Cult Poetry in Archaic Greece [2012]

approaches to archaic greek poetry

edited by

Xavier riu and Jaume pòrtulas

orione

wriwn)dipartiMento di scienze dell’antichità Messina 2012

in copertina:particolare di una coppa attica (eretria, ca. 470-460). paris, Musée du louvre

volume pubblicato con il contributo dell’università degli studi di Messina

tutti i diritti riservati© 2012. dipartimento di scienze dell’antichità - università degli studi di Messina

distribuzione: dipartimento di scienze dell’antichità - Facoltà di lettere e Filosofiapolo dell’annunziata - università degli studi, i-98168 [email protected]

Fotocomposizione e stampa:Futura print service srl - Messina

isBn 978-88-8268-030-5

contents

Preface iX

antonio aloniCollane e cavalli. Tradizioni mitiche e colonizzazione 3

Maria cannatà FeraSisifo in Alceo 29

claude calameLa memoria poetica nei canti di Saffo:Performance musicale e creazione sociale 45

Fabienne BlaiseSolon entre Zeus et loup: un usage provocant des représentations et des formes poétiques traditionnelles(poème 36 W) 99

ewen BowieAn Early Chapter in the History of the theognidea 121

Jesús carruescoHelen’s Voice and Choral Mimesis from Homer to Stesichorus 149

lucia athanassakiRecreating the Emotional Experience of Contest and Victory Celebrations: Spectators and Celebrantsin Pindar’s Epinicians 173

Jaume pòrtulasCult Poetry in Archaic Greece 221

Xavier riuOn the Reception of Archilochus and of Invective Poetry in Antiquity 249

index of ancient sources 283

JauMe pòrtulas

cult poetry in archaic greece*

i. tynnichus of chalcis’ paean

in his De abstinentia, the neoplatonist philosopher porphyry re-counts an odd story about the great poet aeschylus, somehow con-fronted with tynnichus of chalcis, a specially obscure author.since this story vividly recalls some of the problems the presentpaper will deal with, i have found it appropriate to open with it.the passage in question goes as follows1:

to;n goun Aijscuvlon fasiv, twn Delfwn ajxiouvntwn eij" to;n qeo;ngravyai paiana, eijpein o{ti bevltista Tunnivcw/ pepoivhtai: para-ballovmenon de; to;n auJtou pro;" to;n ejkeivnou taujto;n peivsesqai toi"ajgavlmasin toi" kainoi" pro;" ta; ajrcaia.

they say that aeschylus on being asked by the delphians to write a poemfor apollo answered that tynnichus had already composed a most beauti-ful one: in comparison his would fare no better than modern statues by theside of ancient ones (trans. d. a. campbell).

about the composer of this extraordinary paean, tynnichus,whom aeschylus – an author whose modesty the ancients didn’tprecisely praise – considered so highly above his own possibilities,we moderns know absolutely nothing2. While ian rutherford

* i would like to thank prof. Maria cannatà Fera (università di Messina) for heraccessibility and her many kindnesses. i would also like to thank my friend JoanFarré Florensa, who has helped me with the english version of this text, and prof.victòria alsina-Keith (universitat pompeu Fabra, Barcelona). the suggestions ofthe two anonymous referees have helped me to express some points more clearlyand (i hope) with more precision.

1 porphyry, De abstinentia 2.18 = aeschylus Testim. 114 radt = pMg 707 page.2 Murray ad plat. Io. 534d: «nothing is known about him». Vide von BluMen-

thal, RE xviii 2, 1942, 2355 ff.; BreMer 1998, 520.

222 JauMe pòrtulas

(2001, 28) is willing to consider him a very ancient poet, perhapsfrom the seventh century Bc, other scholars prefer to date him asundoubtedly more recent. it doesn’t seem possible to side with oneopinion or the other. Without direct access to the original text, it ispointless to discuss whether the piece was a genuinely archaic po-em. the style of tynnichus’ paean, whether genuinely archaic orjust archaizing, must have surrounded it with that sacred, numinousatmosphere that the greeks used to recognize in their oldest xovana.indeed, the greeks knew well how to imitate the archaizing style,both in poetry and in sculpture3. as a matter of fact, it is not totallyimpossible that the whole story was a fabrication by plato (perhapspreserved in neo-platonist and platonizing milieus) aiming atproving a point dear to the philosopher, namely that poets knownothing at all since it is the deity who speaks through their mouth.a passage from Ion, the only other mention of tynnichus and hispaean that has reached us besides the passage quoted above, statesthe following (534d-e):

very strong evidence for what i say is provided by tynnichus of chalcis,who never composed any poem that anyone would think worth remem-bering except the paean that everyone sings [to;n de; paivwna o}n pavnte"a[/dousi], perhaps the most beautiful of all songs, and incontrovertibly, ashe says himself, «an invention of the Muses» [eu{rhmav ti Moisan] (trans.a. Barker).

For us, this mysterious tynnichus, whether he was a historical orsemi historical character, or basically the product of plato’s orsomeone else’s imagination, can count as a representative of a localpoetic tradition. perhaps it is unwise to ask ourselves what platomeans by the forceful expression to;n paivwna o}n pavnte" a[/dousi –an expression applied to a poem which, on the other hand, has leftno trace. in my opinion, plato’s words describe a compositionwhich, besides being perfectly adequate to the occasion of its orig-inal delphic performance, enjoyed considerable popularity inathens for a long time. i do not know whether this is enough to say

3 cfr. e.g. hurWit 1985, 15-32: ‘archaios’.

223cult poetry in archaic greece

that it had attained panhellenic status. i rather think not, although itwas eventually considered, locally, as being even above the possi-bilities of a great poet such as aeschylus of athens.

a story such as the one just mentioned makes us wonder whetherin many poetic and religious festivals of archaic greece the compo-sitions of ‘great poets’ coexisted with compositions of a more tradi-tional character, frequently anonymous or of contested or dubiousauthorship. By ‘great poets’ i mean simply those whose name hasreached us, along with fragments of their works – often insignifi-cant, but enough to provide them with certain textual consistency.the other compositions, traditional, anonymous or of contested au-thorship, would have probably been shorter and less complex andambitious than these ‘great’ poems.

one of the aims of this paper is to analyze several stories aboutpoets (archilochus, pindar, etc.) which share a number of traitswith the one about aeschylus and tynnichus just evoked. Most ofthese stories seem to follow (although with many variants) a recur-rent pattern that can be summarized in the following terms: eitheron his own initiative or as a result of an invitation, a famous andimportant poet (or one who will be so in the future) takes part in astrongly ritualized context (olympia, delphi, a local religious festi-val) with a composition of his own. this composition comes intoconflict (or is at least susceptible of doing so) with venerated localtraditions, often embodied by another previous composition deeplyingrained in the place. More than once, these small stories have –without damage to their air of verisimilitude – a fairly stereotypedcharacter. But it is not the alleged historicity of the stories that in-terests me now, but other, more general, questions.

ii. a Hymn to Heracles from archilochus of paros?

