The Center for Hellenic Studies

Soul and Kosmos. Menelaos and the Shield of Euphorbos in Didyma

Alexander Herda, Berlin/Athens/Tübingen
Though I know that I am serving here more or less owls on the cosmic plate to Greg, I nevertheless hope he will enjoy it. What I owe to his constant encouragement and help is of a much larger dimension. [*]

The story of the wandering soul of Pythagoras

In his description of the philosopher Pythagoras (c. 560–480 BCE), Diogenes Laertius has preserved an amazing story. It deals with the idea of the transmigrating soul that Pythagoras had propagated. To prove it, Pythagoras declared himself the reincarnation of Hermes’ son Aithalides via the Trojan hero Euphorbos and two other persons, a certain Hermotimos and Pyrrhos. Owing to their memory, Pythagoras was able to identify in the sanctuary of Branchidai-Didyma the shield of Euphorbos, Menelaos had looted at Troy and offered to Apollo on his way home: [1]
[4] Τοῦτόν φησιν Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς περὶ αὑτοῦ τάδε λέγειν, ὡς εἴη ποτὲ γεγονὼς Αἰθαλίδης καὶ Ἑρμοῦ υἱὸς νομισθείη: τὸν δὲ Ἑρμῆν εἰπεῖν αὐτῷ ἑλέσθαι ὅ τι ἂν βούληται πλὴν ἀθανασίας. αἰτήσασθαι οὖν ζῶντα καὶ τελευτῶντα μνήμην ἔχειν τῶν συμβαινόντων. ἐν μὲν οὖν τῇ ζωῇ πάντων διαμνημονεῦσαι: ἐπεὶ δὲ ἀποθάνοι, τηρῆσαι τὴν αὐτὴν μνήμην. χρόνῳ δ᾽ ὕστερον εἰς Εὔφορβον ἐλθεῖν καὶ ὑπὸ Μενέλεω τρωθῆναι. ὁ δ᾽ Εὔφορβος ἔλεγεν ὡς Αἰθαλίδης ποτὲ γεγόνοι καὶ ὅτι παρ᾽ Ἑρμοῦ τὸ δῶρον λάβοι καὶ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς περιπόλησιν, ὡς περιεπολήθη καὶ εἰς ὅσα φυτὰ καὶ ζῷα παρεγένετο καὶ ὅσα ἡ ψυχὴ ἐν Ἅιδῃ ἔπαθε καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ τίνα ὑπομένουσιν.
[5] Ἐπειδὴ δὲ Εὔφορβος ἀποθάνοι, μεταβῆναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ εἰς Ἑρμότιμον, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς πίστιν θέλων δοῦναι ἐπανῆλθεν εἰς Βραγχίδας καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερὸν ἐπέδειξεν ἣν Μενέλαος ἀνέθηκεν ἀσπίδα, (ἔφη γὰρ αὐτόν, ὅτ' ἀπέπλει ἐκ Τροίας, ἀναθεῖναι τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι τὴν ἀσπίδα,) διασεσηπυῖαν ἤδη, μόνον δὲ διαμένειν τὸ ἐλεφάντινον πρόσωπον
“[4]This is what Heraclides of Pontos tells us he used to say about himself: that he had once been Aithalides and was accounted to be Hermes’ son, and Hermes told him he might choose any gift he liked except immortality; so he asked to retain through life and through death a memory of his experiences. Hence in life he could recall everything, and when he died he still kept the same memories. Afterwards in course of time his soul entered into Euphorbos and he was killed [2] by Menelaos. Now Euphorbos used to say that he had once been Aithalides and obtained this gift from Hermes, and then he told of the wanderings of his soul, how it migrated hither and thither, into how many plants and animals it had come, and all that it underwent in Hades, and all that the other souls there have to endure.
[5] When Euphorbos died, his soul passed into Hermotimos, and he also, wishing to authenticate the story, went up to the temple of Apollo at Branchidai, where he identified the shield which Menelaos, on his voyage home from Troy, had dedicated to Apollo, so he said: the shield being now so rotten through and through that the ivory facing only was left. When Hermotimos died, he became Pyrrhos, a fisherman of Delos, and again he remembered everything, how he was first Aithalides, then Euphorbos, then Hermotimos, and then Pyrrhos. But when Pyrrhos died, he became Pythagoras, and still remembered all the facts mentioned.
Transl. R.D. Hicks, slightly altered.
Ultimately, this story is taken from the Trojan Epic Cycle. As Menelaos is explicitly told to have been on his way back from Troy to Sparta, this act of personal eusebeia was integrated into the Nostoi, the epics of the Greek heroes‘returning’ home. It was especially Agamemnon’s and Menelaos’ journey that they imagined. [3] The Nostoi, as the entire Epic Cycle, were most probably written down in the later seventh or sixth century BCE, using pre-Homeric mythological traditions. [4] Yet, of course these traditions were mixed with later additions, first of all because the authority of the epics could ennoble local myths. It is therefore not clear how old the story of Menelaos visiting Didyma really is. From the point of view of mythological chronology, it follows the story, given by Pausanias, that Herakles founded the ash-altar of Apollo in Didyma. [5] This theme may also stem from a tradition, integrated into the Epic Cycle and being even pre-Homeric, as Homer himself is relating to Herakles, travelling around in the eastern Aegean including Kos near Miletos, fighting the Amazons and even conquering Troy one generation before the Trojan War. [6] It can be combined with another story, that of Achilles on his way to Troy, killing the Lelegian prince Trambelos in Miletos at a place called Achilleios Krene. [7]
A clear terminus ante quem for when the Milesians may have invented the story of the shield of Euphorbos, furnishing their main extraurban sanctuary with another prominent—and, along the way, time-honoured—visitor, Menelaos, can at least be given approximately: Diogenes Laertius repeats it citing Heraclides of Pontos (c. 380–320 BCE), a philosopher and astronomer, who offered the story as a self-statement of Pythagoras in the context of his theory of the transmigrating soul. [8]
That Pythagoras believed in the transmigration of the soul, is already attested by Xenophanes of Kolophon (c. 570–475 BCE). [9] The idea of an immortal, divine soul ‘seatedʼ in every human being is an age-old Indo-European heritage, prominent also in the ancient Greek culture, best to be seen in the concept of the ψυχή, the “‘breathʼ-soul” (Vedic prāṇá-), [10] and in the phenomenon of Greek hero cults. [11] In contrast Herodotus assigned the idea of the immortal soul as well as that of its ability to transmigrate to the Egyptians: [12]
πρῶτοι δὲ καὶ τόνδε τὸν λόγον Αἰγύπτιοι εἰσὶ οἱ εἰπόντες, ὡς ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ ἀθάνατος ἐστί, τοῦ σώματος δὲ καταφθίνοντος ἐς ἄλλο ζῷον αἰεὶ γινόμενον ἐσδύεται, ἐπεὰν δὲ πάντα περιέλθῃ τὰ χερσαῖα καὶ τὰ θαλάσσια καὶ τὰ πετεινά, αὖτις ἐς ἀνθρώπου σῶμα γινόμενον ἐσδύνει: τὴν περιήλυσιν δὲ αὐτῇ γίνεσθαι ἐν τρισχιλίοισι ἔτεσι. τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ εἰσὶ οἳ Ἑλλήνων ἐχρήσαντο, οἳ μὲν πρότερον οἳ δὲ ὕστερον, ὡς ἰδίῳ ἑωυτῶν ἐόντι: τῶν ἐγὼ εἰδὼς τὰ οὐνόματα οὐ γράφω.
“The Egyptians were the first who maintained the following doctrine, too, that the human soul is immortal, and at the death of the body enters into some other living thing then coming to birth; and after passing through all creatures of land, sea, and air, it enters once more into a human body at birth, a cycle which it completes in three thousand years. There are Greeks who have used this doctrine, some earlier and some later, as if it were their own; I know their names, but do not record them.”
Transl. A.D. Godley
By ignoring the Indo-European traditions, also present in the mixed Greek-Karian culture of his hometown Halikarnassos, [13] and in favour of his belief in the incredible high age of the Egyptian culture and its paradigmatic role for all other cultures, [14] Herodotus is explicitly contradicting “some of the Greeks, early and late”, who “used this doctrine as if it were their own.” He continues: “I know their names, but do not here record them.” With this remark he is probably hinting at Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans and Orphics. [15]
Modern scholars likewise ignore the Indo-European heritage, though correctly doubting Herodotusʼ version of the Egyptian origin of it. [16] Instead, they connect the introduction of the Greek belief in the immortal transmigrating soul to Pythagoras, [17] while overlooking that according to the poet Choerilos of Iasos (fourth/third cent. BCE), Pythagorasʼ teacher Thales “was the first to maintain the immortality of the soul.” [18] Thales also declared, according to Aristotle, that all living beings and moving things have a soul, so that “all is full of gods.” [19] This makes it highly probable that already Thales propagated the belief in metempsychosis, referring to a common Greek eschatological model. It was followed by another slightly younger philosopher, Pherekydes of Syros, whom later tradition also made a teacher of Pythagoras. [20]
One of the preconditions for the transmigration of the soul was memory. In the words of Heraclides Aithalides asked his father Hermes“to retain through life and through death a memory of his experiences. Hence in life he could recall everything, and when he died he still kept the same memories.” The Bacchic-Orphics, who were no sons of Hermes, but shared the belief in reincarnation, had to find the water of memory (Mnemosyne) to get the same result. [21]
Pythagoras ‘rememberedʼ that his soul had once been that of Aithalides, and after his death, passed over to Trojan Euphorbos, the ‘well-feeder’ (of horses). [22] Euphorbos was killed by Menelaos. The soul again passed over to a certain Hermotimos, who, ‘wishing to authenticate the story’, [23] identified ‘hisʼ shield in Didyma, before the soul finally, via another Pyrrhus, reached Pythagoras. The story is really strange, as in the Iliad Euphorbos is clearly characterized as an effeminate barbarian, casting some ‘femaleʼ light on Pythagoras: Because of his curly hair, adorned with golden and silver jewellery, Homer compares him with the Charites: [24]
αἵματί οἱ δεύοντο κόμαι χαρίτεσσιν ὁμοῖαι
πλοχμοίθ’.
“With blood bedewed was his hair, looking like charites,
with the curls and all.”
Transl. Gregory Nagy
Moreover, at the same time Pythagoras traced himself back to the Argonaut Ankaios, one of the mythical founders of Samos. [25] These two contradicting genealogies of Pythagoras, again proving the remarkable ‘memoryʼ of his soul, [26] were obviously not a problem for the Milesians, when presenting the shield of Euphorbos. It was more problematic that in the Iliad Menelaos tried to take the “glorious weapons” (κλυτὰ τεύχεα) of Euphorbos (the shield is never mentioned explicitly), but was hindered because of the will of Apollo, who sent Hektor to rescue them. [27]

