Dué, Casey. 2018. Achilles Unbound: Multiformity and Tradition in the Homeric Epics. Hellenic Studies Series 81. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_Due.Achilles_Unbound.2018.
Chapter 3. “And Then an Amazon Came”: Homeric Papyri
Both Bird and Collins see the multiformity attested in the Ptolemaic papyri as being in some way connected to performance, either directly (in the sense of transcripts of lives performance) or indirectly (in the sense that the textual transmission still reflects, even in later eras, the multiformity that is natural to poetry composed in performance). In this brief chapter then I will strive not to simply repeat the work of Bird or Collins, though I have certainly been influenced by it, and instead to build on some of the implications of my previous chapter as well as Bird’s findings, using some of my own examples. 
 Thus they celebrated the burial of Hektor, tamer of horses.
This is a deeply meaningful ending that brings closure to the story of the Iliad, while at the same time powerfully looking ahead to the death, lamentation for, and funeral of the Iliad’s central figure, Achilles. As Thetis makes clear in Iliad 18.95–96, Achilles’ death will come “straightaway after Hektor” (αὐτίκα γάρ τοι ἔπειτα μεθ᾽ Ἕκτορα), and the two are inextricably linked.  But it seems that not every Iliad ended this way. A note in the scholia of the eleventh-century CE Townley manuscript (Burney 86) states that “some write” (τινὲς γράφουσιν):
[804a] Ἄρηος θυγάτηρ μεγαλήτορος ἀνδροφόνοιο
 Thus they celebrated the burial of Hektor, and then an Amazon came
[804a] the daughter of great-hearted man-slaying Ares
We might be tempted to dismiss this comment as resulting from some sort of confusion involving the Aithiopis in the Epic Cycle. We know that by the time the poems of the Cycle came to be summarized by Proklos (the primary form in which we now know them), they had been edited to fit around the Iliad and the Odyssey and to flow relatively seamlessly from one to the next (Burgess 2001:132–143). This is how Proklos describes the initial episodes of the Aithiopis:
If we can trust Proklos, the Aithiopis began with the arrival of Penthesileia (though it is by no means certain that we can trust Proklos). Could this attested multiform really be a verse from the Aithiopis, wrongly added to the Iliad?
[804a] Ὀτρήρ[η]<ς> θυγάτηρ εὐειδὴς Πεντηεσίλ<ε>ια
 Thus they celebrated the burial of Hektor, and then an Amazon came
[804a] the daughter of Otrera, beautiful Penthesileia. 
A plausible explanation is that even as late as the first century CE, the division between the Iliad and the Aithiopis was not so cut and dried. It could certainly be the case that the Aithiopis began before the traditional end of our Iliad, and that the Iliad tradition and the Aithiopis tradition overlapped in content.  Likewise the Iliad may well have extended further in more fluid phases of the epic tradition. Even after the poem had crystallized into the shape in which we now know it, in nonregulated contexts a versatile singer with a broad repertoire should have been able to pick up and leave off where he saw fit (as time, occasion, and audience response guided him). Only highly regulated festival contexts would have required a particular ending to the Iliad. Even if what we know from medieval manuscripts as verse 24.804 was the usual way to end the Iliad, there was nothing to stop a skilled singer from continuing the story if he and his audience desired it.
As we saw in chapter 1, the theme of Achilles’ sorrow or akhos is a deeply ingrained theme in the Iliad, perhaps as old or older than his wrath (as Nagy’s reconstruction of his name suggests). A performance of the Iliad that included Penthesileia might well have emphasized this theme even further.
[302a] [ca. 10 letters] φ̣ων ἐ̣π̣ὶ̣ δὲ στεροπὴν ἐφέηκεν·
[302b] <θησέμεναι γ>ὰρ̣ ἔμελλεν ἔτ᾽ ἄλγεά τε στοναχάς τε
[302c] <Τρωσί τε καὶ> Δαναο̣ῖ̣<σι> διὰ κρατερὰς ὑς<μί>νας.