My second story presents a situation somewhat comparable,though not identical, to that of tynnichus and aeschylus weopened with. let us remember that in our first example a poet suchas aeschylus refused to compete against an older composition – by

224 JauMe pòrtulas

tynnichus, an author of uncertain date – in a delphic context. inthe following story, a famous ‘classical’ author (namely, pindar)contrasts his own composition with a traditional song (attributed toarchilochus of paros), in the setting of the celebration of anolympian victory. the story is alluded to in several lines fromOlympian ix, and mainly in its scholia. it is through these texts thatwe are acquainted with the existence of a traditional compositionthat used to accompany the victor’s triumphal kwmo" at olympia4.the ancients seem to have ascribed this composition (not withoutdoubts and controversies) to archilochus of paros; modern schol-ars tend to question this attribution. in this mevlo" they rather see ananonymous composition linked to the traditions of olympia. i willstart remembering the incipit of Olympian ix5:

To; me;n ∆Arcilovcou mevlo" fwnaen ∆Olumpiva/,

kallivniko" oJ triplovo" kecladwv" a[rkese Krovnion par∆ o[cqon aJgemoneusai kwmavzonti fivloi" ∆Efarmovstw/ su;n eJtaivroi".

the scholia provide a series of explanations and interesting anec-dotes (even though not convincing to everyone) about the exclama-tion thvnella kallivnike. it might be recalled that the form and ex-act wording of the alleged archilochean fragment, as well as its au-thenticity, have been subjected to severe criticism by archilochus’recent editors, Martin West particularly6. the question we are nowprimarily interested in is not the literal wording of this mevlo" (nor

4 cfr. grandolini 2001, 119-120: «pindaro, infatti, lo cita per contrapporlo al-l’Olimpica da lui composta per celebrare la vittoria di efarmosto, per contrappor-lo, cioè, ad un epinicio espressamente commissionato per una ben precisa occa-sione».

5 Olympian ix 1-4. translation by nisetich 1980, 125: «When the song ofarchilochos, | Handsome in triumph! filled the air | in triple refrain – it was atolympia, | and epharmostos led the way | with his friends singing around him…».cfr. also Ferrari 1998, 6, 156-157; gerBer 2002, 21-23.

6 cfr. West 1974, 138-139: «archilochus was held to have invented this becausea thvnella kallivnike appeared in a poem ascribed to him; or possibly, as von


its authorship), but the fact that someone sang it regularly atolympia in the course of the triumphal kwmo". the scholiasts’ ref-erences are not, however, free from contradictions. on the oneside, a scholion (ad Ol. ix 1f-g = i 267-268 drachmann) seems toimply that what was repeated during the kwmo" at olympia wasjust the famous refrain thvnella kallivnike:

kekravthken ou\n ejpi; pavntwn nikhfovrwn par∆ aujto;n to;n kairo;n th"nivkh" ejpav/desqai to; kovmma... e[qo" de; h\n kwmavzein th;n nivkhn eJspevra"toi" nikhfovroi" met∆ aujlhtou: mh; parovnto" de; aujlhtou ei|" twn eJ-taivrwn ajnakrouovmeno" e[lege: thvnella kallivnike

consequently it has been the practice for all winners to sing out the coi nageright at the moment of victory […] it was costumary for winners to cele-brate the victory in the evening with a piper. But if a piper was not present,one of the companions struck up the words ‘thvnella kallivnike’7.

several lines further, another scholion (i 268, 5-10 drachmann)clearly asserts that what accompanied the olympic victors was amevlo" trivstrofon attributed to archilochos. this mevlo" served‘by default’, so to speak, when there was not an ad hoc composi-tion with which to celebrate the victor of the moment8:

to; me;n ∆Arcilovcou mevlo", o} toi" nikwsi ta; ∆Oluvmpia ejphv/deto, h\ntrivstrofon, koinw" dunavmenon aJrmovzein ejpi; panto;" nikhfovrou dia;to; kata; th" pravxew" aujth" yilo;n e[cein to;n lovgon, mhvte de; o[nomamhvte ijdivwma ajgwnivsmato".

the song of archilochus, which was sung at olympia for the winners,consisted of three strophes and was able to suit every winner alike since it

sybel assumes, only a kallivnike. three made-up stories concern the circum-stances of his invention […] What we have before us, then, is a little song thatwould best be included with the carmina popularia…». lasserre 1958, 79 alreadyheld this opinion: «il n’est pas certain cependant que ce chant soit d’archiloque.des anciens déjà en doutaient. peut-être n’est ce qu’un hymne populaire…».

7 translation by gerBer 1999, 285. For kovmma, cfr. lsJ s.v. ii 3: «short clause ina sentence» (cic. Orat. 62.211; phld. Rh. i 165 s, etc.); defined as to; kwvloue[latton by demetr. Eloc. ix.

8 cfr. e.g. grandolini 2001, 120.

226 JauMe pòrtulas

did not mention the event or the name of the winner or the nature of thecontest… (transl. d. gerber).

in another scholion (usually quoted in connection with the previ-ous one) to Nemean iii (ad Nem. iii 1c 6-10 = 41, 16 ff. drach-mann) we find a similar piece of information explicitly ascribed toaristarchus:

oJ me;n ou\n ∆Arivstarcov" fhsin, h[toi to;n coro;n uJpo; to;n kairo;n th"nivkh" aujtoscevdiovn tina ejpivnikon a\/sai, h] to;n ∆Arcilovcou Kallivni-kon, ou| kai; to;n Pivndaron mnhmoneuvein dia; touvtwn: to; me;n ∆Arcilovcoumevlo" fwnaen, kai; ta; eJxh".

aristarchus says that either the chorus sang an improvised epinician at themoment of victory or the triumphal song of archilochus and that pindaralludes to the latter with these words… (transl. d. gerber).

M. l. West and other scholars who refuse to believe the informa-tion provided by the scholia base their arguments on the scholiasts’contradictions9. they come to the conclusion that ancient scholarsdid not have direct access to archilochus’ original mevlo", if such acomposition ever existed10. the ancients’ hypotheses would havebeen based on: 1. their own interpretation of the pindaric passage;2. a small number of archilochean compositions where the excla-mation thvnella kallivnike appeared (or even only kallivnike, assuggested by von sybel); and 3. several well known aristophaneanloci where this exclamation is used as a kind of ‘hip, hip,hooray!’11. But valerio casadio (1996, 68) has rightly emphasizedthat at least eratosthenes probably had a thorough enough (even

9 such contradictions are, of course, usual; in this case, they seem to be due toeratosthenes and aristarchus’s opposed authorities, as explicitly vindicated bydifferent scholia.

10 West 1974, 138-139; cfr. casadio 1996, 68 f.11 Acharnians 1227 ff.; Birds 1763 ff.; cfr. too Knights 276, Peace 180, etc. in

some of these passages, scholars don’t exclude a deliberate reference toarchilochus. as far as the Acharnians is concerned, it is possible that aristo-phanes parodied the entire olympian kwmo". cfr. casadio 1996, 69; soMMerstein

1980, 215.


possibly direct) knowledge of the archilochean song. in fact, er-atosthenes took the trouble to specify that it was a Hymn to Hera-cles, not an epinikion (cfr. i 268, 14 ff. drachmann)12; and appro-priately quoted its incipit:

∆Eratosqevnh" dev fhsi mh; ejpinivkion ei\nai, ajll∆ u{mnon eij" ÔHrakleva:[...] hJ de; ajrch; tou mevlou" ejstivn: w\ kallivnike caire a[nax ÔHravklee".

eratosthenes (Fgrhist 241 F 44) says that the song of archilochus is notan epinician but a hymn to heracles […] the beginning of the song is «w\kallivnike caire a[nax ÔHravklee"» (transl. d. gerber).

it is possible that the scholia merge things; it is even possible thatthey have confused this allegedly archilochean Hymn to Heracleswith a mere ejfuvmnion13. it remains clear, however, that eratos-thenes was convinced of the existence of a traditional hymn hon-ouring heracles; this hymn was, according to tradition, composedby archilochus of paros. to speculate on its content is obviouslyuncertain and risky14; however, some scholars, such as simpson(1969, 119-120) and casadio (1996, 70-71) put forward an inter-esting hypothesis. in vv. 30-35 of Olympian ix, pindar, as is wellknown, alludes to the tale of heracles’ fight with three divinities,poseidon, apollo and hades. it is an excursus whose (seemingly)limited relevance has puzzled many scholars15. could not this story

12 cfr. also grandolini 2001, 123, 124: «eratostene… lascia scorgere l’inten-zione di contrapporre la propria interpretazione basata sulla conoscenza diretta delcanto, ad una autoschediastica […] il motivo per cui eratostene respingeva la de-finizione di ‘epinicio’, nel caso del canto di archiloco, è facilmente ravvisabilenella mancanza della celebrazione del vincitore e nell’interesse completamenteconcentrato su eracle».

