u This little book is a pendant to the first part of my u u published this year by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. It contains a literal English translation of those fragments of the Epic Cycle there edited which are directly quoted by ancient authors. It also contains a re/sume/ of the import of those fragments which are not verbal quotations; a paraphrase of Proclus' prose summary of the contents of the Trojan epics within the cycle; and a very brief commentary on fragments and prose summary. Perhaps this scheme needs some justification. Why, for instance, publish literal translations of those tiny portions of confessedly second-rate epics that happen to have survived? Partly, I suppose, because less literal translations that hide their originals' shortcomings can themselves be misleading. To take one example: Iona and Peter Opie, at the start of their fascinating book u (Oxford 1985), observe (p.4): "Another ancient circular dance was that in which a leader stood in the centre of the ring and sang the verse, and the ring acted as chorus. This seems to be described in the u." The warrant for this important inference is T.F. Higham's over-enthusiastic rendering of F 6 in the u p.180: "Himself, the sire of men, of gods the sire, The centre took, and led the dancing quire". Unfortunately, as a brisk look at my own literal translation (p.00) of the one-line fragment will confirm, practically the whole of the second verse of Higham's translation is of his own devising. And even more unfortunately, it is on this portion of the translation that the Opies' picture of a leader in the centre of the ring, singing to an accompanying chorus, is based. Perhaps literal translations do have their uses. - 2 - My "very brief commentary on fragments and [Proclus'] prose summary" needs even more urgent justification in a sense, since it abounds in controversial statements that ideally require far more in the way of substantiation than they receive here. My excuse must be that in fact they will receive exactly such justification in the far more detailed commentaries that will be published by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht in the coming years. But it was put to me that a certain class of reader might positively prefer the greatly simplified summary of what I think we know about these poems that they will find here. Everyone can be referred to the more scholarly and circumspect treatments shortly to appear, though not everyone will need all the information. Interest in the Epic Cycle has never been stronger, whether on the part of people concerned with Greek myth from the literary or artistic viewpoint or of people impressed by the light that can be thrown on Homer's art by comparison and contrast. A short statement of the salient points and the inferences that have been drawn from the data at our disposal can do no harm and may be found useful. When composing the commentaries referred to above, I necessarily learned much from the writings of earlier scholars. Their names will be found amid the ample documentation in the relevant volumes. With the exception of the Introduction, I have not thought it appropriate to include such doxography here. Likewise, there already exists a number of literal translations of fragments of the Epic Cycle into English. At the time of writing my commentaries, I consulted these and doubtless learned much. But I did not trouble to refresh my memory as to their renderings when I produced the translations found in the present volume. It would be disingenuous to suppose that what I once read has not sometimes influenced my own choice of word or phrase, however unconsciously, but I decided to leave the issue at that. - 1 - THE EPIC CYCLE The second-century A.D. writer Athenaeus presents (in his rambling monograph u or u) a number of anecdotes about the Greek tragedian Sophocles, including the rather scandalous story of his (successful ploy to kiss a beautiful youth serving wine at a banquet (Athen. 603s).s A somewhat more edifying tradition preserved by the same author is that "Sophocles took great pleasure in the Epic Cycle and composed whole dramas in which he followed the Cycle's version of myths" (277s). What was this Epic Cycle that meant so much to Sophocles? Should it mean very much (if anything) to us? us In fact Athenaeus' account is (pedantically considered) a little misleading since there is no real evidence that the term "Epic Cycle" as such would have meant anything to Sophocles. Our earliest extant allusion to the existence of the Epic Cycle occurs in a work of Aristotle (u. u. 1.12 (77s = *T 2)) though the interpretation of the relevant phrase has been questioned. If the allusion is correctly detected' Aristotle's reference implies that the "Eristics" (a group of philosophers responsible for the Sophistic fallacies Aristotle is attacking) attributed to Homer a cycle of epics. Several of the poems in the Epic Cycle as we now know it were attributed to (among others) Homer (in particular the u (see p.oo) and the u (see p.oo)) and other early epics besides(e.g. the u u or u: u pp.149ff.) so it is easy to believe that this is what Aristotle means. It is, however, with the Alexandrian scholars that we first meet with an interest in the Epic Cycle which is at all widely and reliably attested. The term 'cyclic'was used by them not only to refer in a relatively factual manner to the composers and contents of the Cycle's epics but also in a more subjective and denigatory way that emphasised the great difference in poetic quality between these poets and Homer (see below p.o). That difference had already been stressed by Aristotle in his u (see below p.oo) where, even though he does not specifically use the terms 'Cycle' or 'cyclic', he draws attention - 2 - to the lack of unity in a poem such as the u in contrast to the u or u. The Alexandrian scholars inherited this distinction. They must also have edited the epics in question, as they edited most other works of Greek literature, though we know little of this edition except for the number of books into which each epic was divided.s Some evidence seems to suggest the existence of a 'cyclic edition' of the u and, perhaps, of the u, wherein, presumably, the Homeric text was somehow adjusted to fit with the poems of the Epic Cycle that preceded or succeeded u and u. This is not to infer (what some have supposed) the existence of an edition of the Epic Cycle which achieved total consistency and continuity by the drastic expedient of excising whole chunks of poetry that happened to involve duplication or to produce contradiction of other passages within the Cycle. What the Alexandrian editors did was merely to edit a group of epic poems whose relatively early date, subject-matter and style had previously led to their being largely attributed to the author of the u and u. The Alexandrians (like Aristotle before them) recognised that in many significant ways (see below p.oo) these poems were deeply unHomeric. Nevertheless the epics were to prove handy source-material to later writers of mythological hand-books because of their convenient (if uninspired) encapsulation of large chunks of myth. If Athenaeus is to be believed (above p. )' the individual poems which in the eyes of Aristotle and the Alexandrian editors constituted the Epic Cycle had already proved a useful quarry for plot-material in the case of Sophocles' tragedies. u The epics in question have largely disappeared,s but fragments of them survive in the form of direct quotations or indirect references in the works of later writers. The directly quoted fragments are never very large, but even the relatively narrow band of evidence they supply presents fairly conclusive proof that in comparison with Homer there are linguistic forms that are "late" and post-Homeric.s The first scholar adequately to stress this was the great German classicist Wilamowitz in 1884.s Following in his footsteps, J. Wackernagel, - 3 - a distinguished philologist, published (some time after the start of the twentieth century)s a fuller and more rigorous account of the evidence. After rightly emphasising that the "Konstanz des Stils" was greater in epic than any other genre of Greek literature' he proceeded to show that while the fragments of the u and u contain almost nothing that is linguistically post- Homeric (this is consistent with the remarkably vigorous tradition that attributes the former to Homer (see below p.oo)), the u and the u contain a good many such features.s F 1 of the Cypria is particularly rich in them, some of them without parallel before the fifth century, some of them Attic in form. Since F 1 of the Cypria seems to be part of a proem to the work as a whole (below p.oo) Wackernagel concluded that it can hardly be dismissed as a later addition and consequently assigned the whole of the Cypria to an Attic context not long before 500 B.C. It is customary for scholars to make a nod of respect in Wackernagel's direction and then on the whole shy away from his radical late dating of the u in particular and some of the Epic Cycle in general.s It may be felt that a dating of the u almost a quarter of a century after the birth of Aeschylus and barely a decade before the birth of Sophocles is unacceptably late, especially if those dramatists were influenced by poems of the Epic Cycle (see p.2). There may also be a vaguer feeling that by 500 B.C. the "Age of Epic" should have long ago and decisively been replaced by the "Age of Lyric".s But this late dating fits very well with a recent placing of the Hesiodic u in an Attic ambience of c. 560 - 520 B.C.,s and relatively solid linguistic data must outweigh relatively flimsy feelings of propriety. The u,indeed, may well be a special case: its main function as a hold-all for the complete story of the Trojan War up to the events of the u (see below p.oo) suggest it developed rather late. In spite of Wackernagel, its proem might well be the very latest and last element of the whole, an attempt to give the pre-existing epic a rather spurious unity (see below p.oo). But the lack of unity of these epics as a whole (see p.oo), and their status as - 4 - attempts to fill in the gaps left by Homer's poems, make me very reluctant to date most of them before the