Malcolm Davies, The Cypria
Abbreviations of Frequently Cited Works
1. The Origins of the Trojan War
2. The Assembling of the Expedition
3. Two Retardations: Telephus and Teuthrania; Iphigenia at Aulis
4. The Arrival at Troy
5. Nine Years of War
6. Fragments of Uncertain Location
Appendix 1. The Childhood of Achilles in the Cypria
Appendix 2. Alleged Consultations of the Delphic Oracle in the Cypria
Appendix 3. The Suitors of Helen and the Cypria
Appendix 4. Testimonia
Bibliography of Frequently Cited Works
6. Fragments of Uncertain Location
Plato Euthyphr o 12ΑΣ Τ ad loc. (p. 3 Greene)Stob. ecl. 3.31.12 (3.671 Hense)
λέγω γὰρ δὴ τὸ ἐναντίον ἢ ὁ ποιητὴς ἐποίησεν ὁ ποιήσας·
Ζῆνα δὲ τὸν ἔρξαντα καὶ ὃς τάδε πάντ’ ἐφύτευσενἐγὼ οὖν τούτωι διαφέρομαι τῶι ποιητῆι.
οὐκ ἐθέλεις εἰπεῖν· ἵνα γὰρ δέος ἔνθα καὶ αἰδώς.
οὐκ ἐθέλεις εἰπεῖν· ἵνα γὰρ δέος ἔνθα καὶ αἰδώς.
ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ φόβον ἐπιεικῶν. εἴρηται δὲ ἐκ τῶν Στασίνου Κυπρίων· Ζῆνα, κτλ.
Στασίνου ἐκ τῶν Κυπρίων· Ζῆνα, κτλ.
The line is quoted from Stasinus’ Cypria:
It is Zeus the god, who did this and who brought all these things to fruition, that you are unwilling to name: for where there is fear, there too is shame.I maintain the opposite to the poet who wrote this.
ἵνα – αἰδώς sine auctoris nomine afferunt Plutarch de Cohib. ira 459D (ὡς ὁ ποιητὴς εἶπεν), Vita Ag. et Cleom. 30; Diogenian. Cent. 5.30 (1.257 L-S), Apostol. Cent. 9.6 (2.463 L-S); vid. etiam Mantiss. Prov. Cent. 1.71 (2.755; cf. 2 XV L-S): ἵνα - αἰδώς· Στασίνου (Στασίμου cod.)· ἡ γνώμη τοῦ ποιητοῦ ὃς οὕτω φησί· Ζῆνα κτλ.
1 ἔρξαντα W. Ribbeck: θ ’ ἔρξ- Platonis codd. BW στερξ- Τ, BW ν.l., unde τ ’ ἔρξαντα coni. Merkelbach ῥέξαντα Stob., Mantiss. Prov. 2 ἐθέλεις εἰπεῖν Stob., ἐθέλειν εἰπεῖν Plato ἐθέλεινείκεσσιν Σ Τ Plato. ἐθέλειν εἴκειν Σ Plato ap. Cramer, Anecd. Par. 1.399 sq. unde ἐθέλει νεικεῖν Burnet ἐθέλειν ἀκούειν cod. Marcianus teste Siebenkees ἵνα γὰρ: ἵνα περ Kaibel
G. M. Bolling, “Homeric Notes,” Classical Philology 23 (1928): 64, reacting against translations which “find both in the participle and in the relative clause descriptions of Zeus as the author and creator of the universe,” preferred to suppose that the relative clause supplies the subject of Burnet’s ἐθέλει νεικεῖν. On this interpretation, “the planter and owner of a storm-wrecked vineyard … cannot bring himself to upbraid the god that has wrought this havoc,” a picture deriving from “a parable … preached by Nestor to Menelaus” (see page 122 above). But for metaphorical φυτεύω of the production of evils see LSJ s.v. I.3. West (2013:85) suggests that the speaker is Helenus (who claims knowledge of divine converse at Iliad VII 44–53), the deity reported being Hera issuing a warning as regards the imminent departure of Paris for Greece.