13 a scholion, in fact, says (i 268, 9-10 drachmann) ejfumnivw/ de; katecrwntotouvtw/: thvnella kallivnike. callimachus (fr. 384.39 pfeiffer) also seems to referonly to the ejfuvmnion.

14 sometimes, on the basis of an aristophanic scholium (Schol. ar. Aves 1762,p. 241 holwerda = ad arch. fr. spur. 324 West), it is assumed that this hymn relat-ed the fight between augeias and heracles and the hero’s triumph. But recent edi-tors of archilochus don’t accept the reading ‘augeias’ (a conjecture) in the text ofthe scholium.

15 For a discussion of the passage, vide e.g. Bernardini 1983, 126-137.

228 JauMe pòrtulas

be part of the Hymn to Heracles in question? since pindar believedin the archilochean authorship of the hymn, his refusal to creditthis almost blasphemous story could be part of his alleged hostilitytowards archilochus, as best illustrated by a famous passage fromPythian ii (vv. 54-56). at olympia this hymn was used to escort thevictor whenever a poetic composition ad hoc was lacking.

i insist i do not pretend to assert that ancient scholars (and scho-liasts who synthesized their teachings, probably distorting them)were necessarily right when they ascribed this composition toarchilochus. What interests me is the fact that a traditional compo-sition (not just a mere ejfuvmnion) of contested authorship, whichwas usually sung in the ritualized context of an olympic kwmo", isrelatively well documented. the question of the authorship of thismevlo" is less important for our present discussion. it seems quiteprobable that a traditional song was drawn, at a certain moment, to-wards the orbit of the productions of such an emblematic poet asarchilochus16.

iii. the difficult introduction of an archilochean song

despite the paucity of our knowledge of archilochean perfor-mances, we do not completely lack evidence that part of his poetryat least was indeed produced in a ritual context. i will now refer toone of the best known testimonies (even though of troublesome in-terpretation) in this sense – a passage from the Mnesiepes inscrip-tion17. the column iii of this famous inscription explains how

16 the fact that a mythical narrative of a certain lenght does not fit very wellwith the traditional image of archilochus’ production must have played a role inscholars’ reluctance to accept archilochean autorship for this hymn. however, af-ter the publication in 2005 of P.Oxy. 4708 (the ‘telephus elegy’), this considera-tion has lost much of its weight.

17 testim. 4 tarditi. the specific passage that interests us is e1 col. iii, ll. 17-50.editions of this text: tarditi 1968, 4-8; gerBer 1999, 22-25. discussions andanalyses: Miralles - pòrtulas 1983, 61-80; Berranger 1992, 175-185; suárez de

la torre 2002, 80-82; clay 2004, 10-27, and passim; ornaghi 2009, 133-179. in


archilochus improvised a song in the course of an eJorthv, a reli-gious celebration (cfr. line 17). c. W. Müller (1985, 123) assumesit referred to the same festivity in honour of artemis that the Mne-siepes inscription mentions in a previous passage (cfr. e e1 col. ii,ll. 53-54)18; but it could also refer to a celebration in honour ofdionysus, as privitera (1957, 95-110) suggested19. archilochus in-structed a chorus of citizens (cfr. ll. 21-22: tina;" twn p[olitwn …didavxanta), and organized the performance of some compositionof his, probably with the aid of his eJtairoi20. the fact thatthroughout the entire business archilochus adopted a role of lead-ership is clear from the participle didavxanta (l. 22), which is thenormal expression for referring to the task of instructing a cho-rus21. We would like to know something more about the specificmodalities of that performance. Was it a choral performance orrather a monodic song accompanied by the chorus of eJtairoi, whomight dance or sing the refrain, or whatever? the lines of the Mne-siepes inscription are too mutilated to clarify this point. Moreover,it is by no means easy to reconcile the aujto]scediavzein of line 20with the didavxanta of line 22. as for aujtoscediavzein, grandolini(2001, 126) asked: «Ma chi improvvisava? non certamente il coroche è in grado di cantare all’unisono solo ciò che ha imparato. nonresta, allora, che la possibilità di riferire scediavS ad archiloco…».

the following paragraphs, i limit myself to translating and summarizing pòrtulas

2008b, 215-244, spec. 223-237.18 suárez de la torre 2002, 81 agrees with this proposal.19 cfr. also grandolini 2001, 125: «Mentre infatti Müller pensa ad una festa per

artemide […] e ipotizza che in questa occasione archiloco abbia introdotto il cul-to fallico di dioniso, privitera, ritenendo l’operazione di archiloco postulata daMüller troppo complessa per essere verisimile, suppone che la sua novità consi-stesse nell’introduzione del ditirambo in una festa già dedicata a dioniso».

20 Fr. 251W = 219 tarditi. only a few words from this song are preserved. de-spite its desperately fragmentary state, we can still read the terms o[mfake~ (greenbunch), suka (figs, probably melicrav, sweet) and an epithet of dionysus, Oij-fovlio~, from the root oijf- that designates the sexual act. gerBer 1999, 249 com-ments concisely: «grapes and figs may be sexual metaphors, for young or smallbreasts and vaginas».

21 herington 1985, 183 ff.; calaMe 2001, 43-49; 72-73.

230 JauMe pòrtulas

as for the participle didavxanta, it causes this categorical (maybetoo categorical) comment by ieranò (1997, 169): «… l’iscrizione cioffre l’immagine di un archiloco che si comporta come un vero eproprio chorodidaskalos: egli avrebbe insegnato al coro dei pariiun canto da lui stesso composto». We are not sure whetherarchilochus sang his composition to his companions or with them.in any case, it seems very plausible that it was a cletic hymn (cfr.Müller 1985, 120 ff.), «con una ajnabolhv entonada por arquíloco,que provocó la reacción adversa de sus conciudadanos» (suárez dela torre, loc. cit.)22. in fact, someone – we do not know exactlywho, maybe the vox populi – found this composition ijambik-wvteron (= ‘too iambic’), whatever the exact meaning of this ex-pression, as ambiguous as it is controversial, might be23. theepisode had a number of negative consequences for the poet. Wedo not know exactly what they were, since the expression ejn teikrivsei (l. 42) is susceptible of more than one interpretation24. inthe end, according to the common narrative pattern of this kind ofstories, the poet’s fellow citizens make amends to archilochus andprobably institutionalized the performance of the controversialcomposition in the frame of a periodical celebration25.

archilochus is thus presented as someone who knows how to cel-ebrate the gods and as the founder of a new festival (or perhaps on-ly as the renovator of a traditional one). this reconstruction is insome points hypothetical; but such hypotheses have a fair degree ofverisimilitude. in any case, we are not at present interested in thefactual details of the story. More relevant for the present discussionis the fact that we are before the ai[tion of the instauration by

22 Vide suárez de la torre 2002, 81, 149, 186-7, nn. 71, 143, etc. (integratingthe contributions of Müller 1985, 99-151; ziMMerMann 1992, 19-23; csapo

1997, 253-295; ieranò 1997, 169, 176-178, and other scholars).23 see aloni 1981, 45-46; Miralles - pòrtulas 1983, 78; grandolini 2001,

125, 128; suárez de la torre 2002, 81. the discussion of ‘iambos’ by BroWn

1997, 13-42 develops the classic treatment by West 1974, 22-39.24 see Miralles - pòrtulas 1983, 78; suárez de la torre 2002, 81, etc.25 in the previous exposition i have tried to follow the general lines of the most

reliable reconstructions. nevertheless, many doubts still subsist.


archilochus of a new ritual song in the religious calendar of paros.the poet assumed a role of leadership in the performance of thisnew poem the community first labelled as ijambikwvteron.

iv. stesichorus or lamprocles?