[302d] <αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ ὄ>μοσέν τε τελεύτησέν <τε> τὸν ὅρκον,
 [ ]<Δαρδανί>δ<η>ς̣ Πρίαμος πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπ<ε·>
 <κέκλυτέ μευ Τ>ρῶες καὶ Δάρδανοι ἠδ᾽ <ἐ>π̣ί̣κ̣<ουροι>
[304a] <ὄφρ᾽ εἴπω> τά μ̣<ε θυ>μὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἀν<ώ>γε<ι.>
 <ἤτοι ἐ>γὼν εἶμι πρ<ο>τὶ Ἴλιον ἠνεμόεσσαν·
 <ο>ὐ̣ γάρ κεν τλαίην <ποτ᾽ ἐν ὀφθα>λμοῖσιν ὁρᾶ<σθαι>
 <μα>ρνάμ<ε>νον φίλο<ν υἱὸν ἀρηϊφίλῳ Μενελάῳ.>
 <Ζεὺς μέν που> τ̣ό̣ <γ>ε̣ <οἶδε καὶ ἀθάνατοι θεοὶ ἄλλοι>
 <ὁπποτέρῳ θα>ν̣ά̣τοιο τέλ<ος πεπρωμένον ἐστίν.>
 <ἦ ῥα καὶ ἐς δίφρο>ν̣ ἄ̣ρ̣<νας θέτο ἰσόθεος φώς>
[302a] and he let fly lightning.
[302b] For he was about to place still more sufferings and groans upon
[302c] the Trojans and the Danaans in powerful combat.
[302d] Next, once he [Agamemnon] had sworn the oath and completed the sacrifice,
 To them Priam, descendant of Dardanos, spoke words,
 “Hear from me, Trojans and Dardanians and allies,
[304a] let me say what my heart in my chest tells me to say:
 I will go to wind-swept Ilion,
 for I would never bear to watch with my own eyes
 my dear son fighting with Menelaos, dear to Ares.
 Zeus, I suppose, knows this, as well the rest of the immortal gods,
 to which of the two the fulfillment of death has been allotted.”
 He spoke, and into the chariot he, a man equal to a god, placed the lambs
At verse 302, the papyrus seems to read ὣς ἔφαν εὐχόμενοι, μέγα δ᾽ ἔκτυπε μητίετα Ζεὺ̣ς (“So they spoke, praying, and Zeus the deviser thundered loudly”) in contrast to the medieval manuscripts, which read ὣς ἔφαν, οὐδ’ ἄρα πώ σφιν ἐπεκραίαινε Κρονίων (“So they spoke, but not yet did Zeus bring it to fulfillment for them”). Following that verse, there are four plus verses that are not attested in the medieval manuscripts. At verse 303, the papyrus reads πρὸς where the medieval manuscripts have μετὰ.  At verse 304, the papyrus reads Δάρδανοι ἠδ᾽ <ἐ>π̣ί̣κ̣<ουροι> (“Dardanians and allies”) where the manuscripts read ἐϋκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοί (“well-greaved Achaeans”). After 304 there is another plus verse. At verse 306, the papyrus appears to read <ο>ὐ̣ γάρ κεν τλαίην <ποτ᾽ ἐν ὀφθα>λμοῖσιν ὁρᾶ<σθαι> (“for I would never bear to watch with my own eyes”) whereas the manuscripts have ἄψ, ἐπεὶ οὔ πω τλήσομ’ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρᾶσθαι (“back, since I will not yet dare to watch with my own eyes”).
[2.40] Τρωσί τε καὶ Δαναοῖσι διὰ κρατερὰς ὑσμίνας.
[2.39] For he was about to place still more sufferings and groaning upon
[2.40] the Trojans and the Danaans in powerful combat.
Verse 3.302d on the papyrus can be found at Iliad 14.280:
[14.280] Next, once he had sworn the oath and completed the sacrifice
And finally, verse 3.304a on the papyrus can be found at Iliad 19.102. In fact, this particular passage from Iliad 19, in which Zeus addresses the other gods, is contextually similar to the one we are exploring in Iliad 3:
[19.101] κέκλυτέ μευ πάντές τε θεοὶ πᾶσαί τε θέαιναι,
[19.102] ὄφρ᾽ εἴπω τά με θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἀνώγει.
[19.100] Making a solemn statement, he spoke among all the gods,
[19.101] “Hear from me, all you gods and goddesses,
[19.102] let me say what my heart in my chest tells me to say.”
We can see that verse 2.304 on the papyrus is likewise parallel to 19.101, with the substitution of the contextually appropriate Τρῶες καὶ Δάρδανοι ἠδ᾽ ἐπίκουροι for πάντές τε θεοὶ πᾶσαί τε θέαιναι.
τερπόμενοι· δοιὼ δὲ κυβιστητῆρε κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς
μολπῆς ἐξάρχοντες ἐδίνευον κατὰ μέσσους.
A great crowd stood around the lovely dancing place
delighting in it. And two tumblers throughout them
leading off the song and dance whirled in the middle.
