I§141 I return to the cursory reference to Chios as the setting for a quadrennial thusia ‘festival’ honoring Homer in the narrative of Vita 2 (307–8). As we saw, this reference is pertinent to the context of a Homeric Hymn to Apollo to be performed at Delos. In other words, it is pertinent to the festival of the Delia. It is also pertinent to the indirect reference made by the narrative of Vita 1 to the quadrennial thusia ‘festival’ of the Panathenaia in Athens. As we have already seen, Homer is pictured as composing both the Iliad and the Odyssey in the city of Chios (Vita 1.346–399). The only two epics performed at the festival of the Panathenaia are the only two epics composed by Homer in the city of Chios and, in the course of composing these two epics, he keeps augmenting his composition by adding verses that center on the glorification of Athens (1.378–398). Only after he finishes his glorification of Athens does Homer finish composing the Iliad and Odyssey: only then does he take leave of Chios and set sail to tour the rest of Hellas (1.400), arriving at Samos as his first port of call (1.401). Samos is merely a transitional stopover before Homer’s arrival in Hellas: in this context, his intended point of arrival in Hellas is explicitly the city of Athens (1.483–484). At a later point in my argumentation, I will return to the detail about Samos, which is typical of a recurrent theme in the Lives of Homer, that is, the role of Samos as a transition to Athens. For now, I simply highlight the fact that the destination of Homer in this story is Athens. And the intended Homeric trajectory, starting from Chios and ending in Athens, is an indirect recognition of a fundamentally Athenocentric theme. As we are about to see, this theme is tied to a lineage of epic performers who trace themselves back to Homer. As we {59|60} are told by the narrative of Vita 2, it is in Chios that Homer fathers this lineage of epic performers. They are known as the Homēridai:

Iⓣ32 Vita 2.13–15

I§142 This reference in Vita 2 makes it explicit that the tracing of the Homēridai back to Homer is a Chiote tradition—and that this tradition aetiologizes the Chiotes’ claim to the poet Homer by way of the Homēridai. There is also another such reference in Strabo (14.1.35 C645). Moreover, as we learn from Harpocration (s.v. Homēridai), both Hellanicus of Lesbos (FGH 4 F 20) and Acusilaus of Argos (FGH 2 F 2) say that the Homēridai were a genos ‘lineage’ in Chios that was named after Homer himself: Ὁμηρίδαι· γένος ἐν Χίῳ, ὅπερ ᾿Ακουσίλαος ἐν γ’, Ἑλλάνικος ἐν τῇ Ἀτλαντιάδι ἀπὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ φησιν ὠνομάσθαι ‘the Homēridai: a lineage [ genos ] in Chios; Acusilaus in Book 3 and Hellanicus in the Atlantias say that it was named after Homer’. [1]

I§144 As I argued in Chapter 1, the use of the word komizein ‘bring over’ with reference to the initiative of rescuing the lyric poetry of Anacreon by bringing it over from Samos and by introducing the performance of such poetry at the Panathenaia is parallel to the use of the same word with reference to the initiative of ostensibly rescuing the epic poetry of Homer by bringing it over from Chios. In the latter case, it is made explicit that Hipparkhos introduced the performance of Homer’s epic compositions at the Panathenaia. What is only implicit, however, is the idea that Homer’s poetry was brought over from Chios in particular, whereas it is made explicit that Anacreon and his poetry were brought over from Samos. In what follows, I will show that Chios was in fact the provenience of the Homeric tradition of performance that the Peisistratidai ‘brought over’ to Athens, and that the mediators were in fact the Homēridai of Chios. [2] I will also show that the story about the initiative of the Peisistratidai amounts to an aetiology explaining the function of the Homēridai as the authorizers of Homer in Athens—and as the Ionian originators of the institution that I defined in Chapter 1 as the Panathenaic Regulation.

