Greek writing in its aesthetic context: Archaic and Hellenistic arts and letters - Ph.D., The University of Wisconsin - Madison, 2004

GRl;:l~K WRITING lN ITS .AESTHETIC CONTEXT:

ARCHAIC AND HELLENISTIC ARTS AND LETT'ERS

by ALEXANDRA PAPPAS

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy (Classics)

at the

University of Wisconsin-Madison

2004

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UMI Number: 3128124

Copyright 2004 by Pappas, Alexandra

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

®

UMI UMI Microform 3128124 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Copyright by Alexandra Pappas 2004 All Rights R.cscrved

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A dissertation entitled

Greek Writing in Its Aesthetic Context: Archaic and Hellenistic Arts and Letters

submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin~Madison in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

by

Alexandra Pappas Date of Final Oral Examination: Month & Year Degree to be awarded:

December 15, 2003

December

May 2004 August

************************************************************************************************** Approval Signatures of Dissertation Committee

Signature, Dean of Graduate School

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

.FOR J.P. G.

nam sine te nostrum non valet ingeniwn

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

l1

t

1_

I

~"".

I

'

!

')

0 1\0'/'0Ao7i and the golden moon, XPUUea~ Te ueAa;vac; and the whirling seas, Kat

8aAauuafatut

~fvaur' with the strength of a stele, JJ.evoc;

tTTaAac; (2-4). For all things,

Sirnonides explains, are less than the gods, a1TaVTa '}'ap EUTI 8ewv 7}uuw (5) and even mortal hands can shatter stone, Al6ov ~£I Kat j3po-reot 7ra),aJLat 6pauovTt (5-6). These assertions, a~e /3ouAa, he concludes, belong to a foolish man, JJ.u1po0 c/>wTo~ (6-7). With this poetic attack on Clcobolus, the monument, and its attendant poem, Simoni des illustrates the mutability, and thus vulnerability, of crafted objects. 35 He reiterates the concern expressed in 531 PMG that time can decay a monument, limiting 35

Hurwit 1985: 345 applies this more broadly to Simonides' sentiments about archaic art in general.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

29 the duration of it.s conm1cmorativc illnction. Indeed, the stele's weakness is the focus of the pot:.1m and Simonidcs emphasizes the object by its postponcm.ent alter a long list of datives (2-4); 36 it is not comparable to eternally-flowing rivers or the blooms that come as long as there is the season of spring, that is, f(Jrcvcr (2}. Simonidcs further emphasizes the transitory nature of the stele by its contrast to things impervious to destruction, namely the planets and the forces of nature on earth (4-5). Despite the filet that nothing can be greater than the gods, even mortal hands can destroy the stone of the stele (6-7), and so Simonides demonstrates the absurdity of Cleobulus' claim that the bronze maiden will

proclaim Midas' death indefinitely. The implied counterpart to the ineffectual stele is Simonides' poem. Unlike Cleobulus' epitaph, this poem is not fixed in a three-dimensional context and it is not an integral part of a monument that is vulnerable to wear and decay at the hands of men, nature, or time. Simoni des again asserts the superiority of poetic over material craft for presenting and preserving kleos, illustrating his point by preserving negative kleos for Cleobulus. Although he admits the mortality of even his own song elsewhere (594 PMG), 37 here he privileges the unfixed poem to the crafted artifact (and the poem attached to it), suggesting that the former, although not etemal, will surely outlast the latter and its messages of renown will thus endure.

36

Noted by Campbell .1982: 393.

37

For discussion of 594 PMG and its relationship to this poem, Gentili J988: 151-152 und the re1'C.rcnccs above, n. 26. Roscnmcycr 1991 illustrates the role of ineffective speech in Simonides' Danae fragment (543 PMG), and reads the poem as a "powerful cm.nmentary on language ... [whose] drama lhcuses on the frustration of silence, the difficulties of communication" (27). While Simonides does not ne,~essarily suggest that (poetic) speech is imtnortal or always successful in its comrnunication, he nevertheless views speech as superior to artifacts in the capacity to endure and articulate its messages.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Sim!u:·l ~ rrpocrcmrov (14), Pindar illustrates the greater worth of the poem because it is broadly disseminated by men's stories, AO'JfOUTI 8va1wv ... at'TUL'Y'Yf.Aet ( 16-18). The poetic announcement travels on m).

"

otwaoo~ ... (J"'i€'1%

'

t'7rt

• broad announcement, ulU'f''f'€1V\Oifl' :1). I ) ). ' ~~~ j, f and tts , otOot '+'wvav o I

Pytheas' fame. As Pindar highlights, the fltme attested by a commemorative statue only reaches the statue's viewers, hut fame preserved in a poem spreads and is reiterated at every perfonnance. 50 Pindar refonnulates these points in Isthmian 2, a poem addressed to Thrasybulus, who celebrates his father Xenocrates' triple victories with the four-horse chariot, as in Pythian 6 above. In the opening lines, Pindar characterizes the poets of old as mounting the chariot of the Muses, iJ[l/lpov Mow·av and shooting forth honey-voiced songs,

JJ.eAt'}'apuac; UJ.tVouc; (1-5) images that reinforce the audible sonority ofpoetty and its swift mobility, born along by divine transportation. 51 By the poem's conclusion, the poet issues a request to Thrasybulus never to silence his father's virtue or the hymns that 50

Segall986: 156, 1998: 178. Cf. Steint!r 2001: 251-252 who interprets the opening image of the statue . maker and his craft not as indicating a rivalry between the two modes of conm1emoration, but rather revealing a symbiotic relationship between them..

51

See Bacchylidcs 5.177-78 for the paralkl conception of a poem as a vehicle of the Muses.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

37 •

I

encapsulate 1t, tJlfJ'T

'

;

I

a,pf.iCJ/V

I

I

~'

f

~'

rro-re crlryO/t'l.IJ 1ra-rpcpav, IIJ.lY}ue TOIJtTO

fl

lJII/liOVt;

(44··45).