As Martin Revermann has pointed out in his analysis of the lines, this version of the text has not only universal manuscript support, but also the support of five papyri and a quotation of the passage in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Revermannn 1998:29). And yet this seemingly canonical version of the text is not the only possibility. Friedrich Wolf, whose conservative edition set the standard numbering of verses that all modern editions adopt, prints this longer version of the passage, as attested in Athenaeus (181b): 
[18.604] τερπόμενοι· μετὰ δέ σφιν ἐμέλπετο θεῖος ἀοιδὸς
[18.605] φορμίζων· δοιὼ δὲ κυβιστητῆρε κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς
[18.606] μολπῆς ἐξάρχοντες ἐδίνευον κατὰ μέσσους.
[18.603] A great crowd stood around the lovely dancing place
[18.604] delighting in it. And among them a divine singer sang and played
[18.605] on the phorminx. And two tumblers throughout them
[18.606] leading off the song and dance whirled in the middle.
Because the line numbers of Wolf’s edition have been adopted by all subsequent editors, Athenaeus’ version of these verses receives the canonical line numbers 603, 604, 605, and 606. Modern editors who choose to leave out the expansion due to insufficient textual support must format their edition in such a way as to preserve the line numbers of Wolf, but not the parts of verses 604 and 605 that are attested only in Athenaeus.
προσσυνῆψαν τοιούτους τινὰς στιχους
[4.16] γείτονες ἠδὲ ἔται Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο,
[4.17] τερπόμενοι: μετὰ δέ σφιν ἐμέλπετο θεῖος ἀοιδὸς
[4.18] φορμίζων, δοιὼ δὲ κυβιστητῆρε κατ᾽ αὐτούς,
[4.19] μολπῆς ἐξάρχοντες, ἐδίνευον κατὰ μέσσους.
μετενεγκόντες ἐκ τῆς Ὁπλοποιίας σὺν αὐτῷ γε τῷ περὶ τὴν λέξιν ἁμαρτήματι.
They fastened on in addition such verses as follows
[4.16] the neighbors and kinsmen of the outstanding Menelaos,
[4.17] delighting in it. And among them a divine singer sang and played
[4.18] on the phorminx. And two tumblers throughout them
[4.19] leading off the song and dance whirled in the middle.
having transferred them from the “Making of the Arms” together with the error concerning the text.
Athenaeus, much like a modern critic, accuses the scholars associated with Aristarchus of taking lines that belong in Iliad 18 and inserting them in Odyssey 4. This argument is part of a larger discussion about the appropriate mix of wine, song, and dance, in which Athenaeus claims that in Homer it is mainly the suitors and the Phaeacians who indulge in this kind of activity. But the fact is that in both passages song and music are thematically and formulaically appropriate—and even expected, from what we know of Homeric diction—as Revermann has shown and as I will discuss below. Just as in the case of the golden amphora of Iliad 23 and Odyssey 24, which I discussed in chapter 2, we should not have to choose between the Iliad and the Odyssey here. Both poems make use of the formulaic language associated with feasting and festivals where it is thematically called for.
Revermann’s arguments clearly show that something is missing, but the lacuna he postulates, in his view, cannot be filled by the citation in Athenaeus, which he finds too problematic. 
[604/5] τερπόμ̣[ενοι·] δοιὼ δὲ κ̣υ̣[β]ι̣στητῆρε κ[α]τ᾽ αὐτ̣[οὺς
 μολπῆ[ς ἐξ]άρχοντες ἐδ̣ί̣νευον κατ[ὰ] μέσ[σους.
[606a] ἐν δ’ ἔσ[αν σ]ύ̣ριγγε[ς, ἔσ]α̣ν̣ κίθαρίς τ[ε] κ̣αὶ α̣[ὐλοί.
 ἐν δὲ τ[ίθει] ποταμοῖ̣ο μέγα σθένος Ὠκε[ανοῖο
 ἄντυγα πὰρ πυμά̣τ̣η̣ν̣ σ̣άκεος πύκα π[οιητοῖο.
[608a] ἐν δὲ λιμὴν ἐτέτυκτ̣[ο] ἑ̣ανοῦ κασσιτέρ[οιο
[608b] κλυζ[ομ]ένωι ἴκε̣[λο]ς· δοίω δ’ ἀναφυσιόω[ντες
[608c] ἀργύ[ρεοι] δελφῖνεσ̣ [ἐ]φοίνεον ἔλλ[ο]πας [ἰχθῦς·
[608d] τοῦ δ̣’ [ὕπ]ο χάλκε[ιοι] τ̣ρ̣έ̣ο̣ν̣ ἰ̣χ̣θ̣ύ̣ες· αὐ̣τὰ[ρ ἐπ᾽ ἀκταῖς
 A great crowd stood around the lovely dancing place
[604/5] delighting in it. And two tumblers throughout them
 leading off the song and dance [μολπή] whirled in the middle.