1 . Ζῆνα δὲ τόν τ ’ ἔρξαντα καὶ ὃς τάδε πάντ ’ ἐφύτευσεν: compare such expressions of Zeus’ omnipotence as Aeschylus Agamemnon 1485–1488 ἰὼ ἰὴ διαὶ Διὸς | παναιτίου πανεργέτα. | τί γὰρ βροτοῖς ἄνευ Διὸς τελεῖται; | τί τῶνδ᾽ οὐ θεοκραντόν ἐστιν, or Sophocles Trachiniae 1278 κοὐδὲν τούτων ὅτι μὴ Ζεύς. See further Fraenkel on Aeschylus Agamemnon 1485–1486, Lloyd-Jones, “Zeus in Aeschylus,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 76 (1956): 58–59 = Academic Papers [I] 245–246 = Wege zu Aischylos (Wege der Forschung 87 ) 276–277; Fehling, Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias (Berlin 1969) 204. Ζῆνα δὲ τόν τ’ ἔρξαντα: Merkelbach (Kritische Beiträge zu antiken Autoren [Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 47 (1974]) 3 suggests τ᾽ ἔρξαντα as the original reading here. A variant θ’ ἔρξαντα accidentally combined with this would produce θτέρξαντα, which in its turn would lead to στέρξαντα. W. Ribbeck (“Zu den Fragmenten der griechischen Epen,” Rheinisches Museum 33 : 461) had already suggested that “Der Dichter wird nach Homerische Stellen τὸν ἔρξαντα gehabt haben” (similarly Nauck, Mélanges gréco-romains, 378–379).
2 . ἵνα γὰρ δέος , ἔνθα καὶ αἰδώς : for the collocation of these two nouns see Iliad XV 657–658 ἴσχε γὰρ αἰδὼς | καὶ δέος, Homeric Hymn to Demeter 190 (and Richardson ad loc.); for the collocation of the corresponding verbs see Iliad XXIV 435 δείδοικα καὶ αἰδέομαι and Macleod ad loc. For the pattern ἵνα ... ἔνθα Vian on Apollonius of Rhodes III 787 (ii.134) compares that passage (ἵνα οἱ θυμῶι φίλον, ἔνθα νέοιτο) and Callimachus Hymn to Apollo 112 ὁ δὲ Μῶμος, ἵν᾽ ὁ φθόνος, ἔνθα νέοιτο. The structure of our fragment is idiomatic in proverbial discourse: “where there’s a will, there’s a way.” So is the omission of the copula.
F25 Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria Stromata VI 19.1 (2.437 Stählin)
πάλιν Στασίνου ποιήσαντος·
νήπιος ὃς πατέρα κτείνων παῖδας καταλείπει.
νήπιος ὃς πατέρα κτείνων παῖδας καταλείπει.
Stasinus again having written:
“Foolish is the man who, while he kills the father, leaves the sons behind alive.”
versum hunc ut παροιμίαν citat Aristotle Rhetoric 1.15.1376A 6 sq. (p. 70 Kassel) cum v.l. υἱοὺς pro παῖδας et ibid. 2.21.1395A 16 sq. (p. 120 Kassel) cum v.l. κτείνας pro κτείνων; etiam citant (cum κτείνας et υἱοὺς) Polybius XXIII 10.10 et 15 et ex eo Suda s.v. νήπιος (3.462 Adl.) cum v.l. ἀπο- pro καταλείπει et s.v. Φίλιππος ὁ Μακεδών (4.725 Adl.)
The proverbial status of the sentiment expressed in this hexameter is clear from the large number of writers who cite it in various forms without identifying its author; cf. also Herodotus I 155.1, where Cyrus says to Croesus ὁμοίως γάρ μοι νῦν γε φαίνομαι πεποιηκέναι ὡς εἴ τις πατέρα ἀποκείνας τῶν παίδων αὐτοῦ φείσαιτο. A more generalized form of the sentiment in Euripides Andromache 519–522 καὶ γὰρ ἀνοία | μεγάλη λείπειν ἐχθροὺς ἐχθρῶν, | ἐξόν κτείνειν | καὶ φόβον οἴκων ἀφελέσθαι. See Euripides Heracles 166–167, Bond ad loc., and Kassel, Quomodo quibus locis apud veteres scriptores Graecos infantes atque parvuli pueri inducantur describantur commemorentur (Mainz 1954) 51–52= Kleine Schriften 47–48 for further examples. 
Clement is the only quoter to give us the line’s source. One might conceivably deduce from Στασίνου εἰπόντος that the poet himself came out with this generalization, enjoying a greater liberty than Homer to comment upon the various turns of his narrative. It is rather likelier, however, that we have here an example of the idiom common among ancient writers whereby instead of “x author makes one of his characters say y” we find “x author says y.” Which particular character from the Cypria actually delivered himself of this remark we cannot expect to know; but it could fit into several contexts (for a speculative list of some suitable sons see West 2013:128).