My next example serves above all to illustrate how unimportantthe question of authorship could be before alexandrian scholarsfixed their attention on it. it deals with a hymn in honour of athena,of mainly local scope. We know of no specific cult that included it.in aristophanes’ Clouds (vv. 961 ff.), when the Lovgo~ Kreivttwnevokes the benefits of traditional education, it is remembered that inthe old good times children went to school even under a thick snow-fall, where «the music-master would teach them to learn a song byheart – a song like “pallas the terrible, sacker of cities”» (Pallavdapersevpolin deinavn)26. aristophanes does not mention any authorfor this poem – maybe because its author was well known or (moreprobably) because the question was of no interest either to him or tohis public. according to the scholiast ad loc. these words are the be-ginning of a song by phrynichus – a name that van leeuwen tried tocorrect as ‘stesichorus’. the scholion proceeds to say that, accord-ing to eratosthenes of cyrene (fr. 101 strecker), phrynichus alludedto this song, ascribing it to lamprocles. this information is usuallyinterpreted in the sense that phrynichus the comic parodied a songby lamprocles, an athenian poet about whom very little is known(and mainly from the same scholion). on his side, chamaeleon (fr.29a Wehrli) showed some interest in the exact diction of these lines,which he also ascribed to lamprocles. there is also a papyrus(P.Oxy. 1611 frs. 5 + 43) which partly amplifies and partly contra-dicts some of these bits of information. according to this «criticalwork of the third century» (as characterized by K. J. dover 1968,

26 Clouds 966-967. translation by soMMerstein 1982. this passage is discussedalso by herington 1985, 49, 236, but from quite a different point of view fromthat which now interests us.

232 JauMe pòrtulas

215), chamaeleon was one of those who wondered (diaporousin)whether the text in question belonged indeed to stesichorus or tolamprocles27. page’s Poetae Melici as well as dover’s commentaryto the Clouds try to get to the bottom of it28. the main issue (andnow i am trying to reduce the question to its essential traits) is aboutdistinguishing between two versions of the hymn in question, oneby stesichorus and the other by lamprocles; phrynichus wouldhave parodied lamprocles, and aristophanes, stesichorus. the latercommentators probably got confused. it could perfectly be so, but itis easy to sympathize with page’s closing remark: «e tanta testimo-niorum confusione veritatem extrahere non possumus». it is diffi-cult to reject the image of a traditional song, known by everyone,perhaps rich in variants29, which children sang while going toschool (and/or in other similar occasions), and which comical poetssuch as phrynichus (or aristophanes) could parody without worry-ing at all about whether it had been composed by stesichorus or bylamprocles. on the other hand, it is hardly necessary to insist thatstesichorus is a ‘zero degree’, so to speak, as far as the attribution ofthis sort of choral composition is concerned. his speaking-name al-most amounts to semi-anonymity.

the problems regarding the authorship of this kind of poetic textswere sometimes approached in terms that we moderns may find

27 We find the same question reflected in the scholia to aelius aristides (Or.46.162), who adduce yet other authorities, such as rufus (unknown dating) anddionysius of halicarnassos. it seems as if this controversial attribution had turnedinto a regular subject of erudite discussion. the brief mention by tzetzes (Chil.1.686) depends upon aristides and his scholia.

28 Vide also caMpBell 1991, 184-187 = caMpBell 1992, 320-323; guidorizzi

1996, 300.29 one referee points out to me that «the aristophanic scholium per se does not

allow us to draw any inference about possible ‘variants’». this is right: the ancientscholars, as usual, are looking for a single author (lamprocles, stesichorus orwhoever) for a single composition. the (possible) plurality of authors (or ver-sions) is a hypothesis of modern criticism, trying to account for the confusion ofthe sources. on the other hand, whether the song athenian children sang had afixed or fluctuating text is here unimportant. given the context and the transmis-sion, it seems plausible that it was a fairly fluctuating text; but this doesn’t affectthe present discussion.


quite paradoxical. the importance of the author is very great in-deed, since he is already beginning to be considered as the source,the origin of the song. this, however, does not imply that the au-thor is always ‘real’ – that is, real in our sense. pseudoepigraphaunder a glorious name can count much more than a composition byan insufficiently famous author. this is where the ‘invention’ of au-thors about whom we don’t know anything as well as the vast phe-nomenon of false attributions must have originated30.

v. pindar ‘sacrifices’ a paean at delphi

My last story also has to do with pindar. among pindar’sajpofqevgmata in drachmann’s edition of the scholia, one can readthis dictum (i 3, 18-19 drachmann): paragenovmeno" de; eij"Delfou;", kai; ejrwtwvmeno" tiv pavresti quvswn, ei\pe paiana(«pindar had just arrived at delphi and they asked him: “What doyou bring to sacrifice?”; and he answered: “a paean”»). eustathiusof thessalonica’s ‘preface’ to pindar (iii 302, 13-16 drachmann)repeats the same answer and then tries to find some explanation:paiana ei\pe, mononouci; levgwn ejk twn ejllogivmwn ajndrwn qu -sivan ei\nai lovgou" tw/ kreivttoni («a paean, he answered. thatwould be a way of saying that to the prince of eloquence wordsmean sacrifice»).

due to their simultaneously apodictic and enigmatic character,these words have been the object of diverse exegeses31. What mostinterests us now is the near identification between pindar’s inter-ventions at delphi and the religious act par excellence, the sacri-

30 ‘invention’, indeed, is probably the adequate term for the process that provid-ed the old songs about troy with a personal author. cfr. West 1999, 364-382;graziosi 2002, passim; pòrtulas 2008a, 305-432, sp. 421-425. on the pseu-doepigrapha in greek and latin literatures see, for example, the papers in the vol-ume edited by cerri 2000.

31 Jesper svenbro, for example, took them as a starting point for his reflectionson the role of sacrificial language in the beginnings of greek poetics (svenBro

1988, 231-252).

234 JauMe pòrtulas

fice. in my opinion, the anecdote and the dictum have to be read inthe light of the doctrine on the gift (dwron) and the counter-gift itdemands. Just as the athletic deed – that «ritualized sacrifice ofphysical energy», to use sansone’s impressive expression32 –claims the counterpart of a song, pindar’s intervention at delphi, asmaster of the chorus that performed the paean, established betweenthe god and the poet a relation of cavri" not very different to that ofthe sacrificial do ut des33.

on the other hand, one can try to link pindar’s saying to a muchdiscussed passage from the incipit of Paean vi (vv. 8-11)34:

yovfon aji>w;n Kastaliva" ojrfano;n ajndrwn coreuvsio" h\lqon e[tai" ajmacanivan aj/[l]evxwn

teoisin ejmai" te tim/[a]i"...