second half of the sixth century. Aristarchus of Samothrace, the greatest of the Alexandrian scholars, certainly regarded these poems as "late" relative to Homer.s Numerous Homeric scholia and other late writings reveal the traces of his approach: a mythical tradition not mentioned by Homer is deemed to have been unknown to Homer, and those authors who do mention the tradition are called u ("relatively recent "). Often these u can be shown to be equivalent to poets of the Epic Cycle.s But a problem remains. Aristarchus' approach would seem to have been too schematic. Homer may have known many traditions which he does not specifically mention (he may be practising a deliberate reticence with some of them (below p.oo) Often, besides, his way of telling a story seems to be modelled on another story which he does not actually mention: for instance, in u. 8.800 ff. it looks as if Antilochus' rescue of his father Nestor from Hector's onslaught may be based on his rescue (at the cost of his own life) of the same warrior from the Aethiopian prince Memnon' a tale we know to have featured in the cyclic epic the u (see below p.oo). Or again, in u.23.708ff. Odysseus' victory over Telamonian Ajax in the wrestling contest at the Funeral Games of Patroclus reminds one of Odysseus' victory over the same hero (at the cost of the latter's life) concerning the arms of Achilles, a tale we know to have featured in both u and u (see below pp. oo and 00). There are various ways of explaining these parallels. The fullest and most detailed book to consider the questions arrives at a simple (some might allege simplistic) answer: Homer in each case was drawing on the relevant poem from the Epic Cycle. But this theory swiftly encounters an obstacle: precisely those post-Homeric linguistic forms mentioned above. The theory can, however' be re-cast to cope with this objection and escape an equivalent charge of schematism to that levelled above at Aristarchus. Provided we do not envisage Homer "drawing on" specific u of the u or u(least of all those texts from which our - 5 - fragments with their post-Homeric linguistic forms derive) all will be well: Homer will have been acquainted with the stories of the deaths of Antilochus and Ajax when he composed the relevant parts of the Iliad. He may even have known these stories as they were already incorporated into epic poems. But we should not identify these epics with the texts of the u or u as fragmentarily known to us. We should not (in all probability) identify them with u texts. The formulaic style of the u and u suggests they are somehow the product of a stage of oral transmission.s Homer himself will presumably have been acquainted with other orally transmitted epics and these may have included earlier versions of u or u. But the Iliad and u would appear to have been preserved in written texts earlier than the other poems of the Epic Cycle, which seem to have gradually assumed the status of sequels to or anticipations of the Homeric epics. By the time they took on the stable and permament form of which we possess fragmentary knowledge they would have been accurately termed "post-Homeric". u Various traditions have come down to us from antiquity as to the authors of the poems in the Epic Cycle. Often the authorship is disputed (e.g. the u is variously assigned to Homer, Stasinus or a certain Cyprias: see T 1 - 12 and below p.0). We have independent evidence as to the dates of some of these authorss and if this evidence were believed it would tell against the generally late dating of most of the cyclic epics advocated above (e.g. Arctinus,alleged author of the u and u is by some sources assigned a u of c. 775 B.C.). However, there are numerous reasons why we should not accept this evidence. For a start, it is now generally known that many of the impressively specific datings of early Greek poets preserved in later authors are totally unreliable and based on an arbitrary chronological "chain" worked out in the second century B.C. Thus even if there are good reasons to trust the attribution - 6 - of individual epics to individual poets we would have no reliable independent information as to dates. But there are not even any good reasons.s Wilamowitz in the book cited above (p.0 n.o) observed that our earliest and most reliable sources quoted the epics in question anonymously ("the author of the u", "the composer of the u" etc.) or with considerable reservations about alleged authorship. Attributions come from late and unreliable sources. Then again, these sources often produce contradictory statements as to a poet's dating. And it is often easy to guess at least some of the reasons why an author is located in such and such a time (e.g. Eumelus and Arctinus assigned to the same Olympiad (see u T2) because both are credited with the composit of a u or Eugammon placed in 567 B.C. (u T 2) because as a Cyrenean he must post-date Cyrene's founding (c. 630 B.C.)). We should not,then, place very much weight on these ancient traditions as to the chronology of the supposed cyclic poets. A relatively late individual may well have assigned epics hitherto anonymous or attributed to Homer to poets who happened to have nothing else to their names. The reasoning behind the attribution may have been relatively arbitrary and haphazard (e.g. the unusually entitled u bestowed upon Stasinus because he was known to be from Cyprus). Such external evidence cannot outweigh the internal linguistic evidence of the fragments themselves which points inexorably to a late dating.s us In the case of the poems within the Epic Cycle that deal with the Trojan War (i.e. all the epics from u to u) we happen to possess a source of information additional to the fragments mentioned above (p.oo). Proclus, an author of unknown date and origin, composed a u or u u. The later writer Photius (c.810-c.893 A.D.) in his u (or u) gives us an outline of it, including some general remarks on the Epic Cycle (cf.p.oo below on u F 2). More importantly, Proclus' - 7 - re/sume/ of the Epic Cycle's Trojan poems is preserved in some MSS of Homer's Iliad: in other words we are fortunate enough to possess extracts from the actual text of Proclus' prose summary of these poems. Scholars have not proved invariably as grateful as we might have expected about this lucky addition to our knowledge of the Cycle's contents. Nineteenth century German classical scholarship became progressively sceptical as a general principle (and often, particularly in the area of historical "source-criticism" this scepticism was beneficial and appropriate). The fact that we do not know the precise identity of Proclus rather irrationally increased scepticism as to the reliability of his re/sume/. More reasonably, since some discrepancies were observed between his summary of the Trojan epics and actual fragements thereof, suspicion naturally increased. Finally, at the end of the nineteenth century, an u was published of the missing close to the u of Apollodorus, a mythological hand-book of about the first century B.C. This epitome's summary of the stories relating to the Trojan War was soon perceived to be very close in wording and content to Proclus' alleged re/sume/ of the Epic Cycle's Trojan epics. It was concluded that both derived from an earlier mythographic hand-book and that Proclus' claim to be summarising lost epics was finally and definitely exploded. Which conclusion in no way follows. The discrepancies between Proclus' summary and our actual fragmentary texts of the lost epics are easily explained when we consider what these summaries are doing in MSS of the u. They have been transferred there to fulfill a new purpose: to remind the reader of the u of episodes in the story of Troy so as to facilitate his understanding and enjoyment of Homer's epic. But the other Trojan epics from the Cycle, though their final form was influenced by a wish to fill details before and after Homer's two poems (see above p.oo), may have originally been independent compositions (p.00), and in consequence sometimes disagreed with Homer's version of events (see e.g. below pp.oo and 00). These disagreements had to be - 8 - removed (together with repetitions of events also present in u and u) from Proclus' original summary when this was transformed into a preface to the u: otherwise there would be unnecessary confusion. Provided we bear this in mind, most of the discrepancies alluded to are explicable, and we may accept Proclus' re/sume/ as a reliable source of evidence (though like all summaries it may sometimes omit material we would have liked to know). Apollodorus' u as we saw above, often echoes Proclus: in such cases we will conclude that it too is drawing (via who knows how many intermediate stages) on the relevant lost cyclic epic(s). Sometimes it will add detail(s) not in Proclus' re/sume/: these may often derive likewise from those epics and be valuable adjuncts to the information preserved in Proclus. But since Apollodorus is not avowedly and solely summarising lost epics, since he is only intermittently specific as to the identity of his sources, and since he can be shown elsewhere in his hand-book to switch from one source to the other without notice, we must be rather cautious in drawing upon the tradition enshrined in his work. In the chapters on the Trojan epics below (pp.oo ff.) I occasionally mention those details in Apollodorus' u which are likelier than not to derive from the Epic Cycle. u Let us finally return to the question we originally posed at the start of this Introduction: is the Epic Cycle' as recoverable by fragments and the (incomplete) summary of Proclus, worth studying today? We have already seen (above p.oo) how Aristotle and the Alexandrian critics perceived that the poets of the Cycle were not only different from, but qualitatively inferior to, the poet of the u and u. Aristotle's u (1459b 1 ff.) observes that, by comparison with Homer, both the u and the u lack unity (so that whereas only one or at the most two tragedies could be written exploiting the subject-matter of the Homeric poems, the episodic nature of the latter would supply plots for a large number of tragedies: cf. Athenaeus' - 9 - remark about Sophocles cited above p.o). Modern scholars have developed this traditional