The shield of Euphorbos in Didyma — and Argos

The struggle between Hektor and Menelaos is prominent in the Iliad and depicted on the famous unique Euphorbos-Plate from the necropolis of Kamiros on Rhodes, now in the British Museum (Fig. 1). The plate has some slight cutting marks on its upper painted surface that reveal a single usage for preparing food, perhaps in context of the funeral. [28]
It is East-Greek in style and workmanship and was counted either a (a) Rhodian-Knidian, (b) Kalymnian or Koan, or (c) Milesian work of around 620 BCE. [29] The Doric form Menelas for Menelaos in the dipinto-inscription on the plate does not contradict an Ionian workmanship, as it can be a citation of choral lyrics, which are quoted in the Doric dialect, as opposed to epics, quoted in the Aeolian-Ionian one. [30] The alphabet used on the Euphorbos-Plate is difficult to determine: It has been assigned as Argive-Kalymnian hybrid, [31] but may also be Ionian if one takes into consideration especially the Ypsilon and Rho in Euphorbos and the Rho of Ektor. The form of the name Ektor with missing initial aspirate again fits the psilosis of the East Ionian dialect, but it also appears in Doric Corinth. [32] All in all the Doric dialect and alphabet are the most probable. This is also indicated by the fabric of the plate (see below).
Depicted is the body of dead Euphorbos, lying behind Menelaos, who is attacked by Hektor. Striking is the closeness between dead Euphorbos, still in full armour, and his vanquisher Menelaos, as well as the demonstrative presentation of Euphorbos’ shield standing up and resembling with its inner decoration the one of Menelaos himself, thus hinting on Menelaos’ outstanding spoil in spe. Because Euphorbos’ head is oriented toward Menelaos, the latter is characterised as his killer. Additionally Menelaos approaches Hektor from the left side, regularly indicating the victor in early Greek combat scenes, at least in Athenian art. [33]
The result of the fight is not mentioned in Homer’s Iliad, instead there the plot moves with Hektor to a much more valued armour: the one of Achilles, worn by Patroklos, who was killed by Hektor with the help of Euphorbos. [34] Since Homer left open what finally happened to Euphorbos’ corpse and his weaponry, it was possible to invent the story of the shield-dedication in the Milesian Nostoi.
As often in Greek mythopoeia, a duplicate version existed, making Euphorbos lose a second shield to Menelaos: In the temple of their main state goddess Hera, the Argives showed a shield to the second-century AD traveler Pausanias, which Menelaos had once dedicated. [35] Diodorus Siculus (first century BC) has preserved for us the information that again the familiar transmigrating soul of Euphorbos, which ended up in Pythagoras, was cited as a witness. Additionally, an inscription in Archaic lettering on the inner side of the shield was supposed to strengthen the Argive claim. It read: ΕΥΦΟΡΒΟΥ, “belonging to Euphorbos.” [36]
We can only speculate, which version was the older, the Argive or the Milesian Nostoi. The Argive story has been rated as authentic sixth/fifth-century BCE Pythagorean testimony, not as an invention of a fourth century BCE “fabulist.” [37] Several archaeologists and historians have taken the Euphorbos-Plate even as a proof and terminus ante quem for the Argive Nostoi, to which the Pythagoras-story was later attached. [38] But as the Euphorbos-Plate only shows the moment when Menelaos has just killed Euphorbos and is then attacked by Hektor, the depicted scene matches the Iliad as well as the potential Argive or Milesian myths. [39] A decision which story the painter was following is therefore impossible to make. The Iliad is definitely the favourite.
However, we also have to take into account the provenience of the plate: It is the product of an East Greek workshop. A recent Neutron-Activity-Analysis, conducted by Hans Mommsen, has proven it to be of reference-group RHc1. The production center of this group can be located via amphora stamps on the island of Kos. [40] Kos is an island of the Doric Dodecanese being close to Ionian Miletos and its territory. It lies only 55 km south of Didyma from where it is visible on clear days. May we therefore assume the Koan painter has choosen the Milesian version of the Nostoi instead of the Iliad as a model? Did he even visit the famous Apollo oracle in Didyma and hear the story of the shield? [41] Both cities had closer ties, reaching back into mythical times. I already referred to the travels of Herakles to Kos and Didyma. Another argument is the style of the Euphorbos-Plate: it shows strong influence by South Ionian, mainly Milesian vase painting, especially in the ornamentation, resembling that of the typical Ionian Wild Goat Style in its later phase. [42]
The Euphorbos-Plate has two holes in the rim of its bottom, positioned in axis above the battle scene, so that it could be hung against a wall like a dedication in a sanctuary, e.g. a shield or pinax. One may therefore wonder if the plate was intended to be placed in a Rhodian grave from the beginning. Alternatively, it could have served as a potential votive in a sanctuary, e.g. that of Apollo in Didyma. It has to be noted here that a whole series of such plates come from the sanctuary of Apollo Karneios in Old-Knidos, where they were locally produced and dedicated in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE. Several of them picture warships, [43] which can be interpreted either as contemporary Knidian ships, or, as illustrating heroic seafaring, e.g. the Achaeans on their way to or from Troy.
A function as votive is also suggested by the form of the plate: It belongs to a kind of miniature terracotta shields, first attested for the Argolis in the time of Homer (c. 700 BCE). [44] But they also appear in East-Greek, Ionian Samos, where some eighth/seventh century BCE terracotta-shields have been found in the Heraion of Samos, which itself has close ties to the Heraion of Argos, where the second shield of Euphorbos was presented to the Greek public. [45]
The Koan painter has produced a multilayered work of art with an interactive character: on a shield(-plate) to be dedicated in a sanctuary is depicted the fight of Menelaos and Hektor for the weapons of Euphorbos, most prominently the shield, itself finally the object of dedication by Menelaos.
To recapitulate: It seems highly reasonable to me that in the later seventh century BCE, the Milesians presented a shield in Didyma which they claimed in a local version of the Nostoi to be an authentic relic of Mycenaean times, the time of the Trojan War. [46] In the sixth century BCE this version was then complemented by the story of the transmigrating soul of Pythagoras.
The dedication of a shield is quite realistic, as the sanctuaries of male and female deities in Miletos were, like many other Greek sanctuaries, [47] full of weapon dedications, [48] so also Didyma. [49] Shields, mostly of bronze, sometimes of terracotta, are often listed in sanctuary inventories. [50] The archaeological record is vast, e.g. in Olympia, the Heraion of Samos, in the Archaic sanctuaries of Aphrodite and Athena in Miletos, and also in Didyma itself. [51] Because of their artful manufacture, especially the pictorial shield bands and devices, they were a prestigious posession, a bounty often praised in literature. One only has to think of the famous shield of Achilles in the Iliad, [52] or the lost shield of Lesbian Alkaios, which the Athenians dedicated in the sanctuary of Athena in Sigeion. [53] In a newly attributed elegiac poem Archilochos of Paros excuses the loss of his shield by comparing himself with the Heraclid Telephos, losing his shield to Achilles, a story that might have been told already in the Cypria. [54] However, the description by Heraclides of Pontos resp. Diogenes Laertius of the shield of Euphorbos in Didyma is obviously told to stress the old age of the item: “now so rotten through and through that the ivory facing only was left.” [55] And the mention of the ivory facing of the ‘Trojanʼ, barbarian shield might be an allusion to the purple-coloured ivory works produced by Lydian and Karian women and praised by Homer elsewhere. [56]