I§145 Most relevant is a passing reference in Plato, where we learn that the garland of gold that Ion of Ephesus expects to win in competition for first prize in rhapsodic performance of Homer at the feast of the Panathenaia is to be awarded by the Homēridai (Ion 530d). As I argue in the companion volume Homer the Classic, this reference to the Homēridai shows that the Athenians in the late fifth century rec-{61|62} ognized the Homēridai of Chios as the official regulators of rhapsodic competitions in performing the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey at the Panathenaia in Athens. [3] The fact that Ion is pictured as already wearing a golden garland when he performs at the Panathenaia implies that he is a tenured Panathenaic rhapsode.

I§147 In earlier work, I have argued that these Homēridai were actually a source for the Life of Homer narrative traditions. [4] Direct evidence comes from what the Homēridai themselves are reported as saying—or not saying—about Homer. A shining example of what they do say comes from an Athenian witness, reporting a myth about Homer’s experience of an epiphany by Helen:

I§148 This report is most valuable for showing that the stories we see retold in Lives of Homer like Vita 2 are not at all unknown to Athenians. The familiarity that is presupposed in the reference made by Isocrates makes it clear that the repertoire of the Homēridai is not just a Chiote repertoire. It is for the Athenians an Athenian repertoire. [5]

I§153 Although the non-Athenocentric narrative of Vita 1 accepts the concept of Homer as the composer of the Panathenaic Iliad and Odyssey, it elides the concept of the Homēridai as authorized performers of what their Chiote ancestor had notionally composed on their island. The elision is expressed by way of a contradiction. Homer has no sons according to this non-Athenocentric narrative: he fathers only two daughters in Chios, one of whom dies unmarried, while the other is married off by her father to a man from Chios (Vita 1.343–345). [6] I see here a non-Atheno-{63|64} centric or even anti-Athenocentric contradiction, consistent with the overall outlook of Vita 1, which stands in sharp contrast with the Athenocentrism of Vita 2. To disconnect the Homēridai of the Panathenaia in Athens from Homēros in Chios is to disconnect Homer himself from Athens by delegitimizing his would-be descendants. [7] I conclude by adding yet another version of Homer’s lineage: according to a tradition reported in the Suda, Vita 10 (34–36), Homer fathers two sons and one daughter in Chios. Either of these two sons may have been claimed by the Homēridai of Chios as a link to Homer.

I§158 The ultimate source for most of what is being said here in this compressed and elliptic account is Aristarchus of Samothrace, head of the Library of Alexandria in the second century BCE. [9] The account does not specify whether Kynaithos is re-{65|66} ally one of the Homēridai of Chios who claim descent from Homer—or whether he is simply a rhapsode who impersonates Homer. But the fact that he is from Chios suggests that he is in fact one of the Homēridai. In any case, the account specifies that Kynaithos and his associates belong to a category of poets who are more recent than Homer, that is, post-Homeric. The poet of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, according to this account, is the newer poet Kynaithos, not the older poet Homer.

I§159 The methodology of Aristarchus in identifying what he considered to be non-Homeric elements in the Homeric text is reflected in his usage of the term neōteroi ‘newer’ as a designation of poets who supposedly came after Homer; similarly, he used the term neōterikos ‘neoteric’ as an adjective describing features that distinguish these ‘newer’ poets from the genuine Homer. [10] For Aristarchus, non-Homeric meant post-Homeric. From here on, I will use the term neoteric in this sense, without prejudging whether the neoteric poets were really ‘newer’ than Homer. In the commentaries or hupomnēmata of Aristarchus as paraphrased in the Homeric scholia, we find that Hesiod and the poets of the epic Cycle were treated as such neōteroi or ‘newer’ poets. [11]

I§161 Such a point of view is evidently post-Athenocentric, in sharp contrast to the Athenocentric point of view we saw in the testimony of Thucydides himself. According to Thucydides, the author of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo is none other than Homer. We saw corroborating testimony in the Athenocentric narrative of Vita 2 in the Life of Homer tradition, where the Hymn to Apollo is likewise attributed to the authorship of Homer. Further, as we saw in both the Athenocentric narrative of Vita 2 and the pre-Athenocentric narrative of Vita 1, Homer is the poet of not only humnoi but also epigrams, such as the Midas Epigram. Even further, as we saw in the pre-Athenocentric narrative of Vita 1, Homer himself engages in the activity of ‘interpolation’ (en-poieîn) when he adds verses glorifying Athens while composing the Iliad and Odyssey in Chios. At a later point, I will reinterpret the concept of ‘interpolation’ (en-poieîn / en-ballein) from the standpoint of the pre-Athenocentric period in the Life of Homer traditions. [12] {66|67}