contrast between Homer and the Epic Cycle along even more instructive lines. As early as 1884, D.B. Monro was pointing out that the Epic Cycle seems to have found room for all sorts of motifs and traditions that are strikingly absent from the u and u. Shortly after the start of the twentieth century Andrew Langs observed: Even in the few fragments of the so-called Cyclic poets... and in the sketches of the plots of the Cyclic poems which have reached us, there are survivals of barbaric customs - for example of human sacrifice, and the belief in phantasms of the dead, even when the dead have been properly burned and buried - which do not appear in the u and the Odyssey... It is not easily conceivable that Homer was ignorant of any of these things... but he ignores them. In 1918 Sir James Frazer, author of the famous study known as The u, stateds: A comparison of early Hebrew traditions with their Babylonian counterparts- enables us to appreciate how carefully the authors or editors of Genesis have pruned away the grotesque and extravagant elements of legend and myth...In their handiwork we can trace the same fine literary instinct which has similarly purified the Homeric poems from many gross and absurd superstitions, which, though they bear plain marks of an antiquity far greater than that of Homer, are known to us only through writings of much later ages. In recent times Jasper Griffins has most sensitively and thoroughly treated this aspect of the contrast between Homer and the Cyclic poets. It is indeed illuminating to discover just how selective is the heroic world depicted by the Iliad and - to a lesser extent - the uand how it vigorously excludes elements of the fantastic, the grotesque, the excessively grim, or simply anything redolent of folk-tale or folk-superstition. It is also - 10 - instructive to observe the poets of the Cycle shovelling this material back into their far less selective and carefully-considered poetic world. The narrative style of the cyclic epics also, as Griffin and others have seen, seems to have been vastly inferior to Homer's, judging from the few fragments of direct citation long enough to enable us to pass this verdict. In the following chapters on the individual epics I have consistently drawn attention to both classes of divergence. All this, of course, while confirming and elaborating Homer's status as a great poet, might be thought to constitute good cause why the late twentieth century should u spend its time on the Epic Cycle as such. The plea that the Cycle's constituent poems must have had some merit to attract reworking by aSophocles (see above p.oo) or a Pindar (see below p.oo) rings rather hollow: it is precisely the improvement of the second-rate by the first- rate that strikes the mind. The Epic Cycle is often claimed to have served as a source of inspiration for visual artists, especially vase-painters. This argument also, needs to be treated cautiously, if for different reasons. Vase- painting often does seem to be attracted by mythical themes which also featured in the Epic Cycle' but the prospect that the former was directly inspired by the latter is far more difficult to prove than is generally realiseds, especially since we possess intact none of the cyclic epics as such. The main motive for continuing to study these poems must be what has already been stated as their main attraction in later antiquity (above p.oo). They did preserve, however inadequately and inelegantly, a good deal of interesting mythological information. In many cases they may have been the earliest literary sources to contain these details. Homer's elimination of the crudely fantastic allowed him to achieve a personal and inimitable poetic vision. But what Homer left out clearly appealed to a substantial number of Greeks - as witness the continued popularity of stories such as the all-too-vulnerable heel of Achilles, or Tydeus' savage gnawing of Melanippus' skull.s Homer's - 11 - poetic world does not comprise the whole of the Hellenic outlook. The folk- tale motifs one finds preserved in the cyclic poets are often fascinating in their own right and widen our perspective especially of the "darker side" of Greek myth. - 12 - FOOT NOTES 1. His source for this detail is Ion of Chios (u.392 F 6) a contemporary of Sophocles: u. 4 T 75 Radt. 2. u. 4 T 136 Radt = u. T 7. 3. In this section I am summarising the contents of my (cumbersomely titled) article "Prolegomena and Paralegomena to a new edition (with commentary) of the Fragments of Early Greek Epic" published in the (equally cumbersomely titled) u 1 u.2 (1986) 9lff. (hereafter NGG). 4. Cf.E 0d.16. 195' l7.25;Aristoxenus fr. 91(1) Wehrli = u. p.32, 20 Wilamowitz. 5. On Proclus' late prose summary of the plots of the Trojan epics see below p.00. 6. The concept of linguistically "late" features that can be used for a relative dating of portions within the u and u and of Hesiod and the u relative to Homer,is a familiar one, though the definition of "late" needs to be handled with caution (see, for instance, R. Janko, u (Cambridge 1982) General Index s.v. 'innovation, linguistic'). 7. u p. 367. 8. u (1916) pp. 178ff., esp. 181ff. 9. Since the u and theu are represented by a relatively large number of directly quoted fragments and the u and u by a relatively small number, the negative evidence for earlier dating of the latter pair is not very strong. 10. For instance, J. Griffin, u 97 (1977) p. 39 n.9, after referring to Wackernagel's treatment, follows another scholar in placing "the composition of the Cyclic epics in general in the late seventh century". - 13 - 11. The naive schematism that underlies this approach is still unexpectedly influential: for a recent vigorous attack upon it see R.L. Fowler, u (Toronto 1987) pp. 1ff. 12. M.L.West, u (Oxford 1985) pp. l3Off. See now J.R. March, u (u Suppl.49 (1987) pp.157 ff.(preferring and" of c.580-570). 13. Cf. A. Severyns' u (Paris 1928). 14. Cf. u 1 (1986) 109f. 15. Wolfgang Kullmann, u (Hermes Einzelschriften 14 (1960)). The review by D.L. Page, u 11 (1961) 205ff. exposes most of the weaknesses in the book referred to here and others beside. 16. In fairness to Kullmann it should be added that his subsequent articles on this and related topics reveal progressively increasing awareness of weaknesses in his book and a progressively increasing readiness to correct and replace them with the more flexible and sophisticated approach here outlined. 17. But not all of them. Thus when the us (1970) s.v. "Stasinus of Cyprus" anonymously assigns the hypothetical date "?8th c(entury) B.C." to this poet, it is relying on nothing more specific than an untrustworthy biographical anecdote (below p.oo) and an unprovable feeling that the u he is supposed to have composed must be very early. 18. Cf. u 2 (1986) 99f. 19. For completeness' sake I do preface each chapter below with a brief account of the various authors to whom the Cycle's epics were assigned in antiquity. But little faith should be placed in these attributions. - 14 - 20. Cf. u 2 (1986) 12 ff. 21. u. 5 (1884) 1 ff. 22. u (Oxford 1908) p.44 f. 23. u 2.394. 24. "The Epic Cycle and the uniqueness of Homer", u. 97 (1977) 39 ff. There are also some suggestive remarks by Sir John Forsdyke in Chapter 6 ("Cyclic Characters": pp.110 ff.) of his book u u (London 1956) which include some material not mentioned by Griffin. 25. See the remarks of R.M. Cook in u (u u 58 (1983) 1 ff. 26. The former possibly featured in the u (see p.oo); the latter certainly featured in the u (p.oo), and may fairly be said to have haunted the European consciousness ever since (as witness Statius' Thebaid 8.740 ff., Dante's presentation of Count Ugolino in Cantos 32-3 of the Divine Comedy's u or Delacroix's painting of Dante and Vergil crossing the Styx (now in the Louvre) to cite a mere handful of instances that echo the scene. - 15 - u The first poem within the Epic Cycle was the u, variously attributed to Eumelus of Corinth (T2, F3, FB, 5) and to Arctinus (F5), also allegedly author of the u (below p.00) and the u (p.00). It is often asserted that this poem will, in fact, have been (for completeness' sake) preceded in the Cycle by a u, and that the contents of this lost u can be recovered from an inspection of the opening portion of Apollodorus' u. For Apollodorus (it is argued) drew on this 'Cyclic u' and his summary reveals it to have been Orphic in character and content. I believe that we should be very sceptical about this theory and that Apollodorus' opening section is actually indebted to Hesiodls u, the apparent differences and disagreements between the two being explicable on the assumption that the mythographer has reworked his source and changed it by the processes of omission, rearrangement, and simplification. F2 (from Photius' recapitulation of Proclus' summary (see above p.00)) states that the Epic Cycle opened with the coupling of Ge^ (Mother Earth) and Uranus (Heaven) and those who believe in an (unattested) 'Cyclic u' refer this quintessentially theogonic details to its contents. But we know from F1 that the Cyclels u contained the information that Uranus (Heaven) was the son of Aether (Sky). In other words, just as Hesiod's u included a Titanomachy (at lines 617 ff.), so the Cycle's u seems to have included a Theogony, or details relevant thereto, near its beginning. What is (or was) a Titanomachy? It is the battle whereby Cronus and his brothers, the Titans. were defeated and ousted from their position as rulers of the Universe by Zeus and his brothers and offspring. The older powers succumb to the Olympians, who represent the next generation of gods. Strictly speaking, the Titanomachy should be clearly distinguished from the - 16 - Gigantomachy, which represents an occasion later in time when the Olympians, now the firmly established controllers of the cosmos, find their own power threatened by a motley crew of giants and monsters inclined to dispute their authority and quelled only with difficulty and the participation of Heracles on the Olympians' side. The two events are different in other ways too (for instance, the Gigantomachy is a very popular subject in art, while the Titanomachy features there little, if at all). But it would be absurd for us to be too severe about this, since