For, as he explains, he did not fashion them to stand idle, erre1 'rOl I OVK E.'AtlJUtTOllTar; av-rou~ epryaO'CtJUlV (45-46). Notably, in his reiteration of the beginning of Nemean 5,

here, Pindar explicitly equates silence with immobility; his hymns are not to be silent because he did not intend them to stay rooted in one spot. 52 Fame is something that

moves through space and time, sounding and resounding, juxtaposing the rooted, static monument. Pindar's Nemean 8 also underscores the degree to which epinician poets used imagery of crafted objects to categorize their poetry as vocal and mobile. This hymn, celebrating the victory of the Aeginetan Dcinias in the foot-race, was composed for the dedication of the athlete's victory crown at the temple of Aeacus. As a parallel to the dedicat01y offering. Pindar offers his own arya)vka to Deinias and his father, Megas--a Lydian headband, Au~fav J.Lt-rpav;which, although an embroidered textile, 1r€7rOIKt'AJ.Levav, clangs, Kavax'YJ~a (14-16). The Lydian headband metaphorically

represents Pindar' s poem; 53 as Dcinias dedicates the physical crown commemorating his victory, Pindar replaces it with a crown of song that will memorialize him far and wide. Unlike its material counterpart, the poetic crown rings out with its message and is not confined to the precinct of its dedication. So, too, at the poem's end, Pindar regrets the impossibility of bringing Deinias' fi:rther Megas back to life (44-45), noting instead that he can set up a stone monument of the Muses, imep€wa1

'Al6ov Motualov in honor of

52

Bacchylidcs, too, makes this connection overt when he insinuates thut his poem is a dear-voiced bee stirred to motion, EKh.l'Y)O"fV Avyvc/J6o'}''}'OV IJ,EAIUO"a.v, an immortal momunent of the Muses, a8r1,va.TOV Mm.mzv li'YaJ..tJ.a. (10.10~12 S-M). Sec Montiglio2000: 82-115 for Pindar's negative portrayal of silence, its association \vith material objects, and his juxtaposition of it to his own voiced poetry (esp. 91-l 01 ). 53

Steiner 2001:264-265.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

38 father and son (46A8). Like the Lydian

ht~adband,

this stone monurncnt referring to a

stele suggests Pindaes poem, itself a rnonument to the athletic victory, and although the

references to these artiillcts contribute to the poem's depth of expression~ 54 Pjndar asserts poetry's superiority in lauding its subjects: these poems are vocal and can move through space, withstanding the wear ofti.rne. Monuments, on the other hand are mute and stationary, contined to the spatial medium and subject to deterioration. Indeed, as these archaic poets would have us believe, (poetic) speech lives longer than deeds, Pfl!MX (f

ep""/f.ULTWV XPOV!dJTepov

/3WT€U€1

(Nem. 4.6). As we shall see, the tension voiced here

endures into the hellenistic period, resulting in the conflation of the media such that the technopaegnia create both poem and image.

54

Steiner 200 I: 265.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

39

V. Conclusion. The ancient competition between the literary and visual arts in ancient Greece bccornes apparent jn the ear1y archaic period, demonstrating that although the m.otivations and extcmal pressures that created the agl5n evolved over time, the contrasts provided by the two media created a viable topos for expressing poetic supremacy. Homer uses material artifacts to illustrate the superiority of poetry in its primary function, preserving and promoting klcos throughout space and time. H.esiod, too, portrays the world of physical manufacture as inferior, although his concern stems from issues of authorial truth and accountability: in his attempt to earn his audience's confidence, he contrasts himself as a truthful poet with Pandora, the deceptive statue. With the shift fi·om epic to epinician, Simonides constructs the same combative relationship between the forms of expression. Confronted with the threat to his livelihood posed by increasing mm1bers of inscribed momunents, he, like Homer, focuses on the ability of poetry to move, speak, and adapt to changing environments. Ever the foil for poetry, physical monuments suffer the disadvantage of being immobile, mute, and with fixed form. Pindar adopts these characterizations as well, and for much the same reasons as Simonides, although he more explicitly praises himself as an individual poet. Because of the increased exploitation of craft metaphors for his poetry, he sets the scene for Plato's subsequent treatment of the l.iterary and visual arts as "Art." Plato's concern, that all Art imitates reality and is therefore deceptive, was not that of the poets discussed here. Rather, because the goals ofliterary and visual production were often so similar, poets were consistently compelled to remind their audiences what made their products unique.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

40

Because archaic poets were interested in the relationship between words and images, the rest of this study focuses on two

'~ontcxts

where the two media intersect.

Chapter 2 examines the role of scratched and painted inscriptions on archaic vases and

statues. In an attempt to balance the above exploration of poetic perceptions of crafted objects, 1 tum to a corpus of material that (almost) provides the craftsman with a voice,

questioning how he viewed the role of words in his world ofhnagcs. With a retum to the poetic perspective, chapter 3 treats the hellenistic technopaegnia, pattern poems that, as both poem and image on the page, embody the hellt~nistic response to the archaic agiin we have investigated. As the shaped poems attest, the hellenistic authors attempted to pronounce an end to the competition between poetic and matelial craft, asserting the power of the poem alone to perfom1 both roles.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

41

2. THE ART OF V\t'RnTNG: ARt'HAIC GIU~EK INSCRH)TIONS

l. Introduction Archaic Greek letters were painted (dipinti) and etched (graffiti) onto a variety of durable surfaces beginning in the second quarter of the

3th

century and continuing with increased

frequency until the end ofthe archaic period in the early 5t 11 century, the terrninus for this chaptcr. 1 The appearance of Greek letters, words, and phrases results from the technological innovation that marks the end of the Greek ''Dark Age," the adaptation of the Greek alphabet from. the Phoenician script. Curiously, when Greeks started using their new writing, they did not at first use it for economic purposes as did their Mycenaean predecessors. Rather, they used their new technology to encapsulate and record the sounds of Greek words, particularly in metrical contexts, and for this reason the earliest uses of the Greek alphabet may be perceived as very closely associated with the poetic arts. 2 Indeed, it took approximately 150 years of alphabetic use for archaic Greek inscriptions to reveal any public, civic function, i.e., recording laws, contracts, or economic infom1ation of some kind, whether in poetry or prose. The connection between early Greek inscriptions, many of which are composed in hexameters, and early archaic poetry, namely Homer's epics, has been the subject of scholarly attention. B. B. Powell has tantalizingly suggested that the proliferation of early archaic verse inscriptions is one piece of evidence that points to the likelihood that the

