167(187, 191, 202, 211), 168(214, 218), 170(256, 266, 276, 277), 171(311), 178(101), 181(182), 188(327, 330), 189338. 340), 192(428, 429), 199(43. 44), 200/46, 66, 67}, 204(152, 164), 219(173, 176, 183), 220(18+4, 189), 222(17), 224(48), 232(195, 196), 236(25, 27, 29, 35). 237(50), 240(56), 241 (80), 242(103), 243(122, 137), 244(149) Telesto, 201(81) temenos, - in epics, 32, 73, 97, 205(9) in Linear B tablets, 26 - in prehistoric period, 73-74, 97, 176(46) ~ in later periods, 73, 176(46) temples, shrines and cult areas, epic references to, 24, 26, 28, 33, 73, 97, 108-109, 130, 132, 172(340), 205(6), 206(12), 234(247) at Troy, 26, 108-109, 172(340), 173(353), 233(214), 234(238) - evidence from prehistoric period, 24, 26,

28, 97, 108 109, 172(334, 336, 337, 338, 340, 341), 176(52), 200(47), 202(105), 205(6), 233(227) - evidence from the historic period, 26, 108-109, 132, 151, 172(338, 3:40), 205(6). 206(13), 233206), 234244, 245, 246, 247) Terpander, archaic musician and poet, 149, 226(79) terracotta figurines, 34, 45, 138, 172(341), 176(53), 177(74), 184(246), 192(419), 233(228) Teucer, 34-35, 53, 56. 60. 138, 178(91,

101),

179(139), 181(176), 192(428), 193(463), 195(518), 197(582, 594), 198(600), 21214, 17), 243(133) Teuthras, 243(133}

texts of Homer, additions and alterations in, 37, 76 78, 84-85,99 108,107 111.115 118, 130 132, 136, 151. 173353. 197:599;,

length of dictation sessions, 113

116,

146 147. 236(29, 39) dislocations, discontinuities, and discrepancies in, 30, 34. 54, 87, 89, 108, 111, 113-118, 132-132, 191(413), 204(152), 233(225) Doric (or Spartan), 98-99, 130, 149-150 - edited by Alexandrian librarians, 100-101,

108-109, 111, 131, 225(69), 227(97, 102, 103, 108, 109), 235(15), 238(78) fixed, 99, 105, 113-114, 118, 131, 138, 226(82, 85, 87), 235(254), 237(65) historicity of, 84-85, 134-136, 211(1)

-

interpolations in, 100

101, 107

109, 111,

116 117, 130, 136, 173(353), 212(24, 26), 217(149), 228(127), 230(159), 233(214) lonic, 98, 102-103, 129 130, 144, 148, 149- 150, 228(118, 123) - length of texts, 37, 90, 103- 104, 110-111, 113-119, 130-131, 22%133, 134, 137) linguistic features of (ser also formula), 93, 95, 102-103, 106, 111.123, 125 131, 136, 142-143, 148 150, 156(25), 172(2), 182(201), 211(11), 228(120, 121, 123), 230(171), 232(203), 237(56), 239(2), 242(86) - memorized, 113-115, 118, 121, 131, 237(47) mistakes in, 114, 118, 131. 213(44), 217(149), 218(161), 234(247), 238(77, 76) purity of, 98, 107-108, 130- 132, 222(25) spread and preservation of, 98 99, 101, 103-105, 107-108, 111, 129 132, 147, 222(24, 25, 26). 225(61), 228(126) written, 8-9, 97 99, 101--105, 113--117, 121, 123, 129 134, 222(26), 224(55), 225(61. 69), 226(82. 87), 227(103), 228(121, 123), 230(171), 232(201), 236(29) thalamos. See also chamber.

10, 12

18, 20

22,

28, 64, 76. 15716), 160(74). 161971, 162(105), 164(1 44), 165(171), 1661172, 173. 174, 176, 178, 179, 186). 167(176, 178, 192, 201, 203, 210, 211, 212, 213), 168/214, 216, 218), 169(233, 235, 246), 170(266). 1711291. 3001. 236/35) Thalpius, 91 92 Theagenes of Rhegium, 222-27. 230:07 15 Theano, 122, 17273405. 240.33,

TALES OF HEROES

302 Theban Cycle, 134, 213034), 223(4-4) Thebes, in Egypt. 2200189), 222(19) in Greece, 97. 136, 140, 143. 145. 164(146), 19816021. 201(82), 203(1291, 218(153), 243(137) Theoclymenus, 23. 85, 212(28). 21a) 76),