We must be careful not to follow along the false path blazed by Müller (1829:98) and Welcker (2.528), who allowed themselves to be unduly impressed by the appropriateness the γνωμή would possess if it were set in the mouth of an Odysseus urging upon the Greeks his most monstrous act, the hurling of Hector’s son Astyanax from the battlements of Troy. The appropriateness is undeniable, but Clement does not mention Odysseus and it is hard to see how such a detail could ever have found a place in the Cypria. The correct response to these last two difficulties is to reject the relevance of Odysseus, not to question (with Müller, Welcker, and too many others) the ascription to the Cypria (taking the Ilias Parva as obvious alternative, reading Ἀρκτίνου for Στασίνου), or to protest (with, for instance, Jouan [1966:372n5]) that the anticipation of Odysseus’ dreadful deed might, somehow, have been worked into the Cypria, and that Odysseus’ character in that epic was certainly villainous enough.
Herodian, Περὶ μον. λέξ. 1. (Gr. Gr. III.2.914, 15 Lentz)
καὶ ἡ νῆσος (Σαρπηδών) ἰδίως ἐν Ὠκεανῶι Γοργόνων οἰκητήριον οὖσα, ὡς ὁ τὰ Κύπρια φησί·
τῶι δ’ ὑποκυσαμένη τέκε Γοργόνας, αἰνὰ πέλωρα,
αἳ Σαρπηδόνα ναῖον ἐπ’ Ὠκεανῶι βαθυδίνηι,
αἳ Σαρπηδόνα ναῖον ἐπ’ Ὠκεανῶι βαθυδίνηι,
The island Sarpedon, being in the Ocean, dwelling-place of the Gorgons, as the author of the Cypria: “And conceiving by him she bore to him the Gorgons, baleful monsters, who dwelt on Sarpedon, by the deep-edying Ocean, a rocky isle.”
1 ὑποκυσσ- et δεινά cod., corr. Dindorf 2 αἳ Heinrichsen: καὶ pro ἐπ᾽ tempt. Lehrs ἐν 3 ἢ ante νῆσον del. Dindorf
The parents of the Gorgons here referred to are Phorcys and Ceto, as in Hesiod Theogony 270–272, and the Gorgons themselves are said to live beyond the Ocean at lines 274–275 of the same poem. How they came to be mentioned in our poem is anybody’s guess (against one specimen of which see West 2013:127).
1 . τῶι δ ’ ὑποκυσαμένη τέκε Γοργόνας , αἰνὰ πέλωρα: the closest parallel to the structure of the line is Hesiod fr. 26.27–28 τῶι δ᾽ ὑποκυσαμένη καλλίζωνος Στρατονίκη | Εὔρυτον ἐν μεγάροισιν ἐγείνατο φίλτατον υἱόν. At the start of line 27 there is a v. l. ἣ δ᾽ ὑποκυσ., and this represents the more common schema: cf. Hesiod Theogony 308 ἣ δ᾽ ὑποκυσ. τέκετο κρατερόφρονα τέκνα, 411 ἣ δ᾽ ὑποκυσ. Ἑκάτην τέκε, fr. 7.1–2 ἣ δ᾽ ὑποκυσ. Διὶ γείνατο τερπικεραύνωι | υἷε δύω (their names follow), fr. 145–15 fr. 205.1 ἣ δ᾽ ὑποκυσ. τέκεν Αἰακὸν ἱππιοχάρμην Iliad VI 26 ἣ δ᾽ ὑποκυσ. διδυμάονε γείνατο παῖδε, Odyssey xi 254 ἣ δ᾽ ὑποκυσ. Πελίην τέκε καὶ Νηλῆα, Homeric Hymn XXXII 15 ἡ δ᾽ ὑποκυσ. Πανδείην γείνατο κούρην, Iliad XX 225 αἱ δ’ ὑποκυσάμεναι ἔτεκον δυοκαίδεκα πώλους. αἰνὰ πέλωρα| : also at line-end of Odyssey x 219 (of Circe’s wild animals), Apollonius of Rhodes I 996 (unspecified); cf. Homeric Hymn to Hermes 342 τοῖα πέλωρα |. Hesiod’s Theogony nowhere uses the phrase, though the present line illustrates how often it might have been introduced and how appropriately. Hellenistic examples of the phrase (at line-end and elsewhere) are collected in M. Campbell’s note on Quintus of Smyrna XII 464.