1Although inscriptions on stone continued to proliferate, th~;J practice of inscribing pots with painted words only endured in Attica nntil approximatdy 350 and gradually declined until it was no kmger used as a technique anywhere in Greece, by c. 300 (Snodgrass 2000: 30). 2 As Powell 1991: 158-186 demonstrates, nearly all "long" archaic inscriptioHs fron1 tlw first half of the S' 11 century to 650 arc in vt~rsl;).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

42

Phoenician alphabet \Vas adapt~xl to the Greek language fbr the purpose of recording H.omer himselr.J Whether or not one accepts this explanation, Hw fact remains that the earliest instances of Greek writing were employed in service to the poetic arts. The purpose of this chapter .is to illustrate, in addition, the close pccch:' 11 Visual marks that make a record of speech

46

are lcxigraphic; 12 they can be read out loud, and when voiced, they render words or phrases. Lexigraphic writing breaks dmvn into further subdivisions, leading on one branch to grarnmatographic or alphabetic writing, a writing system wherein the signs, which are not all separately uttemble, i.e., letters, make up syllables, words, and phrases when in strings of sequential order. Ancient Greek., like modern English. is a gnmmmtographic or alphabetic. system because its letters, when in conventional order, form a string ofphonograms that creates a word that has an intimate relationship to human speech. Sematography or scmasiography is the other main branch of writing, defined by B. B. Powell as "human intercommunication by means of visible marks expressing

meaning, but not necessarily linguistic elements." 13 Sematographic writing communicates infom1ation to the viewer without the intercession of or direct correlation to human speech, representing logical operations rather than the serial order of spoken Janguage. 14 Although sematographic symbols may use identical signs as lexigraphy, the symbols directly represent meanings and concepts. 15 Examples of sematography include algebraic

11

Bennett 1963: 101.

12

Powelll991: 69.

Powell 1991: 252; aller Gelb l 963: 252. Although Powell retains Gelb's tenn "semasiography," r prctcr and adopt Bennett's ';sematography," a rnorc neutral replacement tor Gclb's tenn that had included judgments of what was primitive, nom1al, or civilized (Benncttl963: 100). 13

14

Bennett 1963: 112.

15

Bennett 1963: I 11.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

equations, bars of musical notes. fiscal symbols like the modern$, or a

? on a door

47

identifYing a women's restroom, Some ancient writing systems regularly employed mixtures oflexigraphy and sematography. e.g., Linear B or Egyptian hieroglyphic, combining what often looks to us like words alongside pictures. Egyptian hieroglyphic, a non-alphabetic lexigraphic system combines both types of writing, presenting a coherent and

mc~aningful

image that

as modern readers we break up into constituent parts, although for its ancient Egypti::m audience, "the t1.gurcs and. signs work together as a seamless whole, playing back and forth against each other, slipping easily fhnn semasiography to lexigraphy and back ... ,I As the signs and figures of Egyptian hieroglyphic work together to create meaning, so too can ancient Greek alphabetic inscriptions interact with ligures to create or enhance meaning. Thus most, although not all, of the inscriptions treated in this chapter combine elements of lexigraphy and sematography, revealing an inte1iwined relationship between the semantic and visual levels on which these words operate. The ways Greek inscriptions function beyond or in addition to their semantic capacity-that is, as fonned within an alphabetic system that impatis linguistic infonu.ation to its audience-can take a variety of forms. One factor that contributes to the ability of some Greek inscriptions to function both lexigraphically and sematographically is the shape ofindividualletters, words, or whole phrases. 1 coin the term "eidography" to describe this phenomenon, namely when the shape of the writing contributes meaning to a scene. Writing can create meaning eidographically by interacting with a) the abstract or figural decoration on an object, b) the meaning ofthe

_____ ______ .,

16

Powell 2002: 70-71.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

48

word or words that create the~ shape, or c) a combination of the t\vo. In fact, as the analyses in this chapter show, most inscriptions that flmction lexigraphically and sematogruphically do so because of the particular shape in which they are written, their eidography, and so we Jnay consider cidogrnphy to be intimately connected with the intersection of lexigraphy and sematography. Finally, by acknowledging the sematography of some inscriptions, we note that the writing often functions aesthetically, here defined as visually pleasing, working closely with the other visual elements in its context to create a striking composition for the viewer's subjective eye. Accepting that some archaic Greek inscriptions employ two types of writing leads to a better l.tnderstanding of throwaway, semi-throwaway, and nonsense inscriptions. Throwaway inscriptions, a term coined by D. A Amyx and adopted by R. Wachter, are legible, short, mostly bisyllahic name-labels that appear only on Corinthian and Chalcidian vases. 17 Although legible as actual names, they contribute nothing to the scene(s) in which they appear because they are stock names, e.g., ~iov or FtOli, 18 similar to our "Tom," "Dick," and "Harry," or "Spot" for a dog. Wachter identiiies a subdivision of throwaway names, which he terms semi-throwaway name-labels; they are longer, often compounds beginning with rroAv-, ev-, or avT(t)-, but still relatively dull and unoriginal. 19 Labels for men, women, and horses may all belong to this category. Because throwaway and semi-throwaway inscriptions are so frequently used---,on multiple vases or even multiple times on one vase~--they become meaningless in their

--- -------------

17

Amyx 1988:552-553, 602; Wachter 2001: 254-257.

18

Wachter 2001:254.