The shield of Achilles as depiction of the kosmos

In the Iliad, the shield of Euphorbos is closely related to another much more valued one, that of Achilles. Hektor, who was sent by Apollo to save the armor of Euphorbos, instead took away the armor of Achilles, worn by dead Patroklos. [57] This alone made it possible for Menelaos to loot the shield of Euphorbos and dedicate it to Apollo in Didyma. By doing so, Menelaos closed a kind of circle: in the very end, Apollo, ‘the Asianʼ protector of Euphorbos, [58] as well as of Troy, [59] gained possession of the shield Hektor had failed to save for him.
The failure of Hektor caused another important action: a new armor had to be produced for Achilles, replacing the booty the Trojan prince had won from Patroklos. Thetis asked Hephaistos to make it for her son, and the god of forging started his work, beginning with a shield, obviously the most important of all the arms he manufactured. [60] Homerʼs description of the shield is a masterpiece of ekphrasis, which has provoked countless commentaries, beginning with Lessingʼs Laokoon of 1766. [61] Meanwhile most scholars agree in identifying the complicated picture, covering the metal shield, as a kind of microcosmos, a ‘world in smallʼ, created by ‘the Makerʼ Hephaistos. [62] With the help of fire, wind and his tools the smith artfully arranges scenes of the oikumene, the world inhabited by humans, as well as of its surrounding nature. The exact arrangement of the scenes is disputed. [63] But what is clear is the structure of the shield, consisting of five layers [64] and four different metals. [65] This is reminiscent of the five ages of Hesiod, who has four metal ages plus the age of heroes, inserted between the Bronze and the Iron Age. [66] We may therefore assume that Homer is widening the scope of Hephaistosʼ work, adding to the dimensions of space the dimension of time: [67] Hephaistos is literally ‘forgingʼ the ages of time. This opens a diachronic, cosmogonic perspective on the shield, while the Iliad is otherwise concentrated only on a few days of the Heroic Age, before Troy gets conquered. [68] The important element of time is stressed further by the fact that Homer differs from the usual tense form of the epics: instead of aorist he utilizes the imperfect tense. Doing so the different scenes on the shield get ‘frozenʼ. The action stops and cannot be completed. [69]
From the point of view of space, the shield of Achilles delivers the first abstract model of the kosmos, the existing world in its given order. [70] When incising the picture onto the round shield, Hephaistos also produces the first Greek ‘world map’, being contemporary or even older than the earliest preserved Mesopotamian one, the famous map from Sippar in the British Museum: [71] The earth (Gaia) is flat, disc-shaped, picturing human life on the occupied land (oikumene) in several scenes. The earth is surrounded by the sky (Ouranos), the stars, the moon and the sun (in this order). [72] Okeanos forms the outermost ‘ring’. [73] From this model Thales deduced his prime theory that water is “the principle of all” (arche) and that “the earth lies on water.” [74] Via Thales’ teaching, Hephaistos’ map also became the archetype of Anaximander’s and Hekataios’ maps of the world, as attested by Strabo, referring to Eratosthenes (c. 276‒194 BCE): [75]
νυνὶ δὲ ὅτι μὲν Ὅμηρος τῆς γεωγραφίας ἦρξεν, ἀρκείτω τὰ λεχθέντα. φανεροὶ δὲ καὶ οἱ ἐπακολουθήσαντες αὐτῷ ἄνδρες ἀξιόλογοι καὶ οἰκεῖοι φιλοσοφίας, ὧν τοὺς πρώτους μεθ᾽ Ὅμηρον δύο φησὶν Ἐρατοσθένης, Ἀναξίμανδρόν τε Θαλοῦ γεγονότα γνώριμον καὶ πολίτην καὶ Ἑκαταῖον τὸν Μιλήσιον. τὸν μὲν οὖν ἐκδοῦναι πρῶτον γεωγραφικὸν πίνακα, τὸν δὲ Ἑκαταῖον καταλιπεῖν γράμμα, πιστούμενον ἐκείνου εἶναι ἐκ τῆς ἄλλης αὐτοῦ γραφῆς.
“What we have already advanced is sufficient to prove Homer the father of geography. Those who followed in his track are also well-known as great men and true philosophers. The two immediately succeeding Homer, according to Eratosthenes, were Anaximander, the disciple and fellow-citizen of Thales, and Hecatæus the Milesian. Anaximander was the first to publish a geographical chart. Hecatæus left a work [on the same subject], which we can identify as his by means of his other writings.”
Transl. H.C. Hamilton.
Homerʼs discoid map of the world was at the height of contemporary knowledge and remained influential until Eratosthenes and others discovered the spherical shape of the earth, and the right astronomical order of the three celestial bodies, moon, sun and stars. [76] Already Anaximenes and Herodotus critisized the map [77] and Krates of Mallos, librarian of Pergamon (second century BCE), corrected the Homeric view of the world, opposing the traditionalist Aristarchus of Alexandria. [78] Vergil composed accordingly: the shield of Aeneas is thought of as not being discoid any more but spherical, the imago mundi turned into an up-to-date globe. [79]

Euphorbos—Pythagoras, memory–wisdom, soul—kosmos

One may doubt that the shield of Euphorbos in Didyma had a similar function as imago mundi as the shield of Achilles. But Euphorbos alias Pythagoras can at least stand for the traditional Greek belief in the immortal, divine soul, able to transmigrate. This eschatological belief was so strong that it could be integrated in the teaching of the Milesian School, founded by Thales and further developed by Anaximander and Anaximenes in the sixth century BCE. As already noted, Pythagoras also made it a central part of his theories.
In the competition of the Seven Sages, initiated by the Arcadian Bathycles, Thales won the prize, a golden bowl, twice, becoming the ‘wisest of the wisestʼ Greeks. The story itself is parodied already by Thales’ sixth-century BC ‘neighbour’, the poet Hipponax of Ephesos, who was himself parodied by Callimachus (c. 310‒240 BC) in his first Iambus, letting him narrate the story a second time. [80] Callimachus’ Hipponax gives another striking detail of the story: When Bathycles’ son Amphalces brings Thales the golden bowl for the first time, he finds him in the Apollo sanctuary in Didyma, deep in geometrical studies, more concretely, developing his theorem that any angle, inscribed in a semicircle, is always a right angle. [81] But the discovery is here attributed to the “Phrygian Euphorbos”, who anybody in the audience knew as being the earlier incarnation of Pythagoras. Callimachus thus ritually ridicules two sages alike, Thales and his pupil Pythagoras, but at the same time he hints at a quite serious aspect, that of the origin of all human wisdom. As E.A. Schmidt and A. Kerkhecker have ingeniously pointed out, Euphorbos is finally to be identified with Apollo. Therefore Thales’ (or Pythagoras’) theorem as well as his wisdom goes back to Apollo himself, the god of σοφία. [82]
The double figure of Euphorbos-Pythagoras, materialized in the shield presented in Didyma, thus unites the memory of the immortal soul, indepted to Hermes, with the wisdom of the sage about the kosmos, granted by Apollon.