[606a] And on it were panpipes and a lyre [kithara] and flutes [auloi].
 And on it he placed the great might of the river Okeanos
 next to the outermost rim of the intricately made shield.
[608a] And on it was wrought a harbor of beaten tin
[608b] and it was like as if rising from the waves. And drawing deep breaths two
[608c] silver dolphins reddened the scaly fish.
[608d] And beneath it the bronze fish trembled. Meanwhile on the shore
For the moment I call attention only to verse 606a on the papyrus. This verse is attested in no other manuscript and is not found elsewhere in what survives of Homeric poetry. As West points out, the text as she has reconstructed it is problematic metrically, but there are no likely alternatives to her supplement. Clearly, at some point in the history of composing this passage in performance it was felt that musical accompaniment was called for here, and Revermann’s research confirms that we should expect to find it. In terms of what we know of Homeric diction, however, the verse is problematic, and it is not surprising that it did not gain a stronger foothold in the textual transmission. 
 κυκλοτερὴς ἐτέτυκτο πανέφθου κασσιτέροιο
 κλυζομένῳ ἴκελος· πολλοί γε μὲν ἂμ μέσον αὐτοῦ
 δελφῖνες τῇ καὶ τῇ ἐθύνεον ἰχθυάοντες
 νηχομένοις ἴκελοι· δοιὼ δ᾽ ἀναφυσιόωντες
 ἀργύρεοι δελφῖνες ἐθοινῶντ᾽ ἔλλοπας ἰχθῦς.
 τῶν δ᾽ ὕπο χάλκειοι τρέον ἰχθύες· αὐτὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἀκταῖς
 ἧστο ἀνὴρ ἁλιεὺς δεδοκημένος· εἶχε δὲ χερσὶν
 ἰχθύσιν ἀμφίβληστρον ἀπορρίψοντι ἐοικώς.
 And on it a harbor with good mooring of the monstrous sea
 was wrought in a circle of pure tin
 like as if rising from the waves. In the middle of it many
 dolphins darted here and there fishing
 like as if swimming; and drawing deep breaths two
 silver dolphins feasted on the scaly fish.
 And beneath them the bronze fish trembled. Meanwhile on the shore
 sat a fisherman watching. And he held in his hands
 a casting net, seeming like one about to cast it.
Revermann uses the presence of these verses on the papyrus to condemn 606a, even though 606a contains the music that he argues is lacking from the medievally transmitted shield of Achilles:
West likewise speaks of the plus verses on the papyrus as being an “interpolation” from the Hesiodic passage. But a comparison of the two passages arguably shows something quite different. The passages make use of similar formulaic language to describe a similar image on a shield, but one need not be an “interpolation” of the other, if we take into account that both shield passages were composed within a long oral tradition of such passages. The Iliadic shield of Achilles and the Hesiodic shield of Herakles are only two such compositions that happen to survive. We simply cannot know how many more may have existed and how prone such compositions may have been to expansion and compression in performance. Papyrus 51’s additional verses are almost certainly not the work of a miscreant scribe intentionally “contaminating” the Iliad with verses from the Hesiodic corpus. Rather, both passages draw on the traditional formulaic language associated with shield poetry, language that was evidently readily available to poets of the Homeric and Hesiodic corpora alike. 
Revermann’s analysis, by his own admission, uncovers an instance of fluidity (or multiformity) in the textual transmission, only to reject such fluidity as interesting or worthy of further examination. He describes as being a “special case” something that, as we have seen, is not particularly special or unusual. The earliest quotations and papyri reveal that the Homeric text existed and was presumably performed in shorter and longer versions throughout antiquity. Revermann’s penultimate sentence highlights the difference between the approach of many scholars and that which I and my fellow editors (following Nagy, and ultimately Albert Lord) advocate for. We are not attempting to recover the “genuine version,” nor do we think that there is only one “genuine version” to be had.  A multitextual approach can accept that formulaic language associated with shield poetry could have been used in performance to further extend the shield passage. It can also accept that different performances of the shield of Achilles might have included varying numbers of verses devoted to describing the musical accompaniment of the dancers. It can accept the presence or absence of an aoidos in the passage, while acknowledging that there are poetic implications of each multiform that should be taken into account in any analysis of the passage.
- We can find evidence for the formulaic diction connected to Shield poetry in the larger epic tradition.
- We can find evidence pointing to a thematic preference for musical accompaniment in passages that depict dancing, something that seems to have dropped from the medievally attested text of the shield of Achilles.
- We can find evidence for how the Homeric poems were being performed and circulated and received in the first century BCE.