2 . Σαρπηδόνα : for the island of Sarpedon see Davies and Finglass on Stesichorus fr. 6. ἐν ὠκεανῶι βαθυδίνηι | : cf. Odyssey x 511 ἐπ᾽ ὠκεανῶι βαθυδίνηι |; Hesiod Works and Days 171 παρ᾽ ὠκεανὸν βαθυδίνην |; Theogony 133 ὠκεανὸν βαθυδίνην|. ἐν is Lehrs’s correction (Herodiani scripta tria emendatiora  23) of ἐπ’ (for the corruption cf. Cobet, Variae Lectiones2 [Leiden 1873] 45 and 281–282). G. Parlato, “Note di lettura ai Cypria,” Lexis 28 (2010): 295–296 defends ἐπ’ by citing Iliad XXI 87 Πήδασσον αἰπήεσσαν ἔχων ἐπὶ Σατινόεντι, where ἐπί is the reading of Strabo 605 (3.594 Radt) and ὑπό that of Homeric manuscripts (Sykes and Allen on Homeric Hymn to Apollo 18, another passage where ὑπό is generally replaced by editors with ἐπί, observe of the Iliadic verse that the error probably stems from failure to recognize that Satinoeis is a river). Note also Odyssey x 511 cited above.
3 . νῆσον πετρήεσσαν : cf. Odyssey iv 844 ἔστι δέ τις νῆσος μέσσηι ἁλὶ πετρήεσσα.
F27 Scholion on Euripides Hecuba
Σ MA Euripides Hecuba 41 (1.17 Schwartz)
“τύμβωι φίλον πρόσφαγμα”· ὑπὸ Νεοπτολέμου φασὶν αὐτὴν [scil. Πολυξένην] σφαγιασθῆναι Εὐριπίδης καὶ Ἴβυκος [fr. 307 ΡMGF]. ὁ δὲ τὰ Κυπριακὰ ποιήσας φησὶν ὑπὸ Ὀδυσσέως καὶ Διομήδους ἐν τῆι τῆς πόλεως ἁλώσει τραυματισθεῖσαν ἀπολεσθαι, ταφῆναι δὲ ὑπὸ Νεοπτολέμου, ὡς Γλαῦκος [fort. ὁ Ῥηγῖνος: vid. Ε. Hiller, Rheinisches Museum 41 (1886): 429 sq.] γράφει. ἄλλοι δέ φασι συνθέμενον Πριάμωι τὸν Ἀχιλλέα περὶ τοῦ Πολυξένης γάμου ἀναιρεθῆναι ἐν τῶι τοῦ Θυμβραίου Ἀπόλλωνος ἄλσει.
Euripides and Ibycus say that [Polyxena] was sacrificed by Neoptolemus as a victim desired for [Achilles’] tomb. But the author of the Cypria says she died of a wound inflicted by Odysseus and Diomedes during the sack of the city, and was buried by Neoptolemus, as Glaucus writes. Still others say that Achilles made an agreement with Priam regarding marriage to Polyxena, but she was killed at the grove of Thymbrean Apollo.
P. Oxy. 2513 (de Iphigeniae caede?) ad nostrum carmen dubitanter refert R. Janko, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 49 (1982): 28 sqq.: e POxy. 3698 apparet carmen Argonauticum fuisse (vid. M. Haslam, Oxy. Pap. 53  10 sqq.).
On the sacrifice of Polyxena see in general Burkert, Homo Necans 79–80 = Engl. transl. 67; Le sacrifice dans l’antiquité (Entretiens Hardt 27  index nominum s.v.); D. D. Hughes, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece (London 1991) subject index s.v.; Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 1 (1999); and my article “ ‘Sins of the Fathers’: Omitted Sacrifice and Offended Deities in Greek Literature and the Folk-Tale,” Eikasmos 21 (2010): 331–355. One would not readily assume that the sacrifice of Polyxena, or any event connected with the sack of Troy, fell naturally within the scope of the Cypria’s narrative, and this is therefore another fragment which some scholars have sought to dissociate from that epic, either by casting doubt on its authenticity or by rearranging its contents by positing a lacuna (after Γλαῦκος γράγει, according to Wilamowitz, Homerische Untersuchungen 181n27, who does not think ὁ τὰ Κυπριακὰ ποιήσας can refer to our epic  ; after ποιήσας φησίν according to E. Hiller, “Die Fragment der Glaukos von Rhegion,” Rheinisches Museum 41 : 430, who supplements ex. gr. <ἔνιοι δὲ τὴν Πολυξένην φασίν>). This is needless (cf. R. Förster, “Zu Achilles und Polyxena,” Hermes 18 : 475–478). It is hard to see how the sort of subject matter here referred to could have been mentioned in a way anything other than proleptically and in parenthesis,  and two sorts of context immediately suggest themselves for a forward reference of this type: the Cypria might have associated Achilles’ killing of Troilus with his first glimpse of the dead youth’s sister Polyxena, and the girl’s ultimate fate may have been revealed to Achilles by the solicitous mother, whom early epic elsewhere portrays as ready to console or warn her son by allusions to the future or to give advice concerning affairs of the heart. Further, as Martin Robertson observed (“Ibycus, Polycrates, Troilus, Polyxena,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 17 : 13), “in pictures of the ambush and of the pursuit [of Troilus] the boy is constantly accompanied by a girl … , identified in one case by a fragmentary inscription as Polyxena.” He further suggests (14) that a scene resembling what is implied in our fragment is depicted on an Etruscan vase from ca. mid-sixth century (where a female mounting the steps of an altar “looks back at two warriors in pursuit, the leader drawing his sword on her, the other threatening with raised spear”). That the other side has Achilles dragging Troilus from his horse is certainly suggestive: see page 182 above.