Bibliography

Ahlberg-Cornell, G. 1992. Myth and Epos in Early Greek Art. Representation and Interpretation. Stockholm.
Asheri, D., A. Lloyd, and A.Corcella. 2007. A Commentary on Herodotus. Books I–IV (eds. O. Murry and A. Moreno) Oxford.
Attula, R. 2006. “Archaic Greek Plates from the Apollo Sanctuary at Emecik, Knidia.” Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies in East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean (eds. A. Villing and U. Schlotzhauer) 85–92. London.
Barnes, J. 2005. The Presocratic Philosophers. New ed. London – New York (11979).
Bernabé, A., Jiménez San Cristóbal, A.I. 2008. Instructions for the Netherworld. The Orphic Gold Tablets, Leyden ‒ Boston.
——–. 2011. “Are the Orphic Gold Leaves Orphic?” The Orphic Gold Tablets and Greek Religion. Further along the Path (ed. R.G. Edmonds) 68‒101. Oxford.
Betz, H.D. 2011. “‘A child of Earth am I and of starry Heavenʼ. Concerning the Anthropology of the Orphic Gold Tablets.”The Orphic Gold Tablets and Greek Religion. Further Along the Path (ed. R.G. Edmonds) 102‒119. Oxford.
Bol, P.C. 1989. Argivische Schilde. Olympische Forschungen Vol. XVII. Berlin – New York.
Borchardt, H. 1977.“Kriegswesen. Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten.” Archaeologia Homerica I 1 E:1–56. Göttingen.
Brize, P. 2001. “Funde aus Milet X. Treibverzierte Bronzebleche.” Archäologischer Anzeiger: 559–573.
Buchholz, H.-G. 2010. “Kriegswesen. Ergänzungen und Zusammenfassung mit der Vorlage eines unbekannten altägäischen Bronzehelms.” Archaeologia Homerica I 3 E. Göttingen.
Burgess, J.S. 2001. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore.
Burkert, W. 1988. “Herodot als Historiker fremder Religionen” Hérodote et les peuples non grecs, Fondation Hardt pour lʼÉtude de lʼAntiquité Classique, Entretiens tome 35 (eds. G. Nenci and O. Reverdin) 1‒39. Vandœvres ‒ Geneva.
———. 2001. “The Making of Homer in the Sixth Century B.C.: Rhapsodes versus Stesichoros.” Walter Burkert. Kleine Schriften I: Homerica (ed. C. Riedweg) 198‒217. Göttingen.
———. 2003. Die Griechen und der Orient. Von Homer bis zu den Magiern. Munich.
———. 2011.Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, Stuttgart, (11977).
Couprie, D. 2003. “The Discovery of Space: Anaximander’s Astronomy.”Anaximander in Context. New Studies in the Origins of Greek Philosophy(eds. D.L. Couprie ‒ R. Hahn ‒ G. Naddaf)165‒254. New York.
DʼAcunto, M., and R. Palmisciano, eds. 2010. Lo Scudo di Achille nellʼIliade: esperienze ermeneutiche a confronto. Atti della giornata di studi, Napoli, 12 maggio 2008. Aion 31, 2009. Pisa – Rome.
Diels, H., and W. Kranz. 171974. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und deutsch, Vol. I, Berlin.
Donato, M. 2010. “Lo scudo di Telefo: P.Oxy. 4708 Fr. 1 e Archiloco, Fr. 5 W2.” Rivista di Filologia 138: 257–264.
Edmonds, R.G. 2004. Myths of the Underworld Journey. Plato, Aristophanes, and the ‘Orphicʼ Gold Tablets. New York.
Edwards, M.W. 1991. The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. V: Books 17–20. Cambridge.
Eichner, H. 2002. “Indogermanische Seelenbegriffe.” Der Begriff der Seele in der Religionswissenschaft (eds. F. Figl and H.-D. Klein) 131‒141. Würzburg.
Eilmann, R. 1933. “Frühe griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion.” MDAI(A) 58: 47–145.
Erskine, A. 2001.Troy Between Greece and Rome. Local Tradition and Imperial Power. Oxford.
Fittschen, K. 1973. “Der Schild des Achilles.” Archaeologia Homerica II 1 N. Göttingen.
Frame, D. 1978. The Myth of Return in Early Greek Epic. New Haven. (online version: http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&mn=4049)
Frielinghaus, H. 2010. “Waffenweihungen in Delphi und Olympia – ein Vergleich.” Neue Forschungen zu griechischen Städten und Heiligtümern. Festschrift für Burkhardt Wesenberg zum 65. Geburtstag (eds. H. Frielinghaus and J. Stroszeck) 93–104. Möhnesee.
Gehrke, H.-J. 2007. “Die Raumwahrnehmung im archaischen Griechenland.” Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räume in der Antike (ed. M. Rathmann) 17‒30. Mainz.
Giuliani, L. 2003. Bild und Mythos. Geschichte der Bilderzählung in der griechischen Kunst. Munich.
Graf, F. 2011. “Text and Ritual: The Corpus Eschatologicum of the Orphics.” The Orphic Gold Tablets and Greek Religion. Further Along the Path (ed. R.G. Edmonds) 53‒67. Oxford.
Hahn, R. 2001. Anaximander and the Architects. The Contribution of Egyptian and Greek Architectural Technologies to the Origins of Greek Philosophy. Albany/NY.
———. 2010. Archaeology and the Origins of Philosophy. Albany/NY.
Hardie, P. 1985. “Imago Mundi: Cosmological and Ideological Aspects of the Shield of Achilles.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 105: 11‒31.
———. 1986. Vergil’s Aeneid: Cosmos and Imperium. Oxford.
Held, W. 2000. Das Heiligtum der Athena in Milet, Milesische Forschungen 2. Mainz.
Herda, A. 1998. “Der Kult des Gründerheroen Neileos und die Artemis Kithone in Milet.” ÖJh 67: 1‒48.
Herda, A. forthcoming a. From Anax to Thales: Miletos in Asia/Ionia and Its Many Founders from Neolithic to Roman Times (Center for Hellenic Studies Series).
———. forthcoming b. “Greek (and Our) Views on the Karians.” Luwian Identities: Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean, Reading University, Department of Classics, 10–11 June 2011 (eds. A. Mouton, I. Rutherford and I. Yakubovitch).
———. forthcoming c. “Burying a Sage: The Heroon of Thales on the Agora of Miletos. With Remarks on Some Other Excavated Heroa and on Cults and Graves of the Mythical Founders of the City.” The Dead in the City. Practices, contexts and impacts of intramural burials in Anatolia, from EBA to Roman times, 2nd Archaeological Meetings of the IFEA, Istanbul 14‒15 November 2011. (ed. O. Henry).
Herda, A., and E. Sauter. 2009. “Karerinnen und Karer in Milet: Zu einem spätklassischen Schüsselchen mit karischem Graffito aus Milet.” Archäologischer Anzeiger: 51‒112.
Hiller von Gaertringen, F. 1932. RE XV 2: 1586–1622 s.v. Miletos 1).
Hubbard, T.K. 1992. “Nature and Art in the Shield of Achilles.”Arion, Third Series, Vol. 2, No. 1: 16‒41.