the Greeks themselves, from as early as Euripides onwards, confused (or did not strive too officiously to keep distinct) one with the other, and the coalescence is endemic in Roman writers. Sometimes Gigantomachy may have been written for Titanomachy (or u) by mistake, since the words look very similar in Greek script (this has happened in the source that supplies us with F9 of the u). To return to F1, we may begin by observing that its apparent use of a family-tree to explain the origin of the universe is a common ploy in Theogonies, Hesiodic and other. Our fragment's statement that Uranus (Heaven) was the son of Aether (sky) may be explicable in terms of another fragment, this time belonging to the Greek lyric poet Alcman (seventh century B.C.). According to him (fr.61P) Uranus was the son of Akmo^n (a similar tradition appears to be implied by Antimachus fr.66W and Callimachus fr.498 Pf). The Greek word u means not only 'anvil' but also perhaps 'meteoric stone'; and early Greek literature shows vestiges of a primitive belief that the sky was actually made out of stone, which would neatly elucidate our fragment. The role it attributes to Aether is without precise parallel but has approximate analogies in the cosmogonies of some early Greek poets (e.g. Musaeus 2B14 DK, Acusilaus 9B1DK). F2 we have already considered above (p.00). P3 relates to a group of fabulous brothers known as 'the Hundred-Handers', who are named, for - 17 - instance, in Hes. u.149: Cottus, Briareus and Gyges. Homer (in u.1.403f.) tells us (exploiting a wide-spread and familiar folk-tale motif) that Briareus is the gods'name for the being whom mortals call Aegaeon, and Aegaeon would seem to be the name under which the monster passed in the u. This poem depicted him as the offspring of Ge^(Earth)and Pontus (Sea), in contrast to Hesiod who made the three brothers offspring of Ge^ and Uranus (Thu46).Why our epic thus differed in the question of the father of Aegaeon/Briareus it is not easy to say. We may, however, observe that in the Iliadic episode alluded to above, the sea-goddess Thetis fetches him to Olympus, which may conceivably entail that Homer located him in the sea, as does our fragment. Note also that Greek literature and belief often portrays monsters of this sort as the offspring of marine deities (cf. Hes.u.270ff. etc.). Whatever the relevance of such obervations it must be stressed that our fragment is at variance both with Hes.u.639ff. and the Iliadic episode: for these passages explicitly or implicitly present this monster as an ally of the Olympians, whereas F2 says he fought on the side of the Titans. A similar state of affairs seems to be implied at Vergil u.10.565ff. with its picture of Aegaeon opposed to Jupiter. We must again confess our ignorance as to the motive behind this divergence. Whereas Aegaeon does feature in Homer, F4 sets before us a group of motifs which seem to be sedulously avoided by him: the familiar folk-tale motif of the Sun's chariot and the four horses that draw it. It appears that our epic supplied the names of the creatures: Eous (meaning 'of the dawn') and Aethops ('the bright one'); Bronte ('thunder') and Sterope ('lightning' ). The first two names have a significance too obvious to require explanation. The last two remind us of the names of those two Cyclopes who produce (respectively) thunder and lightning as given by (among others) Hes.u.140: Brontes and Steropes. The belief that a god's - 18 - (or the gods') horses have literally thundering hooves is widespread and obviously underlies our passage. Whether F4's context was merely that everyday event the Sun's passage across the heavens or whether (as in some late sources) the Sun god Helios was specifically mentioned as participating in (or markedly refraining from) the battle between the Olympians and the Titans we have no way of knowing. F5 preserves a single hexameter from the u: u. In its different way this fragment too is as unHomeric as F4. Homer's Zeus may not be consistently dignified but it is hard to conceive him as dancing. Indeed no god dances in Homer. Apollo does, in the u named after him (11.189ff., 514ff.), but as the god of song and dance he surely constitutes a special case. Pindar fr.148 Sn. has a more general vision of dancing gods but Zeus is still not specifically named. The god's dance is a primeval Indo-European motif but most scholars have felt that the u detail of Zeus dancing requires some special explanation and have generally located this in the divine rejoicing that will have followed the successful conclusion of the Olympians' war against the Titans (a number of passages by later authors (e.g. Tibull. 2.5.9f., Sen. u.339ff.) have been interpreted as reflecting some such tradition of rejoicing). Zeus will have been celebrating the first day of his rule, and as such the act will have been very special, indeed never-to-be-repeated. A partial analogy cited by some from the Old Testament, would be 2 Samuel 6.14 where after the capture of Jerusalem "David danced before the Lord with all his might". F6 deals with Chiron, a particularly humane and wise centaur (see below p.00) whose beneficent attitude to mankind is often praised in Greek literature (e.g. Pind.u.3.1ff., Eur. u710). The two verses in question clearly emanate from a longer list of kindnesses towards mortals: - 19 - u u. In other words the u treated Chiron as a type of 'culture- hero' comparable with Prometheus (see, for instance, u 11.447ff.) or Palamedes (see below p.00). Such 'culture-heroes' are conspicuously absent from Homer, and though Chiron is mentioned a handful of times in the u, that poem keeps quiet about the tradition that Chiron acted as tutor to such heroes as Achilles or his father Peleus (see P.000). A poem attributed to Hesiod in antiquity and known as u u (or u) reflects the same view of the noble beast (for reference to and fragments of it see Merkelbach and West's u pp.143ff.). F7 mentions the gold cup of the Sun which was nightly used to transport the Sun god over the sea from his setting in the West back to his palace in the East. Like the Sun's chariot (in F4 above) this is a popular motif with parallels the world over which numerous later writers mention but which Homer omits from his picture of the world. F8 is a fascinating but baffling fragment of two lines' compass: u (or u u. Delightfully decorative lines, but not easily fitted into any plausible context within a u. Largely because of the striking reference to "golden-faced ... fish" scholars have contemplated assigning the passage to an u or formal description of the contents of a work of art. One such description, from an u which gives to the poem to which it belongs its title, (u, attributed in antiquity to Hesiod) does, indeed, contain a superficially similar episode. At lines 207ff. we find an account of a harbour depicted on Heracles' shield: 'silver dolphins' are shown, and also 'bronze fish'. Could the 'it' - 20 - on or in which our fragment's fish appear be a similar artefact? An objection is that in the Hesiodic u, as in all other instances of the u, from the Homeric Shield of Achilles (11.18.483ff.) down to the description in Ap. Rhod.1.730ff., the verbs employed are regularly in the past tense (early Greek poetry) does not employ the historic present: see below p.00). Unless one emends our fragment's present tense to past (which can be done) the hypothesis of an u may not hold. Be it noted, in any case, that the fragment's word for 'golden-faced' (u is also the name of a perfectly normal fish (the Mediterranean 'Gilthead' or Doreade). F9 explains how Chiron came to be a centaur, half-man half-horse. His father Cronus changed himself into a horse and mated with Philyra daughter of Oceanus. This story recurs in, for instance, Pherecydes u3 F50 and Ap.Rhod.2.123ff. The Epic Cycle was by no means averse to such tales (as witness Zeus' metamorphosis into a goose at u F8: see below p.00). Homer characteristically has no time for shape-changing deities and it is no coincidence that when Zeus lists his various mortal amours at u14.315ff., though Danae and Europe are among them, nothing is said of his metamorphosis into bull or golden shower. F10 refers to the Hesperides, nymphs who guard a tree that bears golden apples in the remote west. The text that preserves this fragment is incomplete and its tenor is not quite certain. Perhaps it originally stated that in the u the guardian(s) of the apples were in fact represented as neither Hesperides nor (as some other authors, e.g. Acusilaus 9B5DK) winged monsters known as Harpies, but the snake referred to by, for instance. Hes.u.333ff. It is a traditional folk-tale motif that a serpent makes a suitable protector of treasures of various sort. Not surprisingly, therefore, Homer has nothing to say of the Hesperides or their treasure. - 21 - u The story and sufferings of Oedipus were a popular subject in Attic tragedy. It would be interesting to know which of the details in, for instance, Sophocles' u were the playwright's own invention and which inherited. And it would be interesting to know which of the inherited features were to be found in earlier epic and the Cycle's u in particular. Interesting but impossible. We only possess two fragments of the u, together with part of an inscription that informs us the epic was composed by a certain Cinaethon and was 6,600 lines long. Oedipus' legend is made up of a number of folk-tale motifs that can be paralleled the world over. For instance: the oracle that warns a man (in this case Laius) not to beget a son. The exposed infant (in this case Oedipus). The baffling riddle (in this case posed by the Sphinx). The hero who solves the riddle and wins the princess' hand. F 1 quotes two hexameters from the u which concern the Sphinx's activity before Oedipus arrived on the scene: Haemon son of Creon seems to have been specified as one of the Sphinx's victims: u u u>. This tradition of Haemon's death recurs in later authors: for instance, Apollod. 