… hearing the sound of castalias’ water bereft of the dancing of men, ihave come to ward off helplessness from your townsmen and my privi-leges.

as is well known, the contexts of composition and performanceof Paean vi had raised complicated discussions. We will not nowsummarize them35. From pindar’s own words, however, we cangather that the poet proclaims that, perhaps as a result of an unusu-al situation, his task of choregos assumes a character of substitu-tion: the sacred place was «bereft of the dancing of men». let usleave aside who or what was missing (if something was missing in-deed), and whether this situation of lack was not rather a mere con-vention of the choral genre36. We shall also ignore the exact nature

32 cfr. sansone 1988, 75.33 i am not concerned here with the antiquity of the anecdote and the saying –

whether they go back to pindar’s times or not, their factual truthfulness, etc.34 translation by rutherFord 2001, 305.35 Vide e.g. radt 1958, 83-84; 109-116; hoeKstra 1977, 181-191; svenBro (cfr.

n. 31); rutherFord 2001, 306 ff.36 cfr. rutherFord 2001, 305: «… this… seems to be a periphrastic expression

for the thought that he realized that delphi needed a chorus».


of the timaiv the poet and/or his chorus have come to vindicate37.We have here a traditional situation: the requirement to sing apaean at delphi in a specific circumstance; and a poet who, eithersummoned by someone or spontaneously, arrives just in time toprovide for this necessity and to avoid a crisis. if we relate theseverses to the apophthegma, we can assert that, in the tradition pin-dar belongs to, the task of providing a song to make up for a hypo-thetical lack at the delphic festival is even comparable to the cele-bration of the ritual act par excellence, the sacrifice.

vi. cult songs in ancient greece

i would like to devote the last part of this paper to posing certaintheoretical and methodological questions which can help situatethe tales which we have remembered up to now in a more generalcontext. there is no need to emphasize the regular and constantlinks between archaic greek poetry and cult. Most poetic composi-tions from the archaic period, from alcman’s parthenia to si-monides’ or pindar’s paeans, through sappho’s hymns and epithal-amia, are solidly anchored in ritual. as Bruno gentili (1989, 48 n.9) pointed out, archaic poets do not doubt when designating a poet-ic ei\do" (prosodic, daphnephoric, oscophoric, etc.), «quando daltesto considerato affiorano notizie specifiche sulle celebrazioni,sulle feste, sulle modalità rituali, sul tipo di processione, sulla com-posizione del coro, ecc.»38. But modern philologists have some-times tried to distinguish between more properly ‘cultual’ or ‘litur-gical’ poetry39 and agonistic or ‘authorial’ poetry. J. M. Bremer(1981, 204), for example, refers to «what we could call […] a litur-

37 cfr. however rutherFord 2001, 308 n. 9, 309: «i follow radt in taking timaivto refer to particular privileges (as the plural generally seems to do in pindar)…radt argues that the timaiv are concrete privileges enjoyed by pindar at delphi[…] such honours are attested in certain late sources».

38 Vide also Bernardini 1993, 85.39 these terms, especially the latter, are admittedly not very adequate.

236 JauMe pòrtulas

gical text» (my italics). the question is also related to the problemssurrounding religious hymnology. in the ‘introduction’ to a volumeof studies on hymnal poetry in greece as well as in other ancienttraditions, giovanni cerri (1993, 7) wrote, some years ago:

l’inno, cioè il canto o comunque il discorso rivolto alla divinità per cele-brarla e per implorare la sua benevolenza verso gli uomini, si tratti di indi-vidui singoli o di intere collettività, è un’istituzione basilare di tutte le cul-ture antiche. struttura portante del rito religioso, è anche una delle formefondamentali in cui s’atteggia la produzione poetica e letteraria. di conse-guenza, tra inno propriamente cultuale ed inno poetico-letterario si istitui-sce una trama delicata di rapporti…

in the same volume, a. gostoli (1993, 96) talks about «l’inno ier-atico-cerimoniale» as something «legato per lo più ad un preciso ri-tuale religioso»40. it would be easy to multiply this kind of refer-ences41. on the other hand, it is undeniable that one can expressreservations on the point of drawing too sharp a distinction be-tween ‘cultic poetry’ and ‘agonistic’ or ‘literary’ poetry in ancientgreece. after all – one can surmise – a paean by pindar is no less acultic testimony than a paean composed by an unknown, obscureor ‘traditional’ author (like tynnichus or lamprocles which we dis-cussed above).

part of the problem, of course, lies in the fact that such uncom-fortable expressions as liturgical or cultual poetry are not exactlycharacterized by a high degree of precision. in this field, it is noteasy to solve the question by resorting to the terminology used bythe ancients. their terms are also often vague and imprecise. We

40 in a close field, that of the historical evolution of the dithyramb, a distinctionbetween ‘ceremonial’ (not for competition) and ‘agonistic’ dithyramb had beensometimes attempted (vide e.g. harvey 1955, 157-175, partic. 172-3; longoni

1976, 305-308; cfr. also ieranò 1997, 326-328). But the practical functionality oftoo strict a distinction of this kind had been denied by garcía roMero 2000, 54-57 and others.

41 Vide, for example, BreMer 1981, 193: «some prayers were also sung in theparticipation of cultic performances by either the entire community or by a chorusof performers. this type of prayer i call ‘hymns’ […] a ‘hymn’ is a sung prayer».concerning the notion of ‘cult song’, vide e.g. KoWalzig 2007, 6-7.


can take as an example the case of u{mno" itself. it is well knownthat this term is often generic and unmarked. the degree of preci-sion it ultimately acquired was attained in the course of a long andcomplex history. i will simply transcribe the beginning of the entry‘Hymn (Greek)’ in the third edition of the ocd42:

‘hymn’ is a simple transliteration of a greek word; but the relation ofgreek to english hymns is not at all simple. u{mno" has at least three mean-ings: i. a song of any kind; ii. any song in honour of a god. iii. a particulartype of song in honour of a god. use i., the first attested, is standard in ar-chaic poetry; ii. would perhaps have been judged normal by a greek ofthe classical period; iii. distinguishes the hymn from other forms of songsin honour of gods, such as paean, the prosodion (processional) and the“proem”, which would all count as u{mnoi by use ii43.

such semantic fluctuations are not particularly encouragingwhen trying to make use of an ancient term and its possible heuris-tic value. all in all, one could suspect that, when trying too drasti-cally to distinguish between a ‘ritual’ and a ‘literary’ or ‘author’s’song, we are applying categories that are not adapted to religiousand social realities of the archaic age. We introduce modern,anachronistic categories and distinctions into the debate.

nevertheless, it is difficult not to try to draw some sort of distinc-tion between fragments by poets such as alcman, stesichorus orpindar, on the one hand, and the meagre remains and references thathave reached us from, say, Musaeus, orpheus, olen of lycia, arionof Methymna, etcetera, on the other44. it will always be possible to

42 parKer 1996, 735-736. see also Furley 1995, 31: «there is, and was in antiq-uity, some confusion as to what, precisely, a ‘hymn’ was…»; Furley - BreMer

2001, 1-40; also Wünsch 1916, etcetera. 43 pulleyn 1997, 43-4 elaborates this tripartite distinction. From our point of

view, it is important to emphasize his assertion that «the second sense is the com-monest in classical greek»; and that the difference between the second and thethird sense «might be due to the passage of time». as to pulleyn’s criticism of J.M. Bremer’s (1981, 193) definition of hymn as «a sung prayer», see infra p. 239and n. 49.

44 the distinctive features of a singer such as arion seem hardly reducible to themajority of archaic singers’ general characteristics.