Jacoby, F. 1913. RE Supplement 2: 205–520 s.v. Herodotos 7).
Janko, R. 1992. The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. IV: Books 13–16. Cambridge.
Jeffery, L.H. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Revised Edition with a Supplement by A. Johnston. Oxford.
Kahil, L. 1988. LIMC IV 1: 69 s.v. Euphorbos I.
Kerkhecker, A. 1999. Callimachus. Book of Iambi. Oxford.
Kerschner, M., and U. Schlotzhauer. 2005. “A New Classification System for East Greek Pottery.” Ancient East and West 4: 1‒56.
Kirk, G.S., J.E. Raven, and M.Schofield. 2001.Die vorsokratischen Philosophen. Einführung, Texte und Kommentare. Stuttgart ‒ Weimar.
Kopcke, G. 1968. “Heraion von Samos: Die Kampagnen 1961/1965 im Südtemenos (8.–6. Jahrhundert).” MDAI(A) 83: 250–314.
Langdon, S. 2008.Art and Identity in Dark Age Greece, 1100–700 B.C.E. Cambridge – New York.
Latacz, J. 1997. Der Neue Pauly 3: 1154–1156 s.v. Epischer Zyklus.
———. 2000. Der Neue Pauly 8: 1008 s.v. Nostoi.
———. 2008. “Die Ilias: Inhalt und Aufbau.”Homer. Der Mythos von Troia in Dichtung und Kunst, Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig, 16. März – 17. August 2008 (eds. J. Latacz et al.) 114‒138. München.
Lessing, G.E. 1766. “Laokoon: oder über die Grenzen der Malerei und Poesie.” G.E. Lessing, Werke 1766‒1769. Werke und Briefe in zwölf Bänden (ed. W. Barner) Vol. V 2:9‒321. Frankfurt am Main.
Lubos, M. 2009. “Weihungen griechischer Söldner in Didyma.” Zurück zum Gegenstand. Festschrift für Andreas E. Furtwängler Vol. II. (eds. R. Einicke et al.) 405–414. Steinweißenbach.
Malkin, I. 1998. The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity. Berkeley.
Mannack, T. 2002. Griechische Vasenmalerei. Eine Einführung. Darmstadt.
Mommsen, H., M. v. Haugwitz, and G. Jöhrens. 2010. “Herkunftsbestimmung von Amphoren mit gestempelten Henkeln aus den Grabungen von Milet durch Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse.” ArchäologischerAnzeiger 2010/2: 47‒60.
Morris, S.P. 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton, New Jersey.
Moustaka, A. 1994. “Ein Votivschild aus dem Heraion von Samos. Zum Verhältnis zwischen Vasenmalerei und Toreutik in Ionien.” MDAI(A) 109: 11‒37.
Naddaf, G. 2003. “Anthropogony and Politogony in Anaximander of Miletus” Anaximander in Context. New Studies in the Origins of Greek Philosophy (eds. D.L. Couprie ‒ R. Hahn ‒ G. Naddaf) 9‒69. New York.
Nagy, G. 1997. “The Shield of Achilles. Ends of the Iliad and Beginnings of the Polis.”New Light on a Dark Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece (ed. S. Langdon) 194‒207. Columbia, Missouri.
———. 2010. Homer the Preclassic. Berkeley – Los Angeles. (online version: http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&mn=3285).
———. 2011. Homer the Classic. Cambridge, MA and London. (online version: http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&mn=3247).
Obbink, D. 2006. “A New Archilochus Poem.” ZPE 156: 1–9.
Philipp, H. 1968. ‘Tektonon Daidalaʼ. Der bildende Künstler und sein Werk im vorplatonischen Schrifttum. Berlin.
———. 1984. “Die Kosmographie Homers.” MDAI(I) 34: 1‒4.
Prêtre, C. 2011. “Les mots et les choses. De l’offrande d’un bouclier crétois a Délos.” Current Approaches to Religion in Ancient Greece, An International Symposium, Swedish Institute/British School at Athens, 17th–19th April 2008 (eds. J. Wallensten and M. Haysom) 227–238. Athens.
Sauzeau,P., and A. Sauzeau. 2002. “Le symbolisme des métaux et le mythe des races métalliques.” Revue de lʼhistoire des religions 239/3: 259‒297.
Scheer, T. 1996. “Ein Museum griechischer Frühgeschichte im Apollontempel von Sikyon.” Klio 78: 353‒373.
Schefold, K. 1964. Frühgriechische Sagenbilder. Munich.
———. 1993. Götter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der früh- und hocharchaischen Kunst. Munich.
Schibli, S.H. 1990. Pherekydes of Syros. Oxford.
Schlotzhauer, U. 2007. “Zum Verhältnis zwischen sog. Tierfries- und Fikkelura-Stil (SiA I und II) in Milet.” Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme, Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı 26. September – 1. Oktober 1999 (eds. J. Cobet et al.) 263‒317. Milesische Forschungen 5. Mainz.
Schlotzhauer, U., and A. Villing. 2006. “East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research.” Naukratis. Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean (eds. A. Villing – U. Schlotzhauer) 53‒68. Oxford.
Schmidt, E.A. 1990. Notwehrdichtung. Moderne Jambik von Chénier bis Borchardt (mit einer Skizze zur antiken Jambik). Munich.
Scully, S. 2003. “Reading the Shield of Achilles: Terror, Anger, Delight.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 101: 29‒47.
Singer, I. 2008. “Purple-dyers in Lazpa.” Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbors. Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction, Atlanta 2004 (eds. B. J. Collins – M. Bachvarova – I. Rutherford) 21–43. Oxford.
Slawisch, A. 2009. “Eine runde Sache: Zu einem Fragment einer Bronzekeule aus Didyma.” Zurück zum Gegenstand. Festschrift für Andreas E. Furtwängler I. (eds. R. Einicke et al.) 195–203. Steinweißenbach.
Snodgrass, A. 1998. Homer and the Artists. Text and Picture in Early Greek Art. Cambridge.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 2005. Hylas, the Nymphs, Dionysos and Others: Myth, Ritual and Ethnicity. Stockholm.
Springer, A., and P. Wolters. 1923. Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte. Band I. Die Kunst des Altertums12. Leipzig.
Taplin, O. 1979. “The Shield of Achilles Within the Iliad.” Greece and Rome 26: 1‒21.
Tuchelt, K. 2007. “Überlegungen zum archaischen Didyma.” Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme, Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı 26. September – 1. Oktober 1999, Milesische Forschungen 5 (eds. J. Cobet et al.) 393‒412. Mainz.
von Fritz, K. 1938. RE XIX 2: 2025–2033 s.v. Pherekydes 4) (Mythograph).
Wachter, R. 2001. Non-Attic Vase Inscriptions. Oxford.
Walter-Karydi, E. 1973. Samische Gefäße des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße, Samos VI 1. Bonn.