19

Wachter 2001: 255.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

49 context; the infbrmatkm they relate docs not assist in individuulizing tl1e persc.m or animal whom they label. Indeed, to name three different men ~Jov, or two different horses ?u/J...apot;20 in the same scene does not so much convey information as it fills up available space. Thus, although legible, these inscriptions function similarly to nonsense inscriptions. Nonsense inscriptions arc made up of strings of letters or ncarwlctters that when analyzed lexigraphically, that is, read in serial order and voiced according to the phonetic value of the letters, make no sense. This type of inscription first appears in Attica around

570 and although relatively common on Attic pots, Corinth. the next largest producer, yields only eight examples. 21 Thus we may think of throwaway inscriptions as particular to the Corinthian tradition and nonsense inscriptions as "distinctly Attic." 22 As H. R. Immerwahr demonstrates, there are four classes of nonsense inscriptions. 23 "Mock" or "near-sense" inscriptions bear a close relation to sense. The nonsense letters are intended to prompt the reader to think of the ''real" word. Mock inscriptions are popular on, for example, Little Master cups where garbled combinations of letters such as eveotvotot€V or €rrotU€1WtU€7TOtU€1TOtuh suggest the familiar fommlaic inscription words olvoc; or E7TOI£(]"f, respectively. 24

20

See below, 98-100, fig. 17.

21

Although there are a small number Qfillegible Protocorinthian inscriptions, there is no distinct non-Attic group or type until the handfhl of mock and imitation inscriptions from late 6111 -century Corinthian vases. lmmcrwahr 1990: 44; Wachter 2001: 283-284. 22

lmmerwahr 1990: 44.

23

Immerwahr 1964: 54; 1990: 44.

24

Immerwahr 1990: 35, no. I 46, Athens, NM. 11 04; 54, uo. 282, Corinth P 718, T 1477.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

50 "Meaningless" inscriptions are those with clearly legible

lettcr~forms,

hut that

bear no close relation to actual words. Some inscriptions ofthis class visually resemble the physical form of individual words, but they may also appear as a lengthy, continuous stream of letters. "Imitation" inscriptions, al one more level removed from a "real'' word, look as if they are comprised of a series ofletters, but the letter~ forms are unidentifiable. Finally, "blot" or "dot" inscriptions consist of rows of blots or dots and suggest to the viewer that "an inscription could have stood in the position indic.atcd."25 These fbur classes of nonsense inscriptions each evoke sense inscriptions. They are identifiable because they mimic the typical form of sense inscriptions and signify in

the very least the "idea" of an inscription; functioning as sematograms with a lexigraphic referent. Despite the fact that they are illegible or, as in the case of throwaway aud semithrowaway inscriptions, their semantic meaning is superiluous to their context, they impart information to the viewer sematographically. Although their presence in the epigraphic corpus has only gamcred limited scholarly attention and is most often attributed to the artist's or audience's inability to read, 26 or some boredom or lack of inspiration on the part of the a1iist, 27 I suggest that throwaway, semi-throwaway, and nonsense inscriptions are present in scenes because they are meaningful. They fulfill the visual expectations of the audience, adding decorative aesthetic clements to a scene and

25

Immmwalu· 1990: 45.

26

A common line of reasoning followed by Amyx 1988: 602: "He lthc writer] may have been illiterate. capable of m>thing better. Or he may have had u friend put in the letters." 27

E.g., Beazley 1932: 194~ 195 set an early tone followed by many scholars when he imagined the ancient vase-painter's attitude, "I may tire of inscriptions~ I have written X(Ltp€ and f.rroftt;uev and all that so often. I don't care ifl am spelling right or not. I don't care if I write sense or nonsense:•

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

51

impart an idea, a general

notion~

or a concept" scmatographically articulating

relaticmships within that scene.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

52

HI. Survey of Archaic Graffiti. and Di(>inti The

sth

century is notable for the sudden, albeit limited, appearance of inscribed miifacts.

Throughout Greece, objects began to he inscribed with in((mnal inscriptions in the second quarter ofthe gth century. 2s In the second half of the

grh

century, Attica produced

only a modicum of inscriptions: a few graffiti on clay29 and one stone graffito survivc. 30 These consist of a hcxametric verse inscription on the Dipylon Oinochoc, a (mythological?) name, an abecerlariwn, and some fragmentary, single letters. Attica, however, offers neither monumental stone inscriptions nor dipinti.

From Pithecussae, Latium, Ithaca, and Corinth come examples datable from the second quarter to the end of the

8th

century. These inscriptions reveal a range of topics

from the earliest dipinto. a Pithecussan potter's signature, to the etched verse lines on the so-called Cup of Nestor, and include the scratched letters of a fragmentary name(?) on a

small globular flask from Gabii in Latium, as well as a Corinthian list of incised names. 31 In general, the

gth

century offers only a few examples of early writing, although they are

notable for the appearance of two poetic inscriptions and a signature, as well as its wide

geographical expanse.

28

Although Immerwahr 1990: 16 dates the advent of Greek inscriptions to the second half of the gu• century, earlier inscriptions dating to c. 775 do exist, e.g., a name-fragment fi.·om Lefkandi (Powell 1991: I 23, no. 1), or the more recent 1992 find from Gabii in Latium, which have altered Immerwahr's date. 29

This group does include 1he very famous and important Dipylon Oinochoe, discussed further below, 6466, fig. 1, although that particular 'trtifact is an outstanding example of8 1h~century Attic epigraphy ;.md is .tar from representative of the type and quality of the other extant samples. lmmerwahr 1990: 7-8, nos. 1-7. 30

IG 12 484; Immerwahr 1990: 8, no. 8.

For the potter's signature: Powell 1991: 127-128, no. 10; after Jeffery 1976: fig. 1; see below, 75-76, fig. 6: for the Cup of Nestor: SBG XXVI 1144; see bdow, 67-69, fig. 2; fbr the Latium flask: Bielti Sestieri 1992: 184-185; D. Ridgway 1994: 41-43; Powell2002: 116; for the Corinthian tlames: SEG XXII228. Powe\11991: 132-133, no. 21; after Stillwell et al. 1984: pL 123(1), 143; Boeghold 1974.

.ll

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The paucity of Attic inscriptions continues into the 7' 11 century, with few-~-~ if any-graffiti on stone,;n alth<mgh numerous graffiti on clay appear. From thl;'l Athenian Agora come about thirteen cups, including some two~handlcd skyphoi that feature owner's signatures. 33 The series of approxim.ately 166 Hymettus graffiti, a deposit of sub geometric cups with casual inscriptions, includes examples of dedications, 4

abecedaria, drinking and erotic phrases, and perhaps names of the owners:~ The otber major category of ih ~century Attic graffiti is comprised of the approximately t1fty personal names on the SOS amphorae, so-called f()r the decoration on their neckbands.

