Davies, Malcolm. 2015. The Theban Epics. Hellenic Studies Series 69. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_DaviesM.The_Theban_Epics.2015.
Chapter 2. Thebais
Testimonia
T1 (see page 135 for text)
- (i) Callinus mentioned a detail (which later writers recognized in the narrative of the Thebais) and attributed it to Homer. In this case one should presumably accept Schwartz’s inference (p. 3) that Callinus himself had cause to mention the Theban expedition as context for this attribution.
- (ii) Callinus directly quoted as “Homer’s” some words or phrases which later writers recognized as occurring in the text of the Thebais. The obvious elegiac analogy to this is the famous “quotation” of Iliad VI 146 given by Semonides (= Simonides fr. 8.1–2 W):
«οἵη περ φύλλων γενεή, τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν.»
Hiller seems to think that alternative (ii) offers less scope for confusion and error on the part of the later writer, though even here we must bear in mind the carefully formulated warning of J. A. Davison (“Quotations and Allusions in Early Greek Literature,” Eranos 53 [1955]: 137 = From Archilochus to Pindar [London 1968] 81–82): “All that we can feel sure of is that Pausanias (or his authority) found in Callinus a phrase or phrases ascribed to Homer which resembled some words in the Thebais closely enough to lead him to infer that Callinus was actually quoting the Thebais and ascribing it to Homer.” How much more uncertainty would be uncaged if (i) were the truth! Hiller does well to stress (p. 326) the large number of admittedly brief and passing references to the Theban saga in the Iliad and {29|30} the Odyssey. If an allusion to one of these from Callinus was misinterpreted we should be in a sorry way. Enough said, then, to put us well on our guard against any smooth and unpremeditated deduction from this notorious passage. Wilamowitz’s cautious summing up (1916:364n1) can hardly be bettered: “Ob die bis in das dritte Jahrhundert gelesene Thebais mit der, welche Kallinos vor sich gehabt hatte, ausser dem Stoffe noch irgend etwas gemein hatte, wusste niemand.”
Homer and the Thebais
ἐς Θήβας, ὅτε τε πρὸ Ἀχαιῶν ἄγγελος ἤιει.
τοὺς δ’ ἄρ’ ἐπ’ Ἀσωπῶι λίπε χαλκοχίτωνας Ἀχαιούς,
αὐτὰρ ὁ μειλίχιον μῦθον φέρε Καδμείοισι
κεῖσ’. ἀτὰρ ἂψ’ ἀπιὼν μάλα μέρμερα μήσατο ἔργα
σὺν σoί κτλ.
δαινυμένους κατὰ δῶμα βίης Ἐτεοκληείης … {36|37}
… ὅ γ’ ἀεθλεύειν προκαλίζετο, πάντα δ’ ἐνίκα
ῥηϊδίως …
and
αὐτὰρ ὁ …
κούρους Καδμείων προκαλίζετο, πάντα δ’ ἐνίκα
ῥηϊδίως …
Is it really natural to take the former as a misunderstanding of the latter, the second passage picturing a Tydeus invited to a feast and proudly challenging his hosts to a contest, and the first transforming this into a chance stumbling upon the feasting Thebans and a blatant provocation? Against Robert’s view see further Andersen 1978:44n9 (who rightly concludes that Robert “hier … legt viel zu viel in den Text hinein”) and 79–82.
Mηκιστῆος υἱὸς Tαλαϊονίδαo ἄνακτος,
ὅς ποτε Θήβασδ’ ἦλθε δεδουπότος Οἰδιπόδαo
ἐς τάφον. ἔνθα δὲ πάντας ἐνίκα Καδμείωνας.
Friedländer rightly observes (1914:318–320 = 1969:34–37) that here, as with the Iliadic references to Tydeus, a few lines imply and conjure up a rich hinterland of mythical presuppositions which are fully consistent with the traditions of the Theban War as we recover them from later writers. As one of the seven Argive chieftains and a hero who fell before Thebes (see page 70 below), Mecisteus can only have participated in the funeral games of Oedipus if they were celebrated prior to the outbreak of hostilities. In other words, Oedipus’ death is here conceived as occurring in Thebes and before the expedition of the Seven against that city, precisely the same conception that is entertained in Sophocles’ Antigone and several other later works of literature. And there seems to be at least one further parallel for the friendly relations envisaged as existing between Thebans and Argives at this stage: Σ Iliad XXIII 679 (5.472 Erbse) saw the relevance of the version whereby Ἡσίοδός (fr. 192 MW) φησιν ἐν Θήβαις αὐτοῦ [scil. Οἰδίποδος] ἀποθανόντος Ἀργείαν τὴν Ἀδράστου σὺν ἄλλοις ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν κηδείαν τοῦ Οἰδίποδος. One would naturally suppose that {38|39} the marriage between Argeia and Polyneices (on which see page 63 below) is to be connected in some way with this visit, though precisely how one need not venture to speculate. Mimnermus fr. 21 W may also belong here: Μ. δέ φησι τὴν μὲν Ἰσμήνην προσομιλοῦσαν Περικλυμένωι (see page 96 below) ὑπὸ Tυδέως κατὰ Ἀθηνᾶς ἐγκέλευσιν τελευτῆσαι. As Friedländer observes (1914:319 = 1969:35n48), these events seem unlikely in wartime, and if the exiled Tydeus had proceeded first to Thebes and only afterwards to Argos, he could have parti-cipated in Oedipus’ funeral games, and killed Ismene before encountering Polyneices at the gates of Adrastus’ palace.