Captions and Credits

QP Herda Fig1
Fig. 1: Menelaos and Hektor fight for the shield of Euphorbos, East-Greek (Koan) polychrome plate from the necropolis of Kamiros, Rhodes, c. 630‒610 BCE London, BM GR 1860.4-4.1 A 749 (Wikimedia Commons)

Footnotes

[ back ] *. I would like to thank Doug Frame for improving my English and Lenny Muellner and Noel Spencer for their careful editing.
[ back ] 1. Diogenes Laertius 8.4–5.
[ back ] 2. R.D. Hicks (Loeb) translates τρωθῆναι here with “wounded”, while in Homer, Iliad17.1–81 Euphorbos is killed by Menelaos (Τρώων τὸν ἄριστον ἔπεφνε Πανθοΐδην Εὔφορβον; “slain the best man of the Trojans, even Panthousʼ son, Euphorbos”). Actually the term τρωθῆναι (aor. inf. pass. of τιτρώσκω) has not only the meaning of ‘wounding’, but also ‘killing’, ‘slaying’: cf. LSc s.v. τιτρώσκω1 b. referring to the Septuaginta Numbers 31.19. Therefore the translation has to be corrected.
[ back ] 3. Latacz 2000. For the Nostoi of Odysseus, Nestor, Epeios, Philoktetes, Diomedes in the West: Malkin 1998. On the ‘myths of returnʼ as Indo-European (IE) heritage in Greek culture see Frame 1978.
[ back ] 4. Latacz 1997:1155; Burgess 2001.
[ back ] 5. Pausanias 5.13.11.
[ back ] 6. Homer Iliad 14.255; 15.26 (Herakles in Kos); Homer Iliad 5.638–651; 14.250–256; 20.144–148 (fighting Amazones and conquering Troy); cf. Herda forthcoming a, § 2.3.1.
[ back ] 7. Aristoboulos FGrHist 139 F 6 (= Athenaeus2.43D; cf. Eustathius on Homer Iliad 2.770); cf. Herda forthcoming a, § 2.3.2.
[ back ] 8. Cf. Diog. Laert. 8.4 (=Heraclides of Pontus fr. 89 Wehrli): Τοῦτόν φησιν Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς περὶ αὑτοῦ τάδε λέγειν (‘This is what Heraclides of Pontus tells us he [Pythagoras, A.H.] used to say about himself’, transl. R.D. Hicks).
[ back ] 9. Xenophanes fr. 7a West.
[ back ] 10. Burkert 2011:299; on the different concepts of soul in IE cultures see Eichner 2002. He stresses, besides the “Hauch- und Atemseele” (IE *h 2 anh 1, Greek ἄνεμος, “breath”, “wind”, Latin animus/-a, “wind”, “soul”; Vedic ātmán, German ‘atmenʼ, Old-Irish anaimm/ainimm, “soul”, “life”), the importance of the “Sexual- und Zeugungsseele” (IE *h 2 ens-, cf. Vedic ásu-, Hittite has-; IE *genh 1, Latin genius), which shows “Überschneidungen” (“interferences”) with the “Reinkarnationsseele.”
[ back ] 11. Cf. Herda forthcoming c, § X.
[ back ] 12. Herodotus 2.123.
[ back ] 13. On the Karian offspring of the meixobarbaros Herodotus: Herda-Sauter 2009:54f. with n26; Herda forthcoming b, § 1.
[ back ] 14. Cf. Herodotus 2.142–143: the Egyptian god‘Hephaistosʼ has 341, the Egyptian ‘Zeusʼeven 345 generations of priests, that is 11340 (or in the case of Zeus 11460) years “in all of which time (they said) they had had no king who was a god in human form” (οὕτω ἐν μυρίοισί τε ἔτεσι καὶ χιλίοισι καὶ τριηκοσίοισί τε καὶ τεσσεράκοντα ἔλεγον θεὸν ἀνθρωποειδέα οὐδένα γενέσθαι: οὐ μέντοι οὐδὲ πρότερον οὐδὲ ὕστερον ἐν τοῖσι ὑπολοίποισι Αἰγύπτου βασιλεῦσι γενομένοισι ἔλεγον οὐδὲν τοιοῦτο; “Thus the whole period is eleven thousand three hundred and forty years; in all of which time (they said) they had had no king who was a god in human form, nor had there been any such either before or after those years among the rest of the kings of Egypt”; transl. How-Wells); on Herodotus and Egyptian religion see e.g. Burkert 1988:25, 27.
[ back ] 15. Cf. Jacoby 1913:220.
[ back ] 16. Cf. A. Lloyd in Asheri-Lloyd-Corcella 2007:235, 329; Burkert 2011:447 with n91.
[ back ] 17. Cf. Burkert 2011:445.
[ back ] 18. Diogenes Laertius 1.24 (= Diels-Kranz 11 A1); rated as stoic contortion by Kirk-Raven-Schofield 2001:106n19. Critical also Schibli 1990:105n4 who instead prefers Pherekydes as protosheuretes of the immortal soul and metempsychosis (see below n20).
[ back ] 19. Aristotle, de anima A2.405a19; A5.411a7; Diogenes Laertius 1.24; Aetius1.7.11; cf. Kirk-Raven-Schofield 2001:106f.
[ back ] 20. The term μετεμψύχωσις itself is first attested only in Diodorus Siculus 10.6 (first century BCE). Another early Greek thinker, who is made responsible for introducing the idea of the transmigrating soul was Pherekydes of Syros (acme in the mid sixth century BC): Poseidonius in Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes 1.16.38; cf. von Fritz 1938:2032. That Pythagoras took over the concept from Pherekydes, as Schibli 1990:104‒109, 121‒127 assumes, depending on a) the fourth century BCE philosopher Themistios (Orationes 2.38a‒b = Schibli 1990:175 F 90: Pherekydes and Pythagoras are cited both as exemplum for keeping their “hands pure from even just bloodshed”, presumably because of their belief in reincarnation), b) the later story in Diogenes Laertius 1.118 (cf. Diodorus 10.3.4 = Diels-Kranz 7A1, A4) that Pythagoras cared for Pherekydes until his death (see critical von Fritz 1938:2027f.; Kirk-Raven-Schofield 2001:57f.), more explicit: c) Tatian, Oratio ad Grecos 25 (= Schibli 1990:160 F 51b: “Pythagoras says he was Euphorbos, and he is the heir of the teaching [δόγματος κληρονόμος] of Pherekydes.”) and d) Lactantius, Divinaeinstitutiones 7.8.7 (= Schibli 1990:173 F 85b: “Of the same opinion was also Pythagoras (…) and his tutor [praeceptor] Pherekydes, who according to Cicero first treated of the eternity of souls.”).
[ back ] 21. “Water of Memory”: Edmonds 2004:46‒55; Bernabé-Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008:15‒18, 29‒35; Bernabé-Jiménez San Cristóbal 2011:75f., 94. On the idea of reincarnation behind Bacchism-Orphism: Graf 2011:57; Betz 2011:111f.
[ back ] 22. The second stem of the name derives from φορβή, ‘pasture’, ‘food’; cf. LSJ s.v. φορβειά III.: ‘in Hom. only of horses and asses’.
[ back ] 23. Diogenes Laertius 8.5: ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς πίστιν θέλων δοῦναι.
[ back ] 24. Homer Iliad 17.51–52; cf. Sourvinou-Inwood 2005:42 who understands Euphorbos with Janko 1992:414–415 as doublet of ‘cowardly’ Paris; see Nagy 2010:296 on Euphorbos and “the myrtle blossoms compactly curled around a festive garland as a metaphor for picturing the compact and curly hair of the hero Euphorbos as he lies dead on the battlefield” resp. the Charites.
[ back ] 25. Iamblichus de vita Pythagorica 2.3; cf. Herda 1998:24; Herda forthcoming b, § 2.5.6.
[ back ] 26. Empedocles (fr. 99 Wright = B 129 Diels-Kranz) is perhaps alluding to Pythagorasʼcapacity for remembering all these generations of ancestors that his soul had passed: cf. Bernabé-Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008:16: “For Empedocles as for the Pythagoreans, remembering oneʼs previous lives is a fundamental exercise for knowing who one is and getting to know oneʼs soul. Anamnesis constitutes a purification of the soul.”
[ back ] 27. Homer Iliad 17.60–91. The weaponry of Euphorbos is mentioned four times, justifying its fame: 17.60, 70, 85, 91. Apollo’s intervention: 17.70–82. The passage ends with Hektor taking away the weapons of Achilles from dead Patroklos, to put them on himself: 17.186–208.