Twelve of these graftlti are complete and may identity the owners of the amphorae or the traders or producers of the oil and wine that would have been in them. 35

By this time, Attica began to produce painted inscriptions, although only a small number remain and their quality is not very fine. 36 Mythological names, dedications, and the increasingly common ovvner's inscriptions are represented in the small corpus, but not until the end of the century, c. 625-600, do potters and painters produce more than the occasional dipinto. As in the 81h century, non-Attic

i

11

-ccntury Greek sites continue to offer finer and

more diverse types of graffiti and dipinti. The number of graffiti remains relatively small,

Although L'i4 c/ 76 dates several Attic stone inscriptions to the 7111 centmJ (nos. 7, 8, pl. 2), lmmerwahr 1990: 23 challenges those early dates, especially fl:>f the Keramo stele (/G 1 997), only agreeing that one. his no. 78, may date to the 7th century. For further discussion of the Kcramo stele, sec below, 105-107, fig. 22. 32

33

Inunerwahr !990: ll, nos. 18-30.

34

Langdon 1976; Blegen 1934; Sec also lmmenvahr 1990: ll. n. ll for further bibliography.

35

LSAd' 70, 77, no. lOa··h, pL 2; Imrncrwahr 1990: 12-14; Johnston 1979.

36 A notable exceptim1 is the amphora by the Nessos Painter, (()r which see below, 107-109, fig. 23.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

54 although notable ftm1u1I inscriptions, some m.onumental, now include the dedications on the Mantiklos figurine (Thebes, Boeotia), the Nikandre koriJ, manufactured on Naxos and dedicated on Delos, although found in Attica, the Dermys and Kitty! as grave stele (Tanagra, Boeotia), the "spits'' at Pe;~rachom., and the atypical Cretan law code from Dreros. 37 The relatively numerous 7th~ccntury dipinti on non-Attic vases indude potter's signatures wherein a vase f{mnulaically speaks out,

··so-and~so

made this/me'' (still

attested only outside Attica). Fine early examples are a Protocorinthian aryballos from Euboea naming one Pyrrhos as its potter, from Ithaca,

riuppos- jJ.,' rivpFia~ rrpoxopen.JOjl,€Vor;, and refers to itself as his possession,

133

.For IloAUTep1TO.;" as a "speaking name," Wachter 200 l: 258.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

''(This is) Pyrwias the dancer, and his (js) the olpa." 139 This aryballos must be the olpa, the very prize won by Pyrwias' dancing;. 140 The remainder of the hexameter, (LiliO ae

89

fOl

oA:rra, serves to mark off the dancers from one another physicatly, further isolating Pyrwias as the leader and the winner. One cannot help but think of the parallels to the probable nature and occasion of the inscription on the Dipylon Oinochoc, despite the fact that that is a graffito and this a dipinto. 141 Let us now consider the contemporary clay kotyle. One scene features Heracles and the H.ydra, the other smaller scene shows padded men dancing. Although the scenes are vastly different in subject rnatter, the writing unifies them visually and clarifies to which of the two scenes one figure belongs. On one side, a pair of horses, labeled Hepattious i.n

~"~igural

Contexts

B. Attic The fifteen objects analyzed below illustrate general develop.ments in Attic epigraphy from the middle of the th century through the red~.figure technique of the late archaic period, c. 480. In contrast to the chronology of the artifacts examined in the last section~ the majority of these cluster around the second and third quarters of the 6th century. While Attic pottery reaches new heights of production during this period, other centers of production, especially Corinth, suffer nearly complete decline. The original direction of influence, however, from Corinth to Attica, continues to be realized in the way Attic potters and painters use painted inscriptions to decorate their vesse]s. One of the earliest Attic vessels to preserve writing in a figural context is a Middle Protoattic skvphos, c.

650~620,

a small fragment of which remains today (fig.

21). 172 Two painted panels from the rim of the skyphos, which would have been near the object's right handle, contain the remnants of a dipinto owner's signature, -~]vi\o I etp.,t vac. 173 Just below the signature, on the upper body of the cup, a large fish faces right, swimming amidst squiggly, linear waves above and more stylized, capping waves below. 174

172

LSAG:: 76, no. 5d; lmrnerwahr 1990: 9, no. 13, pl. 2(10); Beazley 1986: 7, pl. 7(1); Athens, Agora P 7014. Image from fkazley. 173

Greek after lnu:nerwahr 1990: 9.

174

The waves below the tlsh are not visible in the photograph in Irnmerwahr 1990: pl. 2(1 0) although the photo in Beazley 1986: pl. 7(1) shows them clearly.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

105 Like the shcrd .th>rn Pithccoussac which preserves the earliest dip into, an artist's signatun:~ 175 thi:> !:>herd too, despite the ihtgrncntury nature, reveals the artist's consideration of the placement of the ·writing in relation to the rest of the decoration. We

can irnagine that the first part of the narne of the owner would have begun just over the rear fin of the fish, centering the

t\\ov. Their h.orses are aAtoopa. Here, the kalos inscription originates at the horse's rear end. and the eidography of the phrase

humorously undermines the praise inherent within it, further suggesting a change for the worse in the relationship between Onctorides and his erastes. Notably, this change is verbalized not by the words themselves, but rather by their spatial anangement. The decorative nature of early archaic inscriptions has evolved to such a degree that now, vase-painters such as Exekias readi1y exploit the double function of these words as both lexigraphy and sematography, affording a new depth of meaning for their compositions.

:Figure 35. Attic amphont, c. 550~530. Uerlin 1720.

220

lmmerwahr 1990:32, no. 132; Beazley 1986: 59, pl. 63(2); Hoppin 1924: 92-93; Berlinl720. Image ti·om Beazley.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

133

A white~grmmd mastoid-.~y·kyphos, attributed by D. Kuriz to the Attic Pislias Class "M," offers a fine example of Attic black~fi.gure scmatographic writing still in usc after the invention of the red-figure technique (fig. 36).221 Dating to c. 515, this cup stands just under five inches tall and features nearly identical scenes on both si.des: a poet dressed in a himation with his hair bound up in a sakkos sits in profile facing right and plays a kithara on a fvvith Eros' antiquity when he cites liesiod,

Parrnt.~nidt)S,

and Acusilaus, who

compiled and collected Hesiod1c genealogies in the late archaic period, as sources fbr Eros' early role in the universe (178b).