243(137) Theogony, 86, 201(81), 238(73, 75). “a4: 75, 76, 78) Theophrastes of Athens, 226(74) Thera, archacological evidence from, 75 76, 166182), 1671955, 2021102), 207(33, 38}. association with Land of Phacacians, 75 78, 207(32, 50) - wall paintings from, 30

34. 59. 65

66,

74-76, 80 81.97. 144, 165(169), 174012), 175141). 176(50, 63), 177(66), 188(329), 1965441, 210697), 202(108), 203(149), 204(159), 210(121, 123) Thermon, sanctuary at, 109 ‘Thersites. +2. 94, 133, 206(18) ‘Theseus, 91. 108, 143, 216(123), 217(1 38), 233(206, 213) Thetis, 34, 48, 58, 61, 67, 70, 85, 121. 123, 133, 177(90). 1784110), 181(179), 188(322), 200(52), 216(1 14), 236(35), 240(51) Thoas, 50, 177(90),

179123).

186(293).

18%338). 191(390), 193(463), 212(14) tholos, in courtyard of palace at Ithaca, 24, 26, 130, 172(324, 325) tomb(s), 29, 31. 129, 136 137, 157(15), 163(127), 1747), 1950533), 2031128), 215(98) ‘Thrasymedes, 30, 34-35, 51, 127, 189356). 193(463). 21214), 244110) thresholds, I. 17, 157(14), 161(98), 164155), 168(238), 169240, 241, 246), 170(251. 256, 283, 286)

Trojan Cycle,

117, 127, 133

cycle, 150, 235(254)

- spread of, 98, 129, 149-150, 223(34), 225(69), 229(134) Troy, - archacological evidence from, 72, 97.

134 136, 173(357), 174(13), 222(22),

234(244) epic references to, 1, 5-6, 12 -14, 21, 23-24, 26-30, 37 38, 42, 44, 47.49 50, 52, 59-60, 62-64, 72-73, 76-77, 81. 83 87,89 90,92 93, 97 98, 106, 108: 109, 115, 117, 123(d. F), 124, 126- 127, 129, 131--132, 134, 136, 138 140, 143, 150-151, 161(101, 102), 162(104), 163(132), 164(137), 165(158, 162, 171), 171315, 317), 1720340). 176(58). 178(106), 181(183, 193), 182(200, 204), 183(270), 186(286, 296), 1881327), 193(464), 197(578, 598), 198(600, 603), 204(175), 206(15), 207(50), 208(56, 73), 210127), 211411). 212(23), 218(152, 153, 161), 219(176, 181), 220(198), 221(201), 222(22), 223(41, 44), 230(160), 231(186), 233(214), 235(18), 237(45), 238(75), 243(120, 137) trumpets, 97, 221(10) tunic. See chiton Tychius, 30 tyrannicides, statues of, 100. 226(83) Tyro, 67 Tyrtaeus, Spartan poet, 226(79) U Ulu Burun shipwreck, 138, 221(10) Vv

throne, 2, 5, 161(99)

‘Thucydides, the historian, 81. 90, 104, 143, 145, 213(39)

Vapheio, finds from tholos tomb, 32, 45, 67, 136, 167(202), 176(58), 204(158)

Thyestes,

vase(s),

140, 218(152), 219(175)

Thymbraeus, 243(133) tin, 30-32, 38, +1. 46, 48, 137, 141, 178(106), 179(130), 180(171), 184(251), 185(272), 188(322, 323), 189361) Tiryns, - archaeological evidence from, 29-31, 34,

42, 48, 62, 137, 166(181), 173(3), 17412). 176(59), 177(74), 182(197), 187(300), 198(602) citadel, cult areas and houses, 89,

135-137, 168(226), 172(341), 175¢42), 205(1), 215(98), 23-4(246) palace, 2 3, 8. 10, 22, 135, 157(16), 158(22, 23). 161485. 98), 1621116). 164144, 146), 169243). 172336) epic references to, 89

90, 2 16111)