[ back ] 28. Countless thanks go to Alexandra Villing at the British Museum, London, who made possible an autopsy of the marvellous Euphorbos-Plate in July 2011. It was a pleasure to discuss different aspects with her. Alexandra initiated a Neutron-Activity-Analysis, conducted by Hans Mommsen at University of Bonn, Germany, and provided the preliminary results (see below) in an unselfish manner. She plans to publish the final results in collaboration with Hans Mommsen.
[ back ] 29. London, BM GR 1860.4–4.1 A 749. East Greek, (a) Dorian-Rhodian from style and workmanship: Attula 2006:85–87 fig. 5; (b) East Greek Kalymnian: Jeffery 1990:153–154, 354, 358 no. 47; Giuliani 2003:124–129 fig. 19 (ibid. 125 he labels the plate as “ostjonisch”, but ibid. 127 as “Rhodian” or “Kalymnian”, i.e. East-Doric); East-Greek Knidian: Schefold 1993:17 fig. 4 (but ibid. 143: “ostionisch”); (c) Milesian: Springer-Wolters 1923:179.
[ back ] 30. On the Doric form Menelas cf. Hiller von Gaertringen 1932:1590. A ‘Protoatticʼ stand from Aegina, now in Berlin, and depicting Menelaos, has a dipinto with the Doric form Menelas: Berlin, Antikensammlung Inv. A 42 = Inv. 31573; Giuliani 2003:123–125 fig. 18; pp. 342–343nn30–35 (Athenian workshop). This can be explained by assuming a citation from choral lyrics, see Herda forthcoming a, § 2.5.2.
[ back ] 31. Cf. Jeffery 1990:153–154, 354, 358 no. 47 (East Greek Kalymnian alphabet); Wachter 2001:221 no. DOH 1 (inscriptions in mixed? Argive-Kalymnian alphabet).
[ back ] 32. Cf. Wachter 2001:264 § 250.
[ back ] 33. See the commentary of Schefold 1993:18.
[ back ] 34. Homer Iliad 18.806–863.
[ back ] 35. Pausanias 2.17.3: ἐν δὲ τῷ προνάῳ τῇ μὲν Χάριτες ἀγάλματά ἐστιν ἀρχαῖα, ἐν δεξιᾷ δὲ κλίνη τῆς Ἥρας καὶ ἀνάθημα ἀσπὶς ἣν Μενέλαός ποτε ἀφείλετο Εὔφορβον ἐν Ἰλίῳ. (“In the fore-temple are on the one side ancient statues of the Graces, and on the right a couch of Hera and a votive offering, the shield which Menelaus once took from Euphorbus at Troy.” [transl. W.H.S. Jones and H.A. Ormerod]).
[ back ] 36. For Pythagoras identifying the shield of Euphorbos in Argos see Diodorus 10.6.1–3:[1] ὅτι ὁ Πυθαγόρας μετεμψύχωσιν ἐδόξαζε καὶ κρεοφαγίαν ὡς ἀποτρόπαιον ἡγεῖτο, πάντων τῶν ζῴων τὰς ψυχὰς μετὰ θάνατον εἰς ἕτερα ζῷα λέγων εἰσέρχεσθαι. καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ἑαυτὸν ἔφασκεν ἐπὶ τῶν Τρωικῶν χρόνων μεμνῆσθαι γεγενημένον Εὔφορβον τὸν Πάνθου μὲν υἱόν, ἀναιρεθέντα δὲ ὑπὸ Μενελάου. [2] ὅτι φασὶν αὐτὸν ἐν Ἄργει ποτὲ παρεπιδημήσαντα καὶ θεασάμενον τῶν Τρωικῶν σκύλων ἀσπίδα προσηλωμένην δακρύειν. ἐρωτηθέντα δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἀργείων τὴν τοῦ πάθους αἰτίαν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι τὴν ἀσπίδα ταύτην εἶχεν αὐτὸς ἐν Τροίᾳ γεγονὼς Εὔφορβος. [3] ἀπίστως δὲ διακειμένων καὶ μανίαν αὐτοῦ καταγινωσκόντων, σημεῖον ἐρεῖν ἔφησεν ἀληθὲς τοῦ ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχειν: ἐκ τοῦ γὰρ ἐντὸς μέρους ἐπιγεγράφθαι τὴν ἀσπίδα γράμμασιν ἀρχαίοις ΕΥΦΟΡΒΟΥ. πάντων δὲ διὰ τὸ παράδοξον εἰπόντων καθελεῖν αὐτὴν, ἐντὸς συνέβη τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν εὑρεθῆναι. (“[1] Pythagoras believed in the transmigration of souls and considered the eating of flesh as an abominable thing, saying that the souls of all living creatures pass after death into other living creatures. And as for himself, he used to declare that he remembered having been in Trojan times Euphorbus, the son of Panthus, who was slain by Menelaus. [2] We are told that once, when Pythagoras was sojourning in Argos, he saw a shield from the spoils of Troy fastened by nails to the wall and wept. And when the Argives inquired of him the cause of his grief, he replied that he himself had carried this shield in the land of Troy when he was Euphorbus. [3] And when all were incredulous and judged him to be mad, he replied that he would give them convincing evidence that what he had said was so; for on the inner side of the shield there had been inscribed in ancient characters "of Euphorbus." At this surprising answer all said to take down the shield, and on the inner side in fact was found the inscription.”[transl. C.H. Oldfather]); cf. also Ovid Metamorphoses 15.158–164.
[ back ] 37. Barnes 2005:86–87. But he does not take into account the rivaling story of the shield being dedicated to Apollo in Didyma, given by Diog. Laert. 8.4, citing Heraclides of Pontus fr. 89 (Wehrli), who wrote half a millenium before Pausanias.
[ back ] 38. Schefold 1964:84; Schefold 1993:17–18,143; Kahil 1988; Edwards 1991:70; Ahlberg-Cornell 1992:65; Snodgrass 1998:105–109 fig. 42,175; cf. Burgess 2001:77–81 fig. N; Erskine 2001:118; Mannack 2002:94; Attula 2006:86.
[ back ] 39. Cf. also Wachter 2001:221, 310–311; Giuliani 2003:128 in regard to the Argive story; Burkert 2001:203f. prefers the Iliad.
[ back ] 40. Mommsen-Haugwitz-Jöhrens 2010. To the same group belongs the fragment of another plate, found in Naukratis in Egypt: Schlotzhauer-Villing 2006:60 fig. 25.
[ back ] 41. This would answer the question what might have moved the Koan painter to choose the death of the minor figure of Euphorbos as a theme of his depiction (Giuliani 2003:129: “Schwer zu sagen, was den ostjonischen Maler dazu bewogen haben könnte, gerade den gefallenen Euphorbos ins Bild zu setzen”).
[ back ] 42. Walter-Karydi 1973:89‒95 esp. 94 fig. 167. See also another plate from Kos of the same fabric-group RHc1, which is painted in the south-Ionian so-called Wild Goat Style: Schlotzhauer-Villing 2006:60 fig. 25. The Euphorbos plate resembles the style of Middle Wild Goat II according to the classification system of R.M. Cook. It equals phase South Ionian Archaic Ic (SiA Ic) of the new classification system of Kerschner-Schlotzhauer 2005; Schlotzhauer 2007.
[ back ] 43. Attula 2006:87f. figs. 6, 7, 8, 10.
[ back ] 44. Cf. the shield of nearly life-size (40 cm diameter), depicting perhaps the combat of Achilles and Penthesilea, from the acropolis of Tiryns: Schefold 1964:66 pl. 7b; 1993:9–10 fig. 1; p. 104–105, 241 (c. 700 BCE, instead interpreted as combat between Herakles and an Amazon); Langdon 2008:80 leaves the identification open.
[ back ] 45. Eilmann 1933:118–125 fig. 66; Beilagen XXXVI–XXXVII; Kopcke 1968:286.
[ back ] 46. For sanctuaries presenting dedications of Herakles or Achaean heroes returning home from Troy compare the temple of Apollo in Sikyon (Ampelius 8.5: shield and sword of Agamemnon, mantle and armour of Odysseus, bow and arrows of Teukros; in the time of Pausanias these relics were lost due to a fire in the temple: Pausanias 2.7.8) or the sanctuary of Athena in Lindos on Rhodes (Lindian Temple Chronicle, FGrHist 532, 5–14: two shields of Herakles, nine panoplies of Tlepolemos, one helm of Menelaos, one silver quiver and a bow of Teukros); cf. Scheer 1996; Erskine 2001:118n114.
[ back ] 47. For weapon dedications in Greek sanctuaries see now Frielinghaus 2010.
[ back ] 48. See for example the Athena-sanctuary: Held 2000:131–133 nos. B 37–39 pls. 23–25 (frontlets and blinkers for horses), pp. 137–151 nos. B 43–70 pls. 28–33 (weapons).