238 JauMe pòrtulas

say that the great majority of the latter’s vestiges – maybe all ofthem – are spurious and produced in a later period. such an answerperhaps clears the question in strict philological terms; but it cannotresolve all the connected historical and religious questions. Many ofthese compositions, even if they are spurious, seem to replace othermore ancient, and probably more genuine, songs. even if thingswere not like that at all (or not like that in all cases), this is probablyhow the ancients themselves saw the question. it goes without say-ing that the image the ancients had of their archaic poetry was byno means exact, and that it does not always coincide with the imagemodern philology, with all its implements, has built. however, theimage forged by the ancients is, at least in my opinion, far from ir-relevant45. a central feature of this image lies in the opposition be-tween an ‘original poet’ like homer and a different kind of ‘origi-nal poet’ like orpheus. the hypothesis that such a difference comespartly from a tight connection of these less known figures with spe-cific religious and cultual contexts does not seem senseless46.

in the following paragraphs, i will try not to draw a clear-cut dis-tinction between ‘cultic’ and ‘literary’ poetry (something anachro-nistic, as i have already said) but to point out a number of differen-tial features between different compositions which may have a clos-er or looser relation with a ritual context. it is understood that theywill be differences in degree rather than absolute differences47.A. contrary to what happens with the majority of archaic choral

compositions, cult poetry (and, more specifically, liturgical hymns)does not seem to have originated in an agonistic context. this is asomewhat surprising feature. according to Bremer and Furley, thereligious purpose of the genre would have made it recommendablefor it to be removed from the hazards, vanities and polemics of hu-

45 Vide e.g. pòrtulas 2000, 289-312.46a clear example could be the link of Musaeus with the eleusinian mysteries.

on the poetry ascribed to Musaeus and its eleusinian context see graF 1974.47 Vide Furley 1995, 29-46; BreMer 1998, 513-524 and spec. Furley - BreMer

2001, 1-40, with the review by FaulKner 2002. here i will try to combine the re-marks of Bremer and Furley with some observations from the preceding pages.cfr. also BurKert 1994, 9-18.


man contests. in my opinion, however, the absence of links betweencultual poetry and agonistic practices is partly due to the scarcity ofdocuments and by the lateness of the ones that have reached us48.B. J. M. Bremer (1981, 193) emphasizes that the cultual hymns

are specific forms of a wider religious phenomenon, the prayer49. itis therefore natural that one of his main objectives should be to cre-ate a relation of cavri" between the gods and their devotees – cavri"in all the senses of this key word50. in this area, the differences be-tween ritual and agonistic or ‘literary’ poetry seem to lie in the pro-cedures used rather than in their objectives. in order to propitiatethe god, cultic poetry (specially of a hymnic character) constantlymakes use of the adequate epicleseis and reminds the god of thecults in which he is worshipped, of his power and his attributes,and so on. ‘literary’ poetry, in contrast, tends specially to evokethe myths of gods and men. When cultic poetry does this, it is notusually the pleasure or edification of the audience that is being pur-sued, but the satisfaction of the god himself. it is obvious, however,that this distinction is, at least in many cases, quite imprecise andsubjective.C. it has been insisted upon that cult songs (and particularly reli-

gious hymnology) correspond to the tenacious localism of manygreek cults, whereas, at the same time, ‘great’ poetry was achiev-ing a panhellenic status51.

48 the hymn composers of mythic times (chrysothemis, philammon, etc.) tookpart in contests. cfr., e.g., pausanias 10.7.2; and Weir sMyth 1963, xxx.

49 pulleyn 1997, 44 ff. strongly criticises Bremer’s (and others’) statement thatprayer and hymn, at least up to a point, can be identified. Bremer derives this ideamostly from certain passages of plato’s Laws, such as 700ab and 801a. it is unde-niable that in both passages plato more or less subconsciously identifies hymnsand prayers. But what he says in other passages is quite different, and pulleynrightly emphasizes that these definitions by plato should not be taken at face val-ue. technically, prayer is a speech-act; hymn a mode of performing a speech act.cfr. also Willi 2003, 13-15.

50 For the concept of cavri", see Mclachlan 1993. For the establishment of arelation of cavri" between man and god as an essential priority of the u{mno", seerace 1982, 5-14.

51 cfr. specially BreMer 1998, 514, and passim.

240 JauMe pòrtulas

D. the anecdotes we have gathered on the seizure (and/or recre-ation) of traditional religious occasions by a ‘great poet’ tend toemphasize his role as ‘author’, and as opposed to the epichoric po-et. But, in so doing, poets continue to use religious language to re-fer to their own compositions; they consider them as a kind ofa[galma offered to the divinity.E. the occasions renewed by panhellenic poets in more than one

case seem to have become traditional again under a new format. F. the prestige that surrounded the names of mythical hymnolo-

gysts (an orpheus, a Musaeus, etcetera) did not favour, contrary towhat might be expected a priori, a higher degree of fixity in thetexts ascribed to them; rather the opposite. this very prestige con-stituted an almost irresistible invitation to manipulate the texts;and, still more drastically, to produce pseudoepigrapha. that mightseem contradictory, but only at first sight. the ideal author of theapocryphal hymns may always bear the same name (Musaeus, or-pheus, etc.), but his texts, if we may call them so, did not enjoy aminimal degree of fixity. this situation stands in sharp contrastwith the status of songs by poets such as archilochus, alcman, al-caeus – not to mention simonides and pindar.G. the ancients used to think that, in many cases, a new song

suited the cultic circumstances better than the repetition of a tradi-tional song (which on other occasions was almost de rigueur). thewill to renew the liturgical material must have led to an ephemeralas well as copious production from the hellenistic period on-wards52. this explains (partially, at least) the usually mediocrequality that seems to have characterized this type of poetry after thehellenistic period – or that is, at least, what can be deduced fromthe majority of texts that have reached us.

52 BreMer 1981, 200; 1998, 520 and n. 24. Bremer even rescues, from an in-scription of laodicea on the lycus (igr iv 1587), the «fascinating title» of‘hymnographer for life’ (uJmnogravfou dia; bivou), on the city’s account. the per-son thus designated may have been the author of a discouragingly abundant pro-duction.


vii. conclusion

the above considerations should be incorporated into a moregeneral reflection on the role greek poets of the archaic age playedin the evolution of greek religion itself. it is not easy for us, mod-erns, to approach this complex subject adequately. as herodotusexplained in a famous and often quoted page (2.53)53, by providingthe gods with a recognizable physiognomy – and by doing so ontheir own account, rather than as deputies of a superior authority –greek poets decisively contributed to the consolidation of anthro-pomorphic polytheism. the truth of a polytheistic religion is basedon its myths. the stories we have been trying to analyze generallyportray a ‘great’ poet (or future great poet) interacting with localcultic occasions. these occasions may or may not be representedby local poetic figures or by the venerable traditions of epichoricpoetry. Within this frame, the panhellenic poet authoritatively as-serts himself, forges the tradition, takes possession of it, transformsit, passes it off as his own voice... dario sabbatucci, an italianscholar who studied polytheistic systems, noticed that, unlike whatcan be observed in ancient eastern traditions, the greeks were notsatisfied with a deliberately impersonal religious poetry, but felt adeep need for an author/auctor, in the sense we have just com -mented54. From this viewpoint, greek poetry does not look back onthe past but towards the future.

53 «[hesiod and homer…] created a theogony for the greeks. they gave namesto the gods, decided what their special skills were and what honours they shouldbe given, and described their appearance…» translation by W. Blanco (new york1992).