The upper wing of Eros concludes with ({prret

Ot' ai'8par;, an action suggested by the shape created by the words

themselves, as he describes the conditions of living beings during Necessity's rule. AI. I creatures creeping and crawling on land, nav-ra ep1re'Ta as well as those in the air (including Eros?), i3't' ai'fJpa; yielded to her baneful warnings, c/Jpaoa'Wt Au')'pa'i';. We can surmise that the evils ofthe time when Necessity governed refer back to the noMa Kai ~£IVa

eeo'i' _/,I . . . . WOf. KOA Woe l.f'f.P€1 (AP ] 2.43.1 ~2), a

Irevcr,

ael ?i'V€tthat is, the

blessedness that Athena affords mortals when she looks upon them kindly, as well as the blessedness that Simias affords the topics of his poetry since they too will live on in the memory of his audience.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

1()8

C. klMIO! !)ION (AP l5. 27). After Gow 1966: 178.

46

(1) (3) (5) (7)

(9) (11) (13) (15) (17) (19)

(20) (18) (16) (14) (12)

(1 0) (8)

(6) (4) (2) To be read: KwT[Aa~

' fJ..aTEP,,Ot;

-Mj TO~•

(5)

Q,TptOV VEOV

Llwpfac;; 0/Y)~ovoc;· '.J,. "~~' () "'~'{;; ~· ' rrpot.ppCuv O£ UJL(fJ OE'::Jo or; 7ap

(

,.,

a7va,~

' For scholarly treatment of this poem, Emst 1991: 63-69 (text and commentary); Wojaczc~k 1969: 74-83, 145 (text and commentary); Gow I%6: 176-179 (text, app. nit., excerpts from Palatine scholia, and diagram of metrical scheme); Wendel 1966: 345-346 (Palat.ine scholia); Paton 1960: 134-135 (text and translation); Edmonds 1938: 494-499 (text, app. crit., translatiou, and diagram of metrical scheme); Powell 1925: 118-120 (text and app. crit.); Hacbcrlin 1887: 71-72, 77-79, 84-85 (text, app. crit., and Palatine scholia). 41

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

169

(10)

( l5)

(20)

The Egg of Simias Lo there! This is the new warp of a twittering mother, a Dorian nightingale. Receive it in good spirit, for the shrill labor of a pure mother bore it. Hermes, loud-shouting herald of the gods, taking it from under the wings of its dear mother carried it to the tribes of mortals and ordered me increase the number from a meter of one foot onward to ten feet at the outem10st, keeping the order of the rhythms and bearing them quickly from up above, he made manifest the swift, slanting direction of <scattered> feet, striking, he traced out that ever~ rapid, variegated, lawful-sounding cry of the Pierians, exchanging limbs equally for swift, rapid fawns, offspring of light-footed deer and they, fi·om immortal desire of their beloved mother rushed forward speedily after the desired teat, all go with rushing feet over the highest peaks along the path oftheir communal nurse. And with a bleat they traverse the mountainpastures of the much-nourishing sheep and the caves of the slenderankled Nymphs. And some savage-hearted beast hearing their re·· echoing cry in the innermost hollows of his lairs, swiftly leaving his bedrock bed rushed violently forward, seeking to snatch a wandering offspring of the dappled mother and then swiftly following hard upon the sound of the cry, this beast

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

170 straightaway hastened along the sh*1ggy hollow of

the snow~beatcn mountains. Indeed the firmed god urging them on the path to stir with swift feet equally, set loose intricate measures of song. This poem is remarkable for its shape and meter, the latter creating the fonncr as in the other technopaegnia. Like the process required for reading Simias· Axe, the audience must read the poem by matching metrical pairs rather than by following the order in which the lines appear on the page. That is, we start at the top of the egg, reading the first line first, and then read the last line next, and move successively up and down until we arrive at the middle, which paradoxically m::.u·ks the end of the poern. As we shall see, despite Simias' loose adherence to epigrammatic conventions, i.e., the address and imperative to the audience (2, 3), this poem strays rather far from the genre on which it is modeled. Perhaps to the detriment of the content, Simias has focused on creating an extraordinarily complex set of rhythms within which he weaves a metapoetic account of a nightingale's egg taken from its nest and set among mortals by Hermes (1-8). Simias continues to flaunt his metrical innovations as he shifts his focus to the racing footsteps of fawns (13ff.) who, wanting to feed off their mother, run around their mountain pastures (14-16) until a wild mountain beast pursues them, threatening their survival ( 1719). Creation, birth, and parenting are major themes in the poem and the audience interprets these themes as metaphors for Simias' creation of the poem itself It is his production just as the nightinga.le produced her egg, and he feeds it-by adding cola to his lines-just as the fawns desire their .mother's nurturing milk. Because the metrical

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

171

games in the poon1 cornpris
'"' "" Kapu~,

· Uc l assonant eKI~e " .. wl mse status and behavmr

KRpushighlight, took it and placed it among mortals.48 We may sum1ise that Simias here analogizes the process of recording a poem once it has been born in the mind. As the egg leaves its mother's nest, traveling into the human realm, so the poet transfers the poem

from his imagination to the page, a context that makes his production accessible to the human world, that is, his audience. Simi as fills out the contours of the egg by increasing the length of the lines creating it. He imbues these with speed by inserting a 4111 paeon (short, short, short, long), a rhythm used by comic writers,

49

between the first and third iambic metra of these lines,

which are otherwise identical to lines 5 and 6. Thus the four feet in these lines scan as iamb, 4th paean, iamb, bacchius. The foot featuring the 4th paean in line 7 contains the whole word

ep1/36a.;, the adjective describing Hennes, while U7TO cPf'Aa~ comprises this

foot in line 8, and thus the meter emphasizes the speed and commotion with which he takes the egg away from its beloved mother. 48