[ back ] 49. Assyrian bronze club: Slawisch 2009; weapons explained as Milesian mercenaries’ votives: Lubos 2009.
[ back ] 50. Cf. Prêtre 2011.
[ back ] 51. Olympia: Bol 1989 (Archaic ‘Argiveʼ bronze shields); Samos: Kopcke 1968:285–286 nos. 103–105 pl. 114, 1; 115, 1–2; p. 292 no. 116 pl. 124, 1; Walter-Karydi 1973:36 pl.59; Moustaka 1994:30‒37 pls. 4‒11 (Archaic bronze shields, live-size or en miniature); sanctuary of Aphrodite on Zeytin Tepe (Milesian suburb Oikous): Brize 2001:561–567 nos. 1–9 (bronze, all en miniature); Athena in Miletos: Held 2000:141–145 nos. B 48–53 (Archaic bronze shields, life-size or en miniature); Didyma: Tuchelt 2007:406 fig. 13 (life-size bronze shield).
[ back ] 52. Homer Iliad 18.484–609; cf. Snodgrass 1998:40–44, 172; Scully 2003.
[ back ] 53. Alkaios fr. Z 105 (Lobel -Page); Herodotus 5.95; Diogenes Laertius 1.74; Strabo 13.1.3; Nagy 2010:144.
[ back ] 54. Obbink 2006; Donato 2010.
[ back ] 55. Diogenes Laertius 8.5: τὴν ἀσπίδα, διασεσηπυῖαν ἤδη, μόνον δὲ διαμένειν τὸ ἐλεφάντινον πρόσωπον. For Mycenaean and Early Iron Age shields see: Borchardt 1977; Buchholz 2010:212–214. They indeed partly consisted of perishable materials such as wood and leather as well as bronze and iron, put together in a layer-composition.
[ back ] 56. Homer Iliad 4.141–145. On purple in Homer, often “associated with royalty and prestige”, which finds its forerunner in Minoan, Mycenaean and Near Eastern Bronze Age cultures, see Singer 2008:27–29. The word for ‘purpleʼ appears in Linear B texts in Knossos (po-pu-re-ja, po-pu-re-jo) and might be of Minoan (Linear A) origin, cf. Singer 2008:27–28. For purple production in Minoan-Mycenaean Miletos IV‒VI see Herda forthcoming a, § 2.4.4; Herda forthcoming b, § 6.4.
[ back ] 57. Iliad 17.186‒208; see above with n27.
[ back ] 58. See Kahil 1988 on that aspect.
[ back ] 59. On the Microasiatic origin of Apollo and the indigenous character of the cult of Apollo Didymeus Branchideus see: Herda forthcoming a, § 2.1.2.; Herda forthcoming b, § 5.
[ back ] 60. Iliad 18.474‒609.
[ back ] 61. Lessing 1766; cf. inter alia Fittschen 1973; Taplin 1979; Philipp 1984; Hardie 1985; Hubbard 1992; Morris 1992:9‒15; Nagy 1997; Giuliani 2003:21‒46; Scully 2003; DʼAcunto-Palmisciano 2010.
[ back ] 62. See e.g. Burkert 2011:258f.: “Der Handwerker-Gott wird zum Inbild des gestaltenden Schöpfers; vielleicht hat der Iliasdichter sich selbst in diesem Bilde gemeint.”
[ back ] 63. Cf. e.g. Taplin 1979:5 (unclear, if the scenes were arranged concentrically or in registers, he follows the reconstruction in five concentric circles). Morris 1992:12 (“In all likelihood, no such shield ever protected either a Mycenaean or geometric warrior; its decoration is imagined by the poet”); see below n72.
[ back ] 64. Iliad 18.481: πέντε δʼ ἄρʼ αὐτοῦ ἔσαν σάκεος πτύχες. Cf. Nagy 2011:598 who compares the five interwoven layers of the shield of Aeneas in Vergilʼs Aeneid.
[ back ] 65. Iliad 18.474f. (bronze, tin, gold, silver).
[ back ] 66. Hesiod, Erga 106‒200; cf. Herda forthcoming c, § 10 with n253 on the possible IE origin of the five ages of Hesiod; see also Sauzeau-Sauzeau 2002.
[ back ] 67. Another ‘dimensionʼ is acoustics: Homer describes animal noise, humans speaking, shouting, singing, playing music; cf. Philipp 1968:7; Giuliani 2003:41f.
[ back ] 68. On the structure of time in the Iliad see Latacz 2008:119 graph 1, 121 graph 2.
[ back ] 69. Cf. Giuliani 2003:40f. who explains this in terms of the character and limits of narrations in pictures. Nevertheless he points out that in a few cases ‘livelyʼ actions do indeed take place also on the shield, e.g. when one of the cities is besieged.
[ back ] 70. Philipp 1984, 3f.; Herda forthcoming c, § VII.
[ back ] 71. On the Sippar-map see Couprie 2003:197f. fig. 3.17; Gehrke 2007:22f. figs. 4‒5 pl. 1.2.
[ back ] 72. Cf. Hardie 1985; Nagy 2011:268‒276, 594‒599. It is difficult if not impossible to translate Homer’s description into a two-, or even three-dimensional picture (see above n63), but he must have had Phoenician metal bowls with concentric friezes in mind when creating his shield of “unattainable complexity”; see Snodgrass 1998, 40‒44 fig. 17. One of the best and most convincing attempts in arranging the concentric circles is given by Philipp 1984 (however without figure and very concise). Recent bibliography and further commentaries in: DʼAcunto-Palmisciano 2010. The reconstruction ibid. 24 fig. 1 is misleading, ditto the one of Giuliani 2003:39f. referring to Hubbard 1992:29.
[ back ] 73. The limiting function of Okeanos is made clear by the fact that Homer begins and ends his description of the kosmos with Okeanos: Iliad 18.479, 608. That the three rings of the stars, the moon and the sun are meant to be included within the outer ‘ringʼ of Okeanos is obvious from the fact that they are “bathing” in Okeanos, when setting under the horizon: Iliad 7.421 (sun), 8.485 (stars).
[ back ] 74. Aristotle, Metaphysica 1. 983b, 6‒24 (= Diels-Kranz 11 A12).
[ back ] 75. Strabo 1.1.11 (= Kirk-Raven-Schofield 2001:113f. no. 99). As Eratosthenes was the head of the library of Alexandria, he likely had access to the maps of Anaximander and Hekataios. On Anaximanderʼs model of the kosmos with the three celestial bodies see Hahn 2001; Hahn 2010; Cuprie 2003.
[ back ] 76. The upside-down order of the celestial bodies in Homer is still found in Ptolemaic Egypt: Couprie 2003:235f. fig. 3.37. Perhaps, Homer is alluding to it when describing the outer rim of the shield as triplax: Iliad 18.480; cf. Nagy 2011:270. An IE tradition of ‘religious speculationʼ is indicated by the Zoroastrian belief that the souls climb up to heaven via a) the stars, b) the moon and c) the sun, cf. Burkert 2003:119, 122.
[ back ] 77. Anaximenes, Diels Kranz 13 A7 (stars are farthest away); cf. Burkert 2003:122; Herodotus 4.36 (discoid map is too schematic); cf. Kirk-Raven-Schofield 2001:113f. no. 100; Naddaf 2003:34f., 63 n87, 54 fig. 1.1; Couprie 2003:196 fig. 3.16; Hahn 2010:153.
[ back ] 78. Hardie 1985, Nagy 2011:263‒276.
[ back ] 79. Vergil, Aeneid 8.615‒629, 729‒731; cf. Hardie 1985; Hardie 1986; Nagy 2011:594‒599.
[ back ] 80. Hipponax fr. 4 (West), cf. frr. 63 and 123, where he refers to the ἑπτὰσοφοί, parodied in Callimachus, Iambus 1 fr. 191 (Pfeiffer); cf. Kerkhecker 1999:29‒44, esp. 30: “This line is not original Hipponax, but Hipponactean pastiche. The concentration of mannerism is too good to be true. Callimachus parodies the father of parody, Ἱππωνακτίζων κρεισσόνως Ἱππώνακτος.” Diogenes Laertius 1.28 instead cites the local historian Maeandrius/Laeandrius of Miletos (FGrHist 492 F 18) as model for Callimachus’ Bathycles story.
[ back ] 81. Callimachus, Iambus 1 fr. 191.58‒61 (Pfeiffer). The geometrical diagrams illustrating the four theorems of Thales can be found in: Hahn 2001:58 fig. 2.2.
[ back ] 82. Schmidt 1990:126f.; Kerkhecker 1999:42‒44; Herda forthcoming c, § VII.