54 cfr. saBBatucci 1998, i 205: «la poesia anonima mesopotamica e la poesiad’autore greca sono in funzione della rappresentazione degli dèi; la poesia greca ela nostra poesia sono espressioni sublimi di uomini dotati di pathos e fantasia.dunque: i greci hanno aggiunto qualcosa ai Mesopotamici; noi abbiamo toltoqualcosa ai greci…». cfr. also saMonà 1984, 119 ff.

reFerences

aloni 1981: a. aloni, Le Muse di Archiloco. Ricerche sullo stile archilo-cheo, Museum tusculanum press, copenhagen 1981.

BarKer 1984: a. BarKer, Greek Musical Writings I. The Musician andhis Art, cambridge university press, cambridge 1984.

Bernardini 1983: p. a. Bernardini, Mito e attualità nelle odi di Pindaro.La Nemea IV, l’Olimpica IX, l’Olimpica VII, edizioni dell’ateneo, ro-ma 1983.

Bernardini 1993: p. a. Bernardini, «l’inno agli dei nella lirica coralegreca e la sua destinazione sacrale», in cassio - cerri 1993, 85-94.

Berranger 1992: d. Berranger, Archiloque et la rencontre des Muses àParos, revue des études anciennes 94, 1992, 175-185.

BluMenthal 1942: a. von BluMenthal, «paian», Realenzyklopädie derAltertumswissenschaft, 18, 2, 1942, cols. 2340-2362.

Bossi 1990: F. Bossi, Studi su Archiloco, adriatica editrice, Bari 1990.

BreMer 1981: J. M. BreMer, «greek hymns», in versnel 1981b, 193-215.

BreMer 1998: J. M. BreMer, Greek Cultic Poetry: Some Ideas behind aForthcoming Edition, Mnemosyne 51, 1998, 513-524.

BroWn 1997: c. g. BroWn, «iambos», in d. e. gerBer (ed.), A Compan-ion to the Greek Lyric Poets, Brill, leiden-new york-Köln, 1997, 11-88.

BurKert 1994: W. BurKert, «greek hymns», in W. BurKert, F. stolz

(eds.), Hymnen der Alten Welt im Kulturvergleich, vandenhoeck & ru-precht, göttingen 1994, 9-18.

calaMe 1977: c. calaMe (ed.), Rito e poesia corale in Grecia. Guida sto-rica e critica, laterza, roma - Bari 1977.

calaMe 1996: c. calaMe, «Feste, riti e forme poetiche», in s. settis

(ed.), I Greci. 2. Una Storia greca. i. Formazione (fino al VI secolo aC),ei naudi, torino 1996, 470-496.

calaMe 2001: c. calaMe, Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece.


Their Morphology, Religious Role, and Social Functions, new andrevised edition, rowman & littlefield, lanham - Boulder - oxford2001.

caMpBell 1991-1992: d. a. caMpBell. Greek Lyric III. Stesichorus, Iby-cus, Simonides, and Others. IV. Bacchylides, Corinna and Others. edi-ted and translated by d. a. c., harvard university press [loeb classi-cal library 476, 461], cambridge Ma 1991, 1992.

casadio 1996: v. casadio, I ‘dubbi’ di Archiloco, pacini editore, pisa1996.

cassio - cerri 1993: a. c. cassio - g. cerri (eds.), L’inno tra rituale eletteratura nel mondo antico, aion. annali dell’istituto universitarioorientale di napoli, gei, roma 1993.

càssola 1975: F. càssola, Inni Omerici. a cura di F. c., Fondazione lo-renzo valla/arnoldo Mondadori editore, Milano 1975.

cerri 1993: g. cerri, «apertura dei lavori», in cassio - cerri 1993, 7-11.

cerri (ed.) 2000: g. cerri, La letteratura pseudepigrafa nella culturagreca e romana, atti di un incontro di studi. napoli 15-17 gennaio1998. annali dell’istituto universitario orientale di napoli, napoli2000.

clay 2004: d. clay, Archilochos Heros. The Cults of Poets in the GreekPolis, center for hellenic studies/harvard university press, Washing-ton - cambridge Ma 2004.

csapo 1997: e. csapo, Riding the Phallus for Dionysus: Iconology, Ritualand Gender-Role (De)construction, phoenix 51, 1997, 253-295.

depeW 2000: M. depeW «enacted and representated dedications: genreand greek hymn», in M. depeW, d. oBBinK (eds.), Matrices of Genre.Authors, Canons and Society, harvard university press, cambridgeMa - london 2000, 59-79.

dover 1968: K. J. dover, Aristophanes. Clouds. edited with introductionand commentary by K. J. d., clarendon press, oxford 1968.

drachMann 1903-1927: a. B. drachMann, Scholia vetera in Pindaricarmina. recensuit a. B. d., teubner, leipzig 1903-1927 (reprinthakkert, amsterdam 1966-1969).

FaulKner 2002: a. FaulKner, review of Furley - BreMer 2002, BrynMawr classical review 2002.05.36.

244 JauMe pòrtulas

Ferrari 1998: F. Ferrari (ed.), Pindaro. Olimpiche. introduzione, tradu-zione e note di F. F., Bur, Milano 1998.

Furley 1993: W. d. Furley, Types of Greek Hymns, eos 81, 1993, 21-41.

Furley 1995: W. d. Furley, Praise and Persuasion in Greek Hymns,Journal of hellenic studies 115, 1995, 29-46.

Furley - BreMer 2001: W. d. Furley, J. M. BreMer, Greek Hymns (2vols.), Mohr siebeck, tübingen 2001.

garcía roMero 2000: F. garcía roMero, «the dithyrambs of Bac-chylides: their position in the evolution of the genre», in a. Bagordo,B. ziMMerMann (eds.), Bakchylides. 100 Jahre nach seiner Wiederent-deckung, verlag c. h. Beck [Zetemata, heft 106], München 2000, 47-57.

gentili 1995: B. gentili, Poesia e pubblico nella Grecia antica, laterza,roma - Bari 19953 (1a ed. 1984).

gerBer 1999: d.e. gerBer, Greek Iambic Poetry. From the Seventh to theFifth Centuries BC. ed. & transl. by d. e. g., harvard university press[loeb classical library 259], cambridge Ma 1999.

gerBer 2002: d.e. gerBer, A Commentary on Pindar Olympian Nine,Franz steiner verlag [hermes - einzelschriften 87], stuttgart 2002.

gostoli 1993: a. gostoli, «l’inno nella citarodia greca arcaica», in cas-sio - cerri 1993, 95-105.

graF 1974: F. graF, Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung Athens in vor-hellenistischer Zeit, Walter de gruyter, Berlin 1974.

grandolini 2001: s. grandolini, «archiloco poeta lirico», in M. can-natà Fera - g. B. d’alessio (eds.), I lirici greci. Forme della comuni-cazione e storia del testo, di. sc. a. M., Messina 2001, 117-133.

graziosi 2002: B. graziosi, Inventing Homer. The Early Reception ofEpic, cambridge university press, cambridge 2002.

guidorizzi 1996: g. guidorizzi, Aristofane. Le nuvole. a cura di g. g.,introduzione e traduzione di d. del corno, Fondazione lorenzo valla /arnoldo Mondadori editore, Milano 1996.

harvey 1955: a. e. harvey, The Classification of Greek Lyric Poetry,classical Quarterly 5, 1955, 157-175.

herington 1985: J. herington, Poetry into Drama. Early Tragedy and theGreek Poetic Tradition, university of california press, Berkeley 1985.


hoeKstra 1977: a. hoeKstra, «l’assenza degli egineti – sull’interpreta-zione del sesto peana di pindaro», in calaMe 1977, 181-191; 222-23(1st. edition, Mnemosyne 4, 1962, 1-14).

hurWit 1985: J.M. hurWit, The Art and Culture of Early Greece 1100-480 BC, cornell university press, ithaca - london 1985.

ieranò 1997: g. ieranò, Il ditirambo di Dioniso. Le testimonianze anti-che, iepi, pisa - roma 1997.