Alternatively, the death of Polyxena may have been prophesied (as is that of Achilles by Hector in IIiad XXII 358–360) by either of those prophetic twins Cassandra and Helenus. We know from Proclus’ summary (see page 94–95 above) that Paris’ fateful departure for Greece occasioned oracular outbursts from both περὶ τῶν μελλόντων, and the grim end of their sister Polyxena might be appropriately mentioned therein.
Odd features still remain. Why the Cypria followed a version different from the familiar one of sacrifice at the tomb of Achilles we cannot hope to know.  That a defenseless female should have been despatched by both Odysseus and Diomedes may seem bizarre, unless, perhaps, we remember (on Förster’s prompting [“Zu Achilles und Polyxena,” 478]) that Odysseus boasts at Iliad X 478 about Δόλων, ὃν ἐπέφνομεν ἡμεῖς, though in fact only Diomedes was responsible. Note too Diomedes’ otiose participation in the murder of Palamedes (see page 179 above, as also for the frequent collaboration of these two heroes).
F. Leo (“Römische Poesie der sullanische Zeit,” Hermes 49 : 190n2 = Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften 1.278n1) warned against changing the name of Ninnius  and kept open the possibility that the Cypria referred to is our epic. Housman approved Morel’s “separation of the two Iliads of Ninnius and ‘Nevius’ ” (review of Morel’s edition in Classical Review 42 : 77 = Classical Papers 3.1149). Further bibliography in Blänsdorf’s fundamental revision of Morel, Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum p. 119, of which only E. Courtney, The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford 1993) 108 is worth quoting: “nothing is known of this Naevius (not identical with Cn. Naevius) except that he translated the cyclic Cypria.” One would assume the title of the poem was Cypria Ilias: but the propriety of this for a Latin translation of the Cypria is not immediately obvious (unless it presupposes a trio of successive Iliads: the Cyprian, the Great, and the Little).  Of fr. dub. 1 Courtney writes: it “may refer to Helen, or it may describe the attire of Aphrodite as she comes for the Judgement of Paris.” Of fr. dub. 2 he observes that it “probably refers to the seduction of Helen by Paris.” See page 100 above.
[ back ] 1. To which add Cicero Ad Atticum 14.21.3: quis enim hoc non vidit, <regem sublatum> regni heredem relictum? (<regem sublatum> add. ex. gr. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus 6.241, prob. Kassel, [Indices] vol. 7 (Addenda) p. 89).
[ back ] 2. A skepticism he later withdrew (see page 3 above).
[ back ] 3. So, for instance, Rzach 1922:2394. 27–32; Hampe–Simon, Griechische Sagen in der frühen etruskische Kunst (Mainz 1964) 62 7–32n49; M. Robertson, “Ibycus, Polycrates, Troilus, Polyxena,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 17 (1970): 13.
[ back ] 4. But it surely was a different version (as assumed by, for instance, Rzach as cited in previous note or E. Wüst, “Wer war Polyxene?,” Gymnasium 56 : 206). Kullmann’s claim (1960:214n4) that the wounded Polyxena might have been killed later in the traditional way seems perverse.
[ back ] 5. “Laevius pessime cum Schottio Keil,” says Morel. As Müller observes (1829:80n92), Laevius iam “Vossius de analog. III. 35.”
[ back ] 6. There are certainly no grounds for Salmasius’ assumption (ad Solinum Exercitationes Plinianae, 852) that the Cypria was originally known as Κυπρία Ἰλιάς. Müller (1829:80) rightly discounts the relevance of the Latin reference for earlier Greek authors.