This account may 1:ecall a story from the Orphic tradition that Eros was born frorn an egg placed in Aether by Cronus (II. 54-58; 60; 291 ), or Aristophanes' version that Nyx. laid an egg in the depths of Erebus from which golden-winged Eros sprang (Av. 695-698). Although it is tempting to make an association between the Or·phic account of Eros' birth from an egg and this egg, especially because of Simias' interest in Orpbk~ legend in his Wings, the connection is teuuous. While we cannot say that h~tl meant to recall the Orphic or Aristophank stories, we asset1 that this poem like his Wings betrays his knowledgt~ of the Orphic and comic traditions, both in content and meter. 49

West 1996: 106-108. This meter is quite rare in tragedy, but appears with some n::gularity in early Aristophanic plays and oth(:r comic poets such as Eubulus, who wrote in the t~arly 41t. century.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

9-10:

174

aVW'jl€ (;' €"K (J;E'TpOU (J;OV0{3ap.ovoc; J1.€ TOli rr:ripot6' aegf.tl! apt8p);v

elow$', WKU, and

52

Added by C. Salmasius based on the fimn 0"1ropa,fJ•Y)'I/ that appears in the scholia (Gow 1966: I 76) and allows for proper scansion. 53

The AP has scheme.

6€vw Tali (Gow 1966:

176), but neithct version of the line affords the necessary metrical

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

176

navaloAov, together with the rapidity of the aristophancan foot, yield a quickened pace that accords with the prescription delivered in lines 9 and 10.

entirely avvay from the nightingale and her egg, embodied hy the exchange of l.imbs (i.e., metrical cola) for swift, rapid fawns, 6oa'i'a m:-rpOKOlTOV £KAI1!WV opouu' euva,v, JtaTpr)(; 1!Aa'}'KTOV JLatop.evot; {3aAtfiopwv requires the deconstruction of a similar play on definitions and homophones. The scholia note that a synonym for TUcPA7J, "blind," is 7Tr)pa, "maimed, disabled, blind." The pun, then, takes advantage of the fact that TrY)pa and rrf;pa, "wallet,

leather satchel," are virtually identical looking and sounding, despite a very great difference in meaning. Thus Pan can be identified as the one to whom the beloved "possession" of the "satchel-carriers" was dedicated. The gi It, then, is a syrinx since the satchel-can-iers are "rustics", arypOIKOt, known for canying both leather satchels (for food?) and the pan-pipe fi)l' music-making. The dedicator of the gift is named Paris Simichidas. As noted above, the Jigure of Simichidas is familiar as the naiTator ofTheocritus' lVith Theocritus, so strongly suggests that the narrator of that

poem should be identified as Thcocritus himself. 77 The poet ofthe s:vrinx, whether Theocritus or not, relics on this association. The pun incorporated into the name "Paris" further reinfbrces this association since the mythical Trojan goatherd Paris was also called '''fheocritus,'' literally, "one who judges the gods."n These two names in association with one another have led to so much debate about the authorship of this poem. This line marks the beginning of the last sentence of the poem which, fittingly, is a direct address to the dedicatee. The nan·ator wishes that Pan would delight his soul with the .av U'TOA'Y)V. 94· 1''h.us we may I(• tent1•f'y the 1TO(J't-; o f 1me I

"\

I

I

identification corroborated by the following two words, /1-Epot/; and lJlt:ra/3o-;. Again, the scholia aid our understanding when they explain that Jason, whose traditional home is Thessaly, is /1-Epot/; because Mepot/; is equivalent to 0et:r(J'aA6q, "'l'hessalian," because the Thessalians were colonists of the Meropians. More familiar is the description of Jason as lJfua/3os, ''twice-young.'' He was young the first time as a child. The account of his second youth parallels Medea's rather infamous ability to bring a cut up ram back to life as a lamb, as she is reported to have done in her effort to deceive the daughters of Pelias, causing them to boil their father to death. 95 Another tradition that traces back to the late archaic period attributes to her the

___ _ _._______________ ..

93

..

For the scholia to the whole poem, Wendel 1966: 346-350, Gow 1966: .183.

9

~ Wendell966: 347.

~5 Although only later authors such as Apoll<Jdorus (Bibliorheca 1.9.27) and Ovid (Met. 7.297-321)

preserve this story, black figure Attic vases fi-orn the last third of the 6111 century represent this seem!: a ram emerges from a cauldron surrounded by several women and sometimes an old rnan (e.g., London 13328, B22l). See further, Gantz 1993: 364~365.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

200 ability to bring a man, rather than a rarn, back to life. While some ancient authors identified this person as Aeson, Jason's father, according to Simonidcs (548 PMG) and Pherecydcs (3F113), Medea brings Jason back to life, affording him a second youth.

96

The beginning of Hnc 3 yields the postponed main verb 'T'eOg', a placement that playfully requires the audience to wait for the verb until they have identified the verb's subject. The verb's position here also allows Dosiadas to create a parallel form in the first word of the next line, TeuKpow and the similarities of the two initial words along with the identical metrical scheme

reinforce for the audience that these lines comprise a single unit of sense. Now that the altar has told us that Jason built it, in the fashion of the .s:vrinx (3) it tells us who has not. The manufacturer is not the one lying on ashes, ou fr1TO~euva;, who is the same person as the son of the Empousa, Tvt; 'Ett1TOLifTa;. Finally, if those clues have not been enough, Dosiadas ensures the reader's ability to identify the man who did not build the altar by naming his killer as the Teuerian goatherd, the offspring of a bitch,

A man known for 1ying on ashes is Achilles, a reference to the process by which his mother Thetis either tested or ensured his immortality. Lycophron preserves the former version of the story, describing Achilles' fate as the only one of seven children to

. t11e te 11ta1e I~·tre: a'fl ' 1...' surv1ve

t \ ~~ ,t. .I' I "' (J'TiOOOU#J.,evwv ·~ I e1rra 1Tatowv 1Jl€1.J1al\tp

,/..'I I p,ovouv lfJA€70UtTav "