KoWalzig 2007: B. KoWalzig, Singing for the Gods. Performances ofMyth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece, oxford universitypress, oxford 2007.

lehnus 1979: l. lehnus, L’Inno a Pan di Pindaro, cisalpino-goliardica,Milano 1979.

longoni 1976: F. longoni, Nota sulla storia del ditirambo, acme 29,1976, 305-308.

Maclachlan 1993: B. Maclachlan, The Age of Grace. charis in EarlyGreek Poetry, princeton university press, princenton 1993.

Meyer 1933: h. Meyer, Hymnische Stilelemente in der frühgriechischenDichtung, diss. Köln, Würzburg 1993.

Miralles - pòrtulas 1983: c. Miralles - J. pòrtulas, Archilochus andthe Iambic Poetry, edizioni dell’ateneo, roma 1983.

Müller 1985: c.W. Müller, Die Archilochoslegende, rheinisches Muse-um 128, 1985, 99-151.

Murray 1996: p. Murray, Plato on Poetry. Ion. Republic 376e-398b. Re-public 595-608. edited by p. M., cambridge university press, cam-bridge 1996.

nagy 2000: g. nagy, «homeric Humnos as a rhapsodic term», in a. M.gonzález de toBia (ed.), Una nueva visión de la cultura griega antiguaen el fin del Milenio, editora universidad nacional de la plata, la pla-ta 2000, 385-401.

nisetich 1980: F. J. nisetich, Pindar’s Victory Songs. transl., intr. andpref. by F. J. n. With a Foreword by h. lloyd-Jones, the Johns hop-kins university press, Baltimore - london 1980.

ornaghi 2009: M. ornaghi, La lira, la vacca e le donne insolenti. Conte-sti di ricezione e promozione della figura e della poesia di Archilocodall’arcaismo all’ellenismo, edizioni dell’orso, alessandria 2009.

246 JauMe pòrtulas

page 1962: d. l. page, Poetae Melici Graeci, clarendon press, oxford1962.

parKer 1996: r. c. t. parKer, «hymns (greek)», in s. hornBloWer, a.spaWForth (eds.), Oxford Classical Dictionary (third edition), oxforduniversity press, oxford 1996, 735-736.

pavese 1991: c.o. pavese, «l’inno rapsodico. analisi tematica degli InniOmerici», in cassio - cerri 1991, 155-178.

pòrtulas 1996: J. pòrtulas, Le Fanciulle di Delo, studi e Materiali distoria delle religioni 62 (n.s. 20), 1996, 437-443.

pòrtulas 2000: J. pòrtulas, «poetas Míticos de grecia», in e. crespo,M. J. Barrios (eds.), Actas del X Congreso Español de Estudios Clási-cos, seec/ediciones clásicas, Madrid 2000, i 289-312.

pòrtulas 2007: J. pòrtulas, «homéridas y rehenes», in a. M. gonzáles

de toBia (ed.) Lenguaje, Discurso y Civilización. De Grecia a la Mo-dernidad. universidad nacional de la plata, la plata 2007, 213-242.

pòrtulas 2008a: J. pòrtulas, Introducció a la Ilíada. Homer entre lahistòria i la llegenda, Fundació Bernat Metge, Barcelona 2008.

pòrtulas 2008b: J. pòrtulas, «poesía de festival y poesía de simposio: al-gunas reflexiones sobre arquíloco de paros» in o. d. álvarez salas, a.vargas (eds.), Cultura Clásica y su Tradición. Balance y perspectivasactuales, universidad nacional autónoma de México, ciudad de Méxi-co 2008, 215-244.

pòrtulas 2012: J. pòrtulas, «Arnōidoi e Rhapsōidoi: antiche recitazioniomeriche», forthcoming.

privitera 1957: g. a. privitera, Archiloco e il ditirambo letterario presi-monideo, Maia 9, 1957, 95-110.

privitera 1977: g. a. privitera, «il ditirambo da canto cultuale a spetta-colo musicale», in calaMe 1977, 25-44; 209-210 (1st. edition, cultura escuola 43, 1972, 56-66).

pulleyn 1997: s. pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion, oxford universitypress, oxford 1997.

race 1982: W. h. race, Rhetoric and Form in Greek Hymns, greek, ro-man and Byzantine studies 23, 1982, 5-14.

race 1990: W. h. race, Style and Rhetoric in Pindar’s Odes, scholarspress, atlanta 1990.


radt 1958: s. l. radt, Pindars zweiter und sechster Paian, verlag a. M.hakkert, amsterdam 1958.

reinach 1900: th. reinach, «Hymnus», in c. dareMBerg, e. saglio

(eds.) Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines, hachette, pa-ris 1877-1919, ii 337-344.

rodríguez adrados 1976: F. rodríguez adrados, Orígenes de la líricagriega, revista de occidente, Madrid 1976.

rutherFord 2001: i. rutherFord, Pindar’s Paeans. A Reading of theFragments with a Survey of the Genre, oxford university press, oxford2001.

saBBatucci 1998: d. saBBatucci, Politeismo (2 vols.), Bulzoni, roma1998.

saMonà 1984: g. a. saMonà, Gli itinerari sacri dell’Aedo. Ricerca stori-co-religiosa sui cantori omerici, Bulzoni, roma 1984.

sansone 1988: d. sansone, Greek Athletics and the Genesis of Sport,university of california press, Berkeley - los angeles - london 1988.

siMpson 1969: M. siMpson, Pindar’s Ninth Olympian, greek, roman andByzantine studies 10, 1969, 113-124.

sMyth 1963: h. W. sMyth, Greek Melic Poets, Biblo & tanne, new york1963 (1st. edition, london 1900).

soMMerstein 1982: a. h. soMMerstein (ed.), The Comedies of Aristo-phanes, Vol. 3. Clouds, edited with translation and notes by a. h. s.,aris & phillips, Warminster 1982.

suárez de la torre 2002: e. suárez de la torre, Yambógrafos griegos,Biblioteca clásica gredos, Madrid 2002.

svenBro 1988: J. svenBro, «il taglio della poesia. note sulle origini sacri-ficali della poetica greca», in c. grottanelli, n. F. parise (eds.), Sacri-ficio e società nel mondo antico, laterza, roma - Bari 1988, 231-252.

tarditi 1968: g. tarditi, Archilochus, edidit i. t., edizioni dell’ateneo,roma 1968.

versnel 1981: h. s. versnel, «religious mentality in ancient prayer», inversnel 1981b, 1-64.

versnel 1981b: h. s. versnel, Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Reli-gious Mentality in the Ancient World, e. J. Brill, leiden 1981.

248 JauMe pòrtulas

West 1974: M. l. West, Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus, Walter degruyter, Berlin-new york 1974.

West 1989: M. l. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati,ed. altera, oxford university press, oxford 1989.

West 1999: M. l. West, The Invention of Homer, classical Quarterly 49,1999, 364-382.

Willi 2003: a. Willi, The Languages of Aristophanes, oxford universitypress, oxford 2003.

Wünsch 1916: r. Wünsch, «hymnos», Realenzyklopädie der Altertum-wissenschaft 9, 1916 cols. 140-183.

ziMMerMann 1992: B. ziMMerMann, Dithyrambos. Geschichte einer Gat-tung, vandenhoeck & ruprecht [hypomnemata 98], göttingen 1992.

Cult Poetry in Archaic Greece [2012]

Documents

Transcript of Cult Poetry in Archaic Greece [2012]