Homer’s numerous references to the Theban War do indeed presuppose a tradition very similar to what we would independently guess to have stood in the Thebais. The Theban and Trojan wars “dominated epic tradition” (West on Hesiod Works and Days 162), and it is almost unthinkable that the composer of the Iliadic passages considered above was ignorant of some poetic work on the earlier war. The relationship of this work to the cyclic Thebais must remain obscure, but it cannot have been very different in content. On the other hand, Homer’s tendency to invent mythical details for his own purposes must not be underestimated, and several features which earlier scholars derived from the Thebais may rather be explained, with Andersen, as ad hoc creations, or at the very least careful adaptations to fit the new context.
The Evidence of Art
Title
T3 (see page 136 for text)
Date
Fragments
F1 (see page 136 for text)
F2–F3
F2 (see page 137 for text)
F3 (see page 138 for text)
- Aa) The eccentric μέν solitarium in line 2
- b) The lack of any object for ἔπεμψαν in the same line
- c) The extremely abrupt nature of the asyndeton at the start of line 3
- Bd) The excessive brevity of Oedipus’ speech as transmitted
- e) The presence of a marginal sign opposite line 2
As regards the oddities collected under heading A, they are all removable by simple emendations (see ad loc. for details), the majority of which also recommend themselves on grounds quite independent of the presence or absence of a lacuna. Three emendations within two lines: this is not excessive for a quotation fragment, given the extreme susceptibility to corruption of such texts. Of B we may observe that we have no right to demand a Homeric plenitude from the speeches in later epic; on the contrary, Griffin (1977:49–50), who accepts the notion of a lacuna, nevertheless refers to the “dry manner of indirect reporting” here exhibited and “the indirect and summary manner” in which the curse is reported. Certainly, the presence of the word μῦθος in the introduction to Oedipus’ direct speech implies nothing about its length: the self-same formula εἶπέ τε μῦθον heralds a one-line speech at Iliad XVIII 391–392.
and IX 9.4:
He could only identify the Arcadian force with that of Parthenopaeus (see page 72 below) and the Messenian with the Biantids.
- Tydeus
- Capaneus
- Eteoclus
- Hippomedon
- Parthenopaeus
- Amphiaraus
- Polyneices {68|69}
This is almost identical with the list on an Argive inscription at Delphi (Pausa-nias X 10.3), datable 464–451. [46] Robert (1915:1.240–241), citing Pausanias II 20.5 (ἐπηκολουθήκασι γὰρ Ἀργεῖoι τῆι Aἰσχύλου ποιήσει), implausibly claimed that the dedication based its list on the recently produced drama (in 469) and that it merely modified its source by replacing the “foreigner” Parthenopaeus (originally Arcadian according to Robert [238–239]: see page 72 below) with Halitherses. [47] Aeschylus’ list is followed unchanged by Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 1311–1325, [48] Euripides Suppliant Women 857–917, and (with Adrastus ousting Eteoclus) [49] Phoenician Women 1104–1144 (cf. Mastronarde ad. loc. and Stephanopoulos 1980:124–125). The list as thus modified is reproduced by Apollodorus III 6.3, Hyginus Fabulae 70, Diodorus Siculus IV 65.7. Cf. Fowler 2013:413.
σὺν αἱματηραῖς σταγόσι Πολυνείκης πίτνει,
ὃ δ,’ ὡς κρατῶν δὴ καὶ νενικηκὼς μάχηι,
ξίφος δικὼν ἐς γαῖαν ἐσκύλευέ νιν.
The similarities between the two passages have led various scholars [61] to posit the Thebais as the common source.
F4 (see page 139 for text)
τυφὼς πύλαισιν ὥς τις ἐμπεσὼν βοᾶι
πῦρ καὶ δικέλλας, ὡς κατασκάψων πόλιν.
ἀλλ’ ἔσχε μαργῶντ’ αὐτὸν ἐναλίου θεοῦ
Περικλύμενος παῖς, λᾶαν ἐμβαλὼν κάραι
ἁμαξοπληθῆ, γεῖσ’ ἐπάλξεων ἄπο
ξανθὸν δὲ κρᾶτα διεπάλυνε καὶ ῥαφάς
ἔρρηξεν ὀστέων, ἄρτι δ’ οἰνωπὸν γένυν
καθηιμάτωσεν οὐδ’ ἀποίσεται βίον
τῆι καλλιτόξωι μητρὶ Μαινάλου κόρηι.