3.53 where the sad event spurs Creon into proclaiming that whosoever solves the Sphinx's riddle shall receive the kingship of Thebes < left vacant by Laius' death > and shall marry Laius' widow. Perhaps this was the context of Haemon's death in the u. Vase-paintings often depict the Sphinx carrying off a youthful male victim. The language used by Haemon in our fragment is surprisingly erotic for epic and we are reminded that in Attic tragedy (in particular Sophocles' u) Haemon is represented as surviving to become the fiance/ of Antigone. - 22 - Several late authors preserve in different form five or so hexameters purporting to be the Sphinx' riddle. The u doubtless quoted the riddle, but the relationship between that and the verses preserved by the late authors in question is quite uncertain. Oedipus solved the Sphinx's riddle and married Laius' widow, oblivious that she was also his own mother. F 2 of our epic (from Pausanias 9.5.10) deals with what it had to say about this marrage and its offspring. Since Pausania refers to the u after quoting u. 11.271 ff. it will be best if we first clarify our minds as to the extant epic and then move on to the lost poem. During the u Odysseus reports himself as having seen in the Underworld Oedipus' mother (whom he calls Epicaste, unlike the Attic tragedians who know her as Jocasta). Her marriage to her own son is mentioned and then the passage proceeds with the statement that the gods u made things known to mankind. Epicaste committed suicide but Oedipus went on ruling in Thebes in accordance with the gods' baleful designs. Not unreasonably Pausanias infers from the Greek word for "at once" that the Homeric passage envisages no children of this incestuous marriage, in contrast with the two pairs of brothers and sisters (Polyneices and Eteocles; Antigone and Ismene) familiar from the Attic tragedians. In Sophocles' u, for instance, the revelation of Oedipus' crime is postponed long enough for all four offspring to be relatively grown-up. The most convincing explanation of this detail cites Homer's reluctance to handle excessively grim stories of family conflict and retribution(compare his treatment of the house of Atreus: see below p.oo). So here, though he cannot omit the central issue of incest he says nothing of Oedipus' self-blinding (so vividly portrayed in tragedy) and will not have any children born of the incestuous union(compare his refusal to grant offspring to the analogously improper liaison of Helen and Paris: below 00). - 23 - Pausanias adopts a different explanation and argues that the four children familiar from Attic drama were begotten by Oedipus not upon his mother but on a totally different woman called Euryganeia. And he says this is the version followed in the u. Most scholars take him at his word and conjure up an earlier "epic" version of the Oedipus story very different from the harrowing account known from the tragedians. In this alleged epic version Oedipus takes his sufferings a good deal more calmly, does not blind himself, continues to rule in Thebes, marries again and becomes the father of four children, and finally dies and is buried in Thebes (this last detail is inferred from u.23 678 ff. and Hes.fr. 192 MW.) This version is so astonishingly at odds with the cataclysmic tone of Attic tragedy's handling of the theme that we should pause and ask ourself whether this is really the only conclusion to be drawn from Pausanias' words. And the answer is no. In the nineteenth century, when German classical scholars were instinctively sceptical about a great many statements in ancient authors in general and Pausanias in particular, a different explanation was put forward. Pausanias has made a mistake: Oedipus' wife and mother was called Euryganeia in the u, just as she was called Epicaste in the u, Jocasta in Greek tragedy, Eurycleia in Epimenides 3 B 15 DK and Astymedusa in a scholionon u. 4.376. She was the only woman who bore children to Cedipus, and those children were, as one might expect, Polyneices, Eteocles, Antigone and Ismene. This, after all, is the version reported in Apollod. 3.5.8. It is true that some authors do report a version that Oedipus remarried and had the four above mentioned children by his second wife (Pisander F.Gr.Hist. 16 F 10, Pherecydes F.u. 3 F 95) but these may represent late attempts to reduce the horror inherent in the story by having the children born of a perfectly normal union just as Homer seeks in a different way to eliminate the ghastly aspects of the tale. - 24 - At the very least, this hypothesis' that Pausanias is mistaken in inferring that Euryganeia was not merely a different name for, but also a different person from Oedipus' mother, deserves to be treated as an hypothesis no less plausible than the traditional explanation which has such drastic implications for the early literary treatments of the Oedipus myth. Indeed it is salutary to be reminded just how little we know of this legend before the time of the Attic tragedians. That ignorance certainly extends to most other portions of the u: we do not have the slightest idea of how far in time its narrative extended, for instance, whether there were any overlaps with the subject-matter of the u or whether it aimed at filling in the background to that epic. - 25 - u Of all attributions to Homer of epics over and above the Iliad and u that involving the u has the most venerable credentials. Pausanias 9.9.1 ff. (=u T 1) tells us that the seventh century elegiac poet Callinus assigned it to Homer; adds the Greek equivalent of "many distinguished scholars accept this attribution"; and rounds off for good measure with the statement that he himself puts it next to u and u in m erit. "Many distinguished scholars" of today have been perhaps too impressed by all this. We should surely be cautious in accepting the valuation of a now lost epic by an author of the second century A.D. and Callinus may merely have credited to Homer one or two words or phrases which a later writer recognised in the text of the u (for a similar problem involving Pindar and the u see below p.oo). Homer's u contains a number of allusions to the earlier expedition of the Seven against Thebes. Many of these references are paradigmatic or exemplary: that is they are variously addressed by various characters to Diomedes son of Tydeus' and cite various deeds of valour performed by the illustrious father in connection with the Theban war in order to encourage the son to emulation or to contrast hsm unfavourably with his greater father. Though these passages have Tydeus very much at their centre (for the reason just given) they clearly presuppose a wider background of the war on Thebes,and nineteenth century scholars spent much time pondering whether Qomer's "source" for these references might be the u of which we now possess a mere handful of fragments. The twentieth century has a greater awareness of the complexities inherent in the concept of oral tradition and its relevance to Homer (see above p.oo). The notion of "sources" no longer seems as appropriate for a poetic composition as for a historical work, and the possibility that Homer himself might invent (for paradigmatic u) mythological details such as those found in the Iliadic mentions of Tydeus is taken very seriously nowadays. - 26 - Nevertheless, Homer will, of course, have been acquainted with any number of traditions about the war against Thebes which features as a typical subject for heroic poetry from the time of Hesiod's u (1.172) onwards. Some of these traditions may, by Homer's time, have already been enshrined in epics and one of these epics may have been the forefather (so to speak) of our u (compare the remarks above pp.oo ff on the likely date of the Cyclic epics). We happen to possess the very first line of the u (F 1): u >u The injunction to a goddess (i.e. a Muse) is the same as in the u's opening verse (indeed the Greek words for "sing" and "goddess" are identical and in an identical position as second and third words within the hexameter). But whereas the opening words of u ("anger") and u ("The man") handily encapsulate one of the central themes of each epic, the u surprisingly opened with a mention not of the city which is to be attacked (as the u (see below p.O) started with the word "Ilium") but with the city u u the attack was mustered. One is not, however, to infer that Argos was a particular object of the poem's interests or sympathies (see below p.oo). Our quoted verse breaks off danglingly with the words "from which the lords"...but it is easy to infer some such immediate continuation as supplied above. The way in which the opening noun is later picked up by a relative clause is idiomatic for an epic proem: compare u("The Anger...which"), u ("The man... who") and see below p.oo on the first two lines of the u. The u seems to have explained how the expedition of the seven against Thebes came into being by referring to the famous curse which Oedipus invoked against his sons Polyneices and Eteocles. The two longest fragments from our epic provided motivations of this curse in two different (but not incompatible) ways F 2: - 27 - u u u. u u u u would not +du,+ ud ever u Later writers (especially the Attic tragedians) provided different explanations for the grounds, terms,and context of the old man's curse. In the second fragment of the u it seems that Oedipus' anger was roused by the unthinking way in which Polyneices (treated as the wicked and impious brother by most later writers) set before him objects which reminded him of his former prosperity and of the father whom he had unintentionally supplanted and killed. (Athenaeus, who quotes the fragment, adds that Oedipus had forbidden the goblet to be brought before him). Polyneices alone is mentioned as offender (perhaps our epic, like many later authors, regarded him as the elder brother) but both brothers are cursed. The Greek verb which tells us that Oedipus "perceived" the slight is no evidence for whether this epic depicted him as self-blinded or not. Scholars have expressed their disappointment at this passage as literature: the curse should have functioned as a hair-raising climax of horror (as its equivalent does in Sophocles O.C. 1370 ff.) Instead it is despatched in the matter-of-fact style characteristic of much of the Cycle,with clumsy repetition (a "fair" table and a "fair" wine-goblet; the Greek for "but" is used thrice in five lines). F3 mentions a different curse on a different occasion: - 28 - u u". u u. On this occasion it would seem Oedipus