I

ega/..ugav'!'a rrrro'UJv (178-9). Apollonius of Rhodes tells ofthe latter, describing the

96

Further attestation of this version of the stoJy seem-; to exist on an early 5111 -ccntury red tigurt.: hydri.a featuring Medea holding a cup, with a ram coming out of a cauldron accompanied by a man labeled "Iason" (Lond<m E 163). See also Lycoph1·on 1315 where Jason's body has been cut up and put in a cauldron, J..~i.Yrrn aa,,"t'p€u0elt; ilf.tuu;.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

201

process by which Thetis, like Demeter, dipped Achilles into tire each night in Qrdcr to make him imm.ortal (4.869-79). With either tradition in mind, the reader may infer that the adjective crrro()euvas refers to Achilles. In case the first riddle remains unsolvable to the reader, Dosiadas offers a more penetrable, albeit still veiled, reference to the conditions of Achilles' parentage. The identification of the son of an Empousa, ''hobgoblin," or ''assumcr of many shapes." as Achilles relies on the account that his mother Thetis, unwilling to marry Peleus, changed 97

herself into a variety of animals in a vain effort to evade his advances. Finally, chronicling the full range of Achilles' life, Dosiadas engages another riddle to describe his killer. The audience can readily guess that the poet means Achilles as the victim of

the Teucrian goatherd since his killer is the most famous Teucrian goatherd of all, Paris (predicted at ll. 22.358-60). The rest of line 4 parallels the reference to Achilles' mother with the characterization of Paris as the offspring of a bitch, Kuvo.; TeKVWJkaTo.;. We know that this refers to Paris also because, as the scholia relate, his mother Hecuba was called

Kuwv, "bitch" or "female dog" because she had so many children-19 sons by Homer's count (fl. 24.496). As noted above, Dosiadas forces the reader to discover both the identitv of the man who built the altar as well as the man who did not, paralleling the structure of the Ps.-Theoc.titean Syrinx. Through careful inteq)retation and cross~ referencing, we learn Gantz I 993: 228-229. This aspect of tht~ eourting of Thetis by Peleus is mostly preserved in the visual rather than literary record. Examples !hun the archaic period include three tripods from Pcrugia that datt.J to the third quarter ofthc 61" c:entury aud feature Thetis with a lion and a snake corning out of her shoulder (Munich SL 66, 67, 68) as well as Attic versions of the struggk where Peleus contains his bride with lions, panthers, snakes, etc. hanging from her body, indicating her ability to metamorphose (e.g., London B215, Louvre CA 2569). So too, the scholia attest to her ability to take tht: form of a 0"'1/"'Tta., ''cuttlefish'' known to eject a dark liquid in which it hides itself when pursm:d.

97

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

202 that it was Jason and nol Achilles whQ constructed the monument. The distinction that Dosiadas makes h.cre is not as much one between numufacturcrs, as it is between husbands. That is, what Dosiadas means to clarify is that by Medea's husband, he docs not mean Achilles. This comes from the rather obscure tradition that tells of the wedding of Medea and Ach1lles in the Elysian fields, .first attested by Ibycus (291 PMG) and corroborated by no longer extant poetry ofSimonides.

9

!l

Furthermore. both men are, as

the scholia remind us, Thessalian and so theoretically, jLepot/1 (2) could have applied to either one of them. ln true hellenistic fashion, Dosiadas, probably with the full knowledge that this clarification .is unnecessary since most readers would immediately identify Jason as Medea's husband, only further complicates his subject matter, on one level deepening the level of obscurity of his references, while on another guiding his audience away from potential confusion.

5-6: Xpurrac; presurnably the island of Lemnos, and although there is a crux in the text of line 15, Gow's proposal that Philoctetcs has been ----··----~----

wl Gow 1966: 182 oners a1.ml~as- rather than adopting atgcv from the bucolic manuscripts, or aXv' suggested by the textual critic C. Salmasius. 102

iui;ac:;,

The visual record .records this version of the story by about 460, as tc)r exarnple, a stamnos by Hcrmonax attests (Louvre G 413 ). Philoctetes lies wounded on the ground sutTOWlded by Achilles, Agamemnon, and Diomedes, with a labeled statut~ ofCbryse nearby.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

207 spending his tirnc there fishing with nets, €)-AIJJfHVVT' both makes sense and accords with the metrica.l scheme of the poem.

103

The last lines of the poem begin with a line that closely parallels the opening of the $)win.~ ( 1), and Dosiadas concludes the poem with riddles about two more characters and their mle in the saga of Philoctetes. The Te (16) signifies the first part of the double subject of the final verb

a7a'YOll and the i ' of Jinc 17 parallels it.

111CSC

two Jines contain concealed references to

the identity of the men \Vho took Philoctetes away from Lemnos and on to Troy so that he could kill Paris with the bow he had earned from Heracles. The first riddle reveals a conscious and playful interaction between this poem. and the -~winx. In the S)winx (1), where the reader must deduce from clues that Pan is the main topic of the poem, Ps.-Theocritus requires the reader to unravel the references to Penelope as Pan's mother.

104

One of the ways the author describes Penelope is

"bedfellow of no one," that is, the wife of Odysseus, an identification derived from

Odyssey 9 where Odysseus terms himself Oihts, ''Nobody" (366). Conversely, Dosiadas characterizes the figure in this poem as the "bedfellow of the mother ofPan," meaning Odysseus. Dosiadas also defines Odysseus as a thief:

cf>wp, understood by the scholia to refer

to the time when he, accompanied by Diomedes in some accounts, stole the Palladium

lO! Gow 1966: 182 prefers eMtvEDvT' to the seholia preserve. 104

(iel ),tvei'lvT' of the Anthology, or D\tVVOVT'' which the

For other accounts of this tradition, sec above, 182-184.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

208

from Troy (Antisth. Aias 6; Apollod. E'pit. 5.13). This image of Athena guarded 'l'roy and the Greeks could not take the city without first removing it. Odysseus is also twiceliving, ~tS(t)Or;; because he descends into Hudes, allegorically dying, and enters the realm ofthe living once again (e.g .• Od.ll ). The "son of a man-eater" joins Odysseus as the subj