Tlepolemus. 126. 1:33. 193463, 464), 21-470). 217:130 trade, 71 76.79 80,95 97.103, 129-130. 134 155.137 138. 140, 145, 190024, 206.27-,208:73..219:170, 1715, 2201891, 221.202, 2271054, 229132 travel, 35.75 70. 78, 82.96, 208: 73°, 2240351

of the prehistoric period, 3-4, 29 -30, 32, 34, 38, 42, 48, 67, 69, 71, 75, 81, 87, 97, 135-138, 144, 165(169), 173(3), 174(3,9), 176(62). 177(74), 180(150), 182(197), 184(249), 186(289), 196(539), 197(594), 200(47) ~ geometric, 81, 145, 179(124), 182(198), 184(149), 203(130), 210(143), 223(34) - seventh century, 179(137), 182(198), 184(246), 200(65), 223(34, 35) sixth century, 85, 99- 100, 134, 146, 151. 176(62), 200(65), 201(87). 213(34), 225(71), 226(72) - of the historic period, 39, 42, 84-86, 102, 129, 131, 133-134, 143. 148. 177(75), 205(186), 212(25). 213(34), 223(34), 224(52), 225(70). 235(254) Panathenaic amphorae, 22-58, 60), 226(84) vestibule, 12.4 8. 10,12, 16 17, 19, 21, 1578), 158120; 1621103, 104, 1053, 167 195, 16802221, 169: 243; 170286: Virgil's „Teneid. 103

w

134, 149, 151,

156(19, 20), 213(39, 48), 22334. 39), 22454), 22A(113), 229137). 238(75) carly representations of, 98, 100, 133. 134, 21:2(25), 213(34), 223(34, 35, 40) historicity of, 84-85, 134-136 isolation of Jliad and Odyssey from rest of

walls, - inepic, - bronze,6, 10, 161(98), 164152, 155) of courtyards, 10-11, 164161) . decorated, 18- 19, 22. 23, 28 mesodmai, 23- 24, 97, 171(318), 172(319, 320) Mycenaean construction of, 11, 23. 165(161 wall paintings and frescoes, 2, 8, 22 -23, 28, 33-34, 42, 45, 62, 64 67, 7 72, 74, 76, 158(25)171(317). 17411), 176(43, 62, 63). 165. 74, 77), 186(277), 183(240), 186(277), 188(334), 192(436), 201(82, 97), 203(126. 129), 204158), 205(188) - from Keos, 33, 175(41, 42), 176(44, 47, 48. 54), 177(67), 183238) -

Knossos, 66, 176(43, 48, 52, 55), 177(74),

192(436), 201(82), 203(129), 204160),

206(22)

Mycenae, 32. 158(25), 167(195), 17410), 175(41), 176(43, 44), 177(74), 183(238), 195(533), 200(47), 202(102, 105) Pylos, 29- 30, 59, 62, 17411, 12), 182(197, 198), 188(329, 332). 195(533), 211(8) Thera, 30-34, 59, 65-66, 74-76, 80-81, 97, 144, 165(169), 174(12), 175(41, 42), 176(50, 63), 177(66), 188(329), 196(54+4), 201(97), 202(108), 203(149), 204159), 210(121, 123) warfare, 29, 45, 53, 97, 131, 138, 156(20), 181(188), 182(205),184(242. 243), 200(63) weaving. See spinning wedding. See marriage and bridal gifts West Wind, 237(45) windows),2, 13, 16 17.21 -22, 76, 158(27). 159(46), 165(160, 169), 167(195), 168(231), 169(234, 235, 236), 171(300, 301) wine, 2, 14, 22, 32, 219(183), 236(25) wood(en), 11, 14, 17, 23. 24, 81, 97, 163(127), 167(209), 168(221, 222), 169(238, 240, 241), 171(310), 206(29) wool(en), 61, 138, 198(4, 9), 199(15), 222(16) wrath, - of Achilles, 98, 100, 103, 130, 228(113) of Athena,

110

x Xanthus, - the horse, 99, 138, 237(45)

- the river, 3 Xenophanes of Colophon, 98-99, 105, 111, 130-131, 156(25), 231(177) Xerxes, King of Persia, 111, 226(77)

zZ Zenodotus of Alexandria,

100-101, 227(104)

Zeus, 12, 15, 24, 26, 35, 39, 41-42, 65, 86-87, 106, 110, 116-117, 120-121, 123-124, 131-132, 134, 136, 142, 145, 149 151, 157(13), 16081). 163(131), 165(168), 1724331), 173(347), 17643), 180(154), 181(177), 199(29), 203131), 204178). 216(1 18), 218152). 219178), 232196. 1981. 233223), 234230. 253), 236(35), 23760). 238175, 23012), 2 KOS 1), 241172), 2431371 seduction of. 12.65. 116 117, 166172), 1681216) Herkeios. 2-4, 26. 172.3311

Zeuxippe. 119 Zopyrus of Heraclea, 147 Zxgouries, house at. 17022561