was expecting a more honourable portion of the sacrificed animal and was angered on receiving a (to him) relatively dishonourable part. Again the Greek verb for "noticed" implies nothing as to his blindness or lack of it. (An anonymous fragment of tragedy, quoted by the scholion which is our source for u F3, refers to Oedipus as u the offending portion (Tr.G.F. 2F 458.6f. Snell-Kannicht): perhaps this is below epic dignity). F3 is rather corrupt but even so it is another disappointing treatment of the curse-motif. The terse one-line speech by Oedipus is typical of the Cycle's cursory handling of u u, one of the great glories of the Homeric poems, and an effective means of characterisation in u and u. Here, by contrast, the result is paltry. Nevertheless, it looks as if, especially in view of the allusions to mutual slaughter, this curse was meant to be consequent to and more of a climax than that embodied in F2. Later authors give different accounts of how Oedipus' curse began to take effect on the brothers after his death. The most straightforward account has Eteocles expel Polyneices by force and thus seize power in Thebes. Other writers picture Polyneices as voluntarily departing from the city as part of an arrangement where (in a futile attempt to avoid the curse's fulfilment) the brothers would reign over Thebes in alternate years. Whatever the precise details, Polyneices traditionally arrives at the court of Adrastus in Argos, marries that king's daughter and persuades him to lend him his approval (and forces) for an assault upon Thebes. Authors give similarly differing lists of the famous "seven against Thebes" who constituted the leaders of this assault. The oldest account we have extant is in Aeschylus' play of that name (u 375 ff.) where they are - 29 - listed as Tydeus, Capaneus, Eteoclus, Hippomedon' Parthenopaeus, Amphiaraus and Polyneices. Aeschylus' tragedy is closest in time of the surviving sources to our epic, and the u' roll-call was probably much the same. In Aeschylus' tragedy and in the Attic tragedians generally the seven chieftains are invariably presented as frightening specimens of pride, brutality and hybris. So persistent and deep-rooted is this tradition that scholars have generally concluded that they were thus presented in some early and influential epic, to wit the u. If so, we will have indirect evidence for another interesting comparison between Homer and the Epic Cycle since the u complex sympathy for u Greeks u Trojans is well-known. The u, by contrast' seems to have portrayed the invaders from Argos as semi-monsters (with the exception of Amphiaraus: see below p.oo). Tydeus and Capaneus are traditionally the worst.(F 8 contains detail as to how Tydeus' father Oeneus won Tydeus' mother Periboea as a prize in the spoil following upon the sack of a city.) Capaneus is regularly portrayed, in art and literature as the archetypal instance of hybris, struck down by Zeus' thunderbolt as he boastfully scales the Theban battlements. If (what most scholars surmise) this detail derives from the u,we have a further contrast with Homer, in whose more urbane epic world Zeus nowhere intervenes so crudely and directly (nor do heroes so behave as to invite such drastic punishment). The Cyclic epics were different: a parallel to what is here inferred for the u occurs in the destruction of the impious Ajax at Athena's hands in the u (below p.oo). Several direct fragments have survived which specify the names and fates of some of the seven chieftains. F4 contains the not very exciting piece of information that the warrior who killed Parthenopaeus was called Periclymenus. F5 on the death of Tydeus is more interesting: Tydeus was wounded by Melanippus who in turn was killed by Amphiaraus. Amphiaraus then (for reasons we shall consider below (p.oo)) brought Melanippus' head to the Tydeus who vented his anger by gnawing at its brain. This repulsive act so appalled - 30 - Athena that she turned away in disgust though she had intended to bring him immortality. Tydeus, realising this, begged that she at least bestow it on his son . Athena's special patronage recalls several episodes in the u where exemplary references to Tydeus presupposes a similar relationship (see above p.oo) but in all other respects the episode is intensely unHomeric: no such grisly act of cannibalism is alldwable in the u, least of all in connection with Tydeus, allusions to whom are uniformly favourable Then again, for Homer the gap between mortals and immortals is crucial and unbridgable, a source of much of the us tragedy and pathos. Not even Zeus can bestow immortality upon a friend or favourite (cf. u.16.430 ff.)with the ease obviously presupposed in the u. Later accounts would suggest that the immortality envisaged took the form of a drug or potion, a common folk-tale motif stretching back to the Ancient Near East. Successful immortalisation of Diomedes seems implied by our fragment and such a tradition is represented by Ibycus fr. 293 P and Pindar u 10.7. F6 deals with the flight from the battlefield of the defeated leader of the seven' Adrastus: u. He alone of the seven survived to reach home. It seems that the poet of the u supplied some parenthetic detail about the parentage of Arion who was the offspring of Poseidon and an Erinys or Fury. Poseidon had metamorphosed himself into a horse and coupled with the Erinys in equine shape. The horse thus begotten was born and handed from Poseidon to the mortal Copreus and reached Adrastus via Heracles. The passage of a gift or possession from the gods through various mortal hands to its present owner is a frequent motif in epic (compare, for instance, the description of Agamemnon's sceptre in u.2.100 ff.) but again the fragment has a markedly unHomeric ring with its picture of divine shape-changing. The most obvious parallel is Chiron's metamorphosis in F 7 of the u (see above p.oo), but other Cyclic analogies could be cited (see below p.oo). - 31 - F 7 implies that when Pindar in u.6.15 ff. represents Adrastus as mourning the loss of Amphiaraus, skilled both as seer and warrior, he is somehow indebted to the u. A tradition mentioned explicitly only by later writers depicts Amphiaraus as able to foresee his own death should he participate in the Theban war. He therefore hid himself at home until Polyneices bribed his wife Eriphyle to reveal his whereabouts. As he set off for certain destruction Amphiaraus sternly enjoined his eldest son Alcmaeon to avenge him by killing his mother when he reached maturity. This "Setting out of Amphiaraus" became a popular scene in vase-painting. Some late sources mention a literary "Setting out of Amphiaraus" in a way which does not make it clear whether they are referring to a separate epic with this title or (as is more likely) an episode within the u itself (F 9). For this episode to have featured as significantly as seems to have been the case, the preceding sequence of hiding and exposure must have also featured. The unHomeric picture of a cowardly reluctance to go to war is best paralleled by the similar skulking of Odysseus in the u (see below p.oo). Apollod. 3.6.8 tells us that Amphiaraus hated Tydeus for having persuaded the Argives into the attack on Thebes which he knew (above p.oo) would cause his own death. Knowing also, by the same magic powers, that Athena intended to make Tydeus immortal he betrayed the latter into the disgusting act of retribution (above p.oo) which alienated the goddess. It is highly likely that this motivation derives from the u. After the defeat of the Theban assault,Amphiaraus fled the field and was swallowed up, together with his chariot and horses,by the earth. So say later sources, and they are surely echoing the lost u. Amphiaraus' end is appropriate: Greek popular belief often located seers beneath the earth. - 32 - u Familiarity with the story of the Sevens assault on Thebes may have dulled our awareness of just how unusual the framework of the tale is. Unlike most other accounts of the siege of a city, in particular that of the Trojan War, it deals with failure not success: the Seven's onslaught is frustrated, their army defeated, all the leaders bar one destroyed. It is hardly surprising' therefore, that the notion of a second, successful and avenging expedition against Thebes, arose at some time. This expedition is already presupposed at Il. 4.403 ff. Symmetry entailed that the leaders of this expedition be the offspring of those chieftains engaged in the earlier unsuccessful attempt: Diomedes son of Tydeus, Alcmaeon son of Amphiaraus and so on. The epic known as the u was therefore, in all likelihood, conceived as a deliberate continuation of the existing u (several analogies for epic poems of this sort could be cited). It too was at one period assigned to Homer, though our knowledge of this attribution stems from authors (especially Herodotus 4.32 = T 1) who themselves cast doubt on its plausibility (compare Herodotus' remarks on the authorship of the u (below p.oo)). We happen to possess the epic's opening line (F 1): u. The younger men are, of course, the Epigoni, the sons of the leaders of the abortive campaign. The plurality of Muses, as opposed to the singular goddess invoked at the openings of the u, u, and u (see above p.oo), is not at all significant or striking: early Greek poets refer interchangeably in such contexts to Muse or Muses without intending any particular point. Such poets likewise regularly use the Greek word for "now" when passing to a new subject, even at the start of a poem. And the word "again" is often used in invocations to the Muse(s), implying "inspire me - 33 - again, as you have so often done in the past" It need not here be alluding to a preceding poem (the u)to which the u is proclaiming itself sequel. We cannot be sure whether "let us begin" is an instance of plural for singular (the poet referring to himself), or whether it is a genuine plural including the poet u the Muses, a sort of combination of the invocation to the Muse of u u and u (F 1) with the "I sing" formula of the u u (F 1). There is no shortage of parallels for the latter hypothesis with its implicit picture of Muse(s) and poet collaborating over a song. As we saw with the first fragment of the u (above p.oo), it is idiomatic