See too Apollodorus III 6.8: Ἀσφόδικος (Wilamowitz: Ἀμφίδικος codd.) [72] δὲ Παρθενοπαῖον (scil. ἀπέκτεινεν). ὡς δὲ Eὐριπίδης φησί, Παρθενοπαῖον ὁ Ποσει-δῶνος παῖς Περικλύμενος ἀπέκτεινε. Euripides’ lines here replace the Thebais, as the later and more familiar author so often ousts the earlier and less read in the texts of mythographers and scholia: see page 80 below.
F5 (see page 140 for text)
That in our fragment οἱ κυκλικοί = ἡ Θηβαΐς was first seen by Robert. [74] Compare the phrase ἡ κυκλικὴ Θηβαΐς in F2 and F3. The identification of our fragment’s resting place with the Thebais has been accepted by most scholars. [75] The only serious dissent comes from Van der Valk, [76] who argues that Σ Gen.’s reference to the Cycle may be a mere elaboration built upon Pherecydes’ name, a plausible guess based on the assumption that Tydeus’ death must have been mentioned in the Thebais (compare the similar deductions of the more recent scholars listed above) and one calculated to give a pleasingly (and misleadingly) learned impression. That Pausanias indulged in this kind of pretense to wide reading is itself by no means certain (see West 2013:49). In the present case, when we do not even know the identity of the individual responsible for the statement, the explanation is bound to strike us as arbitrary. The process of substituting a more familiar and later name for an earlier, less read author is very familiar (cf. Severyns 1928:75–79, esp. 77–78). And since Van der Valk himself allows (334n220) that Pherecydes may have followed the Thebais’s version of events, his argument has little to commend it.
F6 (see page 140 for text)
Ζεὺς τὰν βαθύστερνον χθόνα, κρύψεν δ’ ἅμ’ ἵπποις
δουρὶ Περικλυμένου πρὶν νῶτα τυπέντα μαχατάν
θυμὸν αἰσχυνθῆμεν. ἐν γὰρ δαιμονίοισι φόβοις φεύγοντι καὶ παῖδες θεῶν.
That this description derives from the Thebais was suggested by Welcker (1865:2.366) and approved by such scholars as Wilamowitz (1891:225 = 1971:60 and n3), Robert (1915:1.246), Stoneman (1981:49), and Braswell ad loc.
F7 (see page 142 for text)
This approach was approved by Robert (1915:1.248, 2.90n170) and is considered with some sympathy by Fraenkel. But it is rejected by Bethe (1891:58–59n19) and Rzach (1922:2371.4–10). Burkert’s citation (1981:48 = 2001:164) of SEG 16.193.2 (370 BC) ἀμφότερον μάντιν τ’ ἀγαθὸν καὶ δορὶ μα[χήτην vel μα[χέσθαι and Stoneman’s (1981:51n41) of Hesiod fr. 25.37 MW (ὅς ῥ’ ἀγαθὸς μὲν ἔην ἀγορῆι, ἀγαθὸς δὲ μάχεσθαι) remind us that there are other possibilites to hand. For the allusion to Amphiaraus’ twin rôles as warrior and seer cf. Pindar Nemean X 9 μάντιν Oἰκλείδαν, πολέμοιο νέφος (compared by Rzach [1922:2370n]) and Aeschylus Seven Against Thebes 569 ἀλκήν τ’ ἄριστον μάντιν, Ἀμφιάρεω βίαν, whose dependence upon our fragment was seen by e.g. Verrall (ad loc.) and Fraenkel. See too Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 1313–1314 οἷος δορυσσοῦς Ἀμφιά-ρεως, τὰ πρῶτα μὲν | δόρει κρατύνων, πρῶτα δ’ οἰωνῶν ὁδοῖς (cited by Bethe [1891:59 and 86]).
F8 (see page 143 for text)
Loose Ends
For our present purposes we should particularly note that to infer the foregoing to be the version of the Thebais one must pile hypothesis upon hypothesis: the tradition is un-Sophoclean, therefore pre-Sophoclean, therefore epic, therefore (finally) our own epic. But I should contest the initial premise. Frazer ad loc. (1.373n2) assumes that Apollodorus is here following Sophocles’ Antigone, and this is surely right. Such references in that play as verse 849 (πρὸς ἔργμα τυμβόχωστον ἔρχομαι τάφου ποταινίου), 888 (ζῶσα τυμβεύειν) or 891–892 (ὦ τύμβος, ὦ νυμφεῖον, ὦ κατασκαφὴς | οἴκησις) adequately explain and justify Apollodorus’ rather elliptical phraseology. See further Robert 1915:1.367–368, {97|98} who sees the Apollodorean passage as a mere paraphrase of Sophocles Antigone 773–774.
Footnotes