for an epic to state its theme initially and then elaborate the statement through a pendant relative clause ("The anger...which", "The man... who"). It has therefore been suggested that the second verse of the u will have contained a like relative ("The younger men... < who succeeded in capturing Thebes >" u u). We have regrettably few other fragments of the u and they do not touch on themes which will have been central to the poem. F 2 tells us that the Hyperboreans, a legendary race living, as their name suggests, to the far North, were mentioned in our poem, in what context we cannot guess. F 3 retails a detail about Manto the daughter of Tiresias (see below p.oo) who went to Delphi, married Rhacius of Mycenae, then repaired to Colophon where she lamented the sack of her native city and received the name Clarus because of her tears. The story exploited a familiar folk-tale motif, for Manto was instructed to marry whomever she encountered < coming out of the Delphic temple >. The whole episode is actually assigned by its source to the u but it begins with the statement that Manto was sent to Delphi by the Epigoni, so the attribution is likely to be a slip. - 34 - It is often assumed that the famous story of the Teumesian fox (an uncatchable creature) and Cephalus' hound (which nothing could escape) featured in the u (u): in fact its source assigns it to the authors of u (Theban stories) and says it comes from the Epic Cycle. So u (or even perhaps u) are equally plausible resting-places. The actual story was that when the inescapable met the uncatchable Zeus had to resolve the dilemma by changing both to stone: whatever the exact epic involved, the episode clearly exemplifies the Cycle's love of the magical and fantastic. It would be pleasant to know more about the u contents, and numerous traditions about the deeds of the sons of the Seven are preserved in Apollodorus and other late sources. But these traditions are divergent as well as numerous, and there are other early poems they might derive from. The epic known as the u (u.) dealt, as its very title indicates, with the career of Alcmaeon, the son of Amphiaraus pledged by his departing father to matricide (see above p.oo). The lyric poet Stesichorus wrote a long epic-like poem called u which must have embraced pretty much the same material. Sophocles composed a drama known as the u (u. 4 183 ff. Radt). The task of assigning the different strands of tradition found in later prose authors to these much earlier poets is both difficult and dangerous and cannot be attempted here. - 35 - u Antiquity assigned this poem either to Homer (TI-5) or to the Cypriot poet Stasinus (T7-11). The delightful story that the impoverished Homer gave the poem to his son-in-law Stasinus, as a substitute for a dowry for his daughter (cf. T1, 8), is probably a relatively late anecdote of a familiar kind, bringing together contemporary but differently aged practitioners of the same genre and intended to reconcile these alternative attributions. It is often alleged that the story dates back at least as far as Pindar, but the passage in question (T1) may only be evidence that Pindar assigned to Homer a word or phrase which later writers recognised in the text of the u. The linking of this to the dowry anecdote might be a later development. Herodotus 2.117 (T5 = F11) is the earliest extant writer to deny the u to Homer: this need signify no more than that he too believed it was the work of Stasinus. On the work's date see above p.oo. Why did the epic bear the title u? The most popular and convincing explanation (cf.T9) talks in terms of Stasinus' place of origin and compares the epic known as u (u pp.145 ff.) which has a name relating to the city where its author lived, rather than to its own content. This is so unusual a way of naming a poem that, from the seventeenth century at least onwards, some scholars have preferred to associate the title with Aphrodite, a goddess closely connected with Cyprus, whom we can infer to have played a major role in this poem. But that manner of devising a title for an epic has even less analogies than the first (with which compare also Thestorides of Phocaea's u (EGF p.153 As with so many poems of the Epic Cycle, the u main function, at least in its final stage (see p.00), would seem to have been to supply the background presupposed by the u and u. The numerous contradictions of those two epics' tone and ethos and the fewer - 36 - inconsistencies in points of tradition (cf. p.O below) need not tell against this interpretation of its purpose (see above p.OO). The need to supply details of all the multifarious events that occurred before the start of the u seems to have resulted in a work even more rambling (it amounted to 11 books), ramshackle and lacking in cohesion than the average, though a rather spurious unity was ingeniously imposed in F1: u u> the broad surface of the deep-bosomed earth. And Zeus, u u u u u u This fragment obviously occurred near the beginning of the poem, but there is no evidence that it constitutes the very opening lines and that the u dispensed with the normal epic exordium appealing to the Muse which is attested for the u and u as well as for the u (F 1:see p.O) and u the u (F1:p.O). The employment of the immemorial story-telling formula "once upon a time..." is very unlike Homer (who avoids this feature so redolent of folk-tale) as is the ingenious exploitation of the folk-tale motif in which the gods take alarm at the growing numbers of mankind and resolve to reduce them by causing a catastrophe. Ancient near-eastern analogies for this motif can be cited. The phrase "and the will of Zeus was accomplished" also occurs at the end of the u proem (u. 1.1-5) where it seems calculated to convey a rather complex effect, impressive but slightly mysterious, potentially reassuring but also potentially disturbing: Achilles' anger hurled down to the Underworld the mighty souls of many heroes, making their - 37 - corpses a prey to dogs and birds to feast on - and the will of Zeus was accomplished. One might compare, from a very different time and milieu, this from the end of a Serbian folk-ballad: "Thus the Tsar perished and with him all his soldiers, the seventy-seven thousand Serbs. And all that was holy and honourable and agreeable to God the Almighty'. We can see from the scholion on the Iliadic line which is our source for F1 of the u that the enigmatic nature of Homer's phrase caused controversy in antiquity, and was sometimes explained away by recourse to the identical phrase near the start of the u. There, by contrast, Zeus' will or plan was perfectly straightforward (to reduce the burden on the earth). In fact one could not ask for a clearer illustration of the difference in ethos between Homer and the Epic Cycle. Proclus tells us that Zeus deliberated with Themis as to the Trojan War. This was doubtless the immediate sequel to F1. The Iliadic scholion which is our source for that fragment prefaces it with a story in which the earth, burdened by the weight of mankind and oppressed by the prevailing impiety, directly appeals to Zeus. He first eliminates many mortals by bringing about the Theban War and then, on the advice of Momus, the personification of blame or fault-finding, causes the Trojan War by having Thetis marry a mortal and give birth to the beautiful Helen, the cause of the war at Troy. "The story is found in the u" the scholion concludes, and cites F1. Several scholars therefore infer that Momus and the rest of the account occurred in this epic. But this story, though similar to the background implied by F1, is clearly not perfectly compatible with it (our fragment leaves no room for an appeal by a personified Mother Earth or a Theban War as a preliminary stage of Zeus' plan; nor is Momus easy to fit in). The scholion's narrative must therefore have a different source to the u. Themis, goddess of righteousness, the first of the numerous - 38 - significant personifications in the poem, (see below pp.00 and 00) is an appropriate adviser to Zeus concerning his great plan to reduce mankind (more so than Momus in the alternative tradition). Her support confirms the rightness of the plan. Since Proclus next mentions the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, the result of Zeus' deliberations must have been precisely that marriage, and this is where F2 comes in. For this tells us that Thetis had gratified Hera by rejecting Zeus' earlier sexual advances. Zeus in anger swore that Thetis, a goddess, would be punished by marriage to a mortal. Hera, presumably, showed her gratitude to Thetis by ensuring that the mortal in question would be the greatest then living and (cf. I1.24.61, Hes. fr.211.3 MW) one particularly dear to the gods. The union, then, was "overdetermined" in a way familiar from early Greek literature: the relatively personal and trite motives of Zeus and Hera move in the same direction as the loftier and more universal "plan of Zeus". F3 informs us of one of the gifts brought by the gods to the wedding of Peleus and Thetis: Chiron, the beneficent centaur who had reared Peleus, presented him with a spear made by Athena and Hephaestus. This spear would later be wielded by Achilles, the offspring of the marriage. (Apollod. 3.15.5 adds that Poseidon gave Peleus the immortal horses Balios and Xanthus. This too may be from the u). But the event, we learn from Proclus, was marred by the arrival of Eris, a goddess personifying strife, who caused a quarrel about beauty between Athena, Hera and Aphrodite. If, as later writers state, Eris' malicious act was inspired by resentment at not receiving an invitation to the wedding, this episode too derives from a widelyspread folk-tale motif, the deity cheated of honour or sacrifice, who takes revenge (one thinks of the Wicked Fairy's intervention at Sleeping Beauty's christening, or Artemis' sending of the Calydonian Boar to punish Oeneus). It has been argued that Eris simply turned up in the u account; that she need not have thrown the famous apple inscribed "to the - 39 - fairest" which is only explicitly attested in late authors and may be a Hellenistic invention; and that the judgement of Paris need not entail Eris' apple, the apple first visible in several early artistic depictiona of the scene being explicable in a different way. This interpretation is both possible and much less natural. The judgement of Paris, to which (says Proclus) Hermes led the three goddesses on Zeus' instruction, is only once explicitly mentioned by Homer (u. 24. 14 ff.) but the u on several occasions implies it, even if reluctant for various reasons to give it overt prominence. It is an extremely popular episode in later literature and art. One cannot guess with any likelihood which of the numerous details as to Paris' behaviour and the goddesses' bribes found in these later sources derive from the u. We cannot even tell whether the poem parenthetically explained Paris' presence on Mt. Ida by the familiar tradition of his previous exposure and discovery by a shepherd, or whether this son of a king was watching his father's flocks as naturally as Aeneas, at a later stage in the same epic, guarded his family's cattle (below p. 00). We do know, however, that the epic contained a description of Aphrodite's adornment, treated in terms reminiscent of Hera's beautification in the Iliadic u (14. 166ff.), Aphrodite's own in the u to that deity (11.56ff.) and of the decking-out of Pandora in Hesiod's u u (11.60ff.). According to F4: u u u u u. u u - 40 - A slightly later stage of the narrative seems to be represented in F5: plaiting>u u u, u u... F4 in particular has been deemed rather vacuously ornamental in comparison with the other epic instances of the motif of a goddess' self- beautification: the list of flowers meanders confusingly and the repetition of the word for "flower" (u) three times in five lines does not display the archaic device of emphasis through duplication at its most elegant. Proclus tells us that Paris' verdict in favour of Aphrodite was elicited by her promise of union with Helen. Frr. 6 and 7 of the u deal respectively with the divergent destinies of the sons of Tyndareus and Leda: u u; and the pursuit of Helen's mother Nemesis by Zeus: u . Her once in the past fair-tressed Nemesis>u, u u u u u u u, u - 41 - u u u u. F6 might in theory have occurred in connection with any one of the numerous opportunities for mentioning the Dioscuri provided by the plot of the u. But clearly it best fits their first and earliest mention. F7 and its picture of Zeus' pursuit of Nemesis (with the ultimate purpose of begetting Helen) might be thought suitable for placing in the vicinity of Zeus' consultation with Themis as to his grand master-plan (above p.OO). But it opens with an indubitable reference to the Dioscuri, who are at best tangential to that plan; and the Greek word u ("once") used of the birth of Helen in 1.2, tells against direct narrative. A particularly plausible suggestion locates both frr. in the context of the judgement of Paris, perhaps in a speech made to Paris by Aphrodite (Proclus' summary proceeds to relate various items of advice and instruction given by the goddess, and Paris' visit to Greece where he is entertained first by the Dioscuri and then by Helen). Homer characteristically omits from his epics the tradition that Peleus, before he could wed Thetis, had to capture her by force, wrestling with her on the sea-shore and holding on to her despite her shape-changing. The poet of the u, though possessed by none of Homer's reluctance to include details redolent of folk-tale, seems likewise to have decided against incorporating this primeval detail within his poem: it would be at odds with his presumed picture (above p.00) of a Thetis u by Hera with Paleus as husband and therefore unable to complain or resist. Instead, he transferred the motif, from its original and apposite association with the sea-sprite Thetis, to a rather less obviously appropriate connection with Nemesis, the personification of retribution. - 42 - From F8 we learn what happened when Zeus finally caught up with Nemesis: the two coupled in the form of male and female goose, and Nemesis later produced an egg from which Helen was born. The idea that Zeus, disguised as a swan, mated with Leda who gave birth to the famous egg from which Helen (and the Dioscuri) emerged, is infinitely more familiar u: but its first explicit attestation is not until Euripides' u, and some would have it that it was Euripides who invented the story. The two versions are obviously closely linked, but it is not easy to say which came first and served as model for the other. A reconciling tradition, that Leda came across the egg and vicariously nurtured it and the children that emerged, is dateable quite early (it occurred in a poem by Sappho (fr.166 LP)), so it may be that the u replaced Leda with Nemesis in order to achieve further symbolic personification (compare above p. 00). Leda certainly seems to have featured in our epic as mother of Castor and Polydeuces. F6's picture of twins one immortal (because begotten by a god), one mortal (because begotten by a mortal) is another widely spread folk-tale motif which the u rejects (in 3.243f. they are both dead), and the mortal and immortal in the u case must have been Tyndareus and Zeus. As hinted above, Proclus tells how the judgement was followed by Paris' construction of ships on Aphrodite's advice. His brother Helenus prophesied the future; Aphrodite instructed that her son Aeneas sail with Paris; Paris' sister Cassandra in turn prophesied the future. This arrant reduplication has created some disillusionment and disgust either with the u repetitive poet or with Proclus as unreliable epitomiser. The episodes certainly have an unHomeric feel to them: Helanus and Cassandra are neither of them at all prominent in Homer's epics and when they are mentioned nothing is said of any prophetic powers (the raving prophetess is particularly alien to Homer's skilfully selective poetic world). But it must be said that in contrast to u and u (and like Vergil's - 43 - u) the u obviously laid great stress on oracles and prophecies (see be low pp. 00, 00 and 00). Paris (continues Proclus) sailed to Lacedaemon in Greece and was entertained first by the sons of Tyndareus and then by Menelaus in Sparta. Again the duplication is striking and may originally have had some point. A number of scholars have deduced from later sources that the banquet at which Castor and Polydeuces entertained Paris saw an ugly brawl break out between the Dioscuri and their cousins the sons of Aphareus, when the latter taunted the former over the unceremonious manner in which they had abducted Hilaeira and Phoebe (cousins of the sons of Aphareus) to be their brides. The two girls were certainly mentioned in the u (Fg). It would have been an economic device if some such brawl had given Paris the idea of abducting Helen and determined the Dioscuri on their later fatal theft of the cattle of the sons of Aphareus (below p.00) to serve as dowry for their brides. We also know that the u touched on Helen's earlier abduction (as a child) by Theseus, when her brothers the Dioscuri had been called on to rescue her (F12). That detail too could have had a thematic relevance. F10 tells us that, in contrast to Homer (who gave Helen and Menelaus only one child (Hermione) and Helen and Paris none) the poet of the u gave Helen and Menelaus a son Pleisthenes (who came with Helen to Cyprus on her flight) and Helen and Paris a son Aganus. Such proliferation of offspring characterises later epic as opposed to the severer world of Homer (see pp.00 and 00). In his poems Helen's beauty and aura of mystery cannot be diminished by the presence of a whole brood of off spring, the illegitimate liaison of Helen and Paris must be distinguished from a real marriage by its literal sterility; and the sheerly practical question of what to do with Helen's children by Paris after Troy has fallen can be totally sidestepped. - 44 - As regards Paris' entertainment at Sparta we learn from Proclus that Helen received gifts from Paris and that Menelaus on having to sail to Crete left his wife with instructions to entertain Paris and his retinue appropriately until they departed. The untimely call to Crete recurs in later authors, and the extra detail in Apollod. ep. 3.3 that Menelaus was required to attend his maternal grandfather's funeral probably derives from our epic. Menelaus instructions to Helen seem inept in view of the sequel. That Proclus' summary saw fit to mention so seemingly trivial a detail might suggest that the u stressed the perversity. At any rate, Aphrodite brought together Paris and Helen and after making love they sailed off at night taking a great deal of Menelaus' property with them (cf. u. 3.70ff. 91ff., 282ff. etc.). So says Proclus, who continues with the statement that Hera sent a storm which drove the erring couple to Sidon: Paris sacked the city and then sailed back off to Troy where he celebrated his marriage to Helen. This portion of Proclus' summary raises one of the most thorny problems concerning the u. For F11 (that is Herodotus 2.117) states by contrast that Paris took only three days to bring Helen from Greece to Troy because he enjoyed a favourable breeze and a calm sea. How explain the contradiction? Many scholars have resorted to the likelihood that Proclus' summaries have occasionally been adjusted to bring their details in to line with Homer's epics (see above p.0) but this does nothing to clarify the present difficulty, for the storm mentioned by Proclus does not feature in the relevant Homeric passages (u. 6.289ff., u. 4.227ff.). Herodotus' own summary of these lines is rather misleading (he implies that Homer says Paris was forced to put in at Sidon) and it may be that his well-known contrast of the u's calm voyage with the Iliadic scheme has (in over-simplified form) influenced Proclus' phrasing. Since the Dioscuri had intervened on an earlier occasion to rescue - 45 - Helen from abduction (F12), it was necessary to explain why they were powerless to help now and why they were absent from the Trojan expedition (cf. u.3.243f.). So Proclus observes that while Paris was bringing Helen to Troy, Castor and Polydeuces were detected by Idas and Lynceus the sons of Aphareus as they tried to rustle their cattle. The cattle-raid as heroic exploit is yet another popular folk-tale motif. A few lines of description from this part of the poem are preserved as F13: u u u