I§163 More needs to be said about the expression ek diadokhēs, which is conventionally translated as ‘in succession’. [13] This translation leaves it open whether the ‘succession’ is from ancestor to descendant or from one participant to another while taking turns. We see an example of the first sense in the scholia for Pindar’s Olympian 6 (158a), where Hieron is said to have inherited a priesthood ek diadokhēs ‘in succession’ from one of his ancestors. We see an example of the second sense in the scholia for Pindar’s Pythian 12 (25; ed. Semitelos), where the three Graiai are said to share one eye and one tooth, using them ek diadokhēs ‘in relay’, that is, by taking turns. There is another example in Aristotle’s Physics (5.227a28–29): καὶ οἷον ἡ λαμπὰς <ἡ> ἐκ διαδοχῆς φορὰ ἐχομένη, συνεχὴς δ’ οὔ ‘and just as the torch race by relay [ek diadokhēs] is locomotion that is consecutive but not continuous’. (The metonymic meaning of lampas ‘torch’ as ‘torch race’ is attested also in the Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians [57.1.8]). Moreover, the expression ek diadokhēs can mean ‘taking turns’ in contexts where it is used together with allēlois ‘with each other’. A case in point is a passage from Aristotle (F 347.15 ed. Rose via Aelian Varia Historia 1.15) where he describes how a mother bird and a father bird warm the eggs in their nest by taking turns (ek diadokhēs) with each other (allēlois). In another passage from Aristotle (F 433.9 ed. Rose, via Harpocration s.v. prutaneis), we read that the ten phulai of Athens each preside over the Boulē by taking turns (ek diadokhēs) with each other (allēlais). In the scholia A for Iliad XVIII (506d), ek diadokhēs refers to the scene on the Shield of Achilles where the elders take turns in rendering judgment regarding the litigation. In the scholia D for Iliad I (604), ek diadokhēs refers to the relay singing of the Muses: καὶ αὗται Ἀπόλλωνος κιθαρίζοντος ἐκ διαδοχῆς παρὰ μέρος ᾖδον ‘and they, while Apollo was playing the kithara, were singing in relay [para meros], by taking turns [ek diadokhēs]’.

I§164 So also in the scholia for Pindar’s Nemean 2 (1c), I conclude that ek diadokhēs refers to the relay singing of the Homēridai: οἳ καὶ τὴν ποίησιν αὐτοῦ ἐκ διαδοχῆς ᾖδον ‘and they [= the Homēridai] also sang his [= Homer’s] poetry [poiēsis] by taking turns [ek diadokhēs]’. [14] Still, the synchronic succession of relay singing may be a ritualized way of representing the diachronic succession of singing Homer’s songs from one generation to the next. In order to represent this diachronic succession of generations, there has to be a synchronic grouping of these generations as a corpora-{67|68} tion of practitioners. That corporation is named as the Homēridai, the ‘descendants of Homer’. In the act of performance, the descendants are all synchronized as one corporation who incorporate the ancestor by taking turns in re-enacting him. The same can be said about, say, the mother bird and the father bird that feed their young in relay: that principle of relay is the model for the idea that each new generation has to follow the practice of the previous generation in feeding the young. Or again, the principle of the relay in the Athenian torch race is a ritualized way of expressing the continuity of the tradition of torch racing in and of itself. We may compare the idea of the Asklēpiadai, notional descendants of the prototypical physician Asklēpios, who are figured as a corporation of physicians who practice medicine by continuing the practice of their ancestor. So also the Homēridai, notional descendants of Homēros, are figured as a corporation of singers who continue the practice of singing Homer. For them to sing in relay is a synchronic ritualization of the diachronic continuity.

I§166 So we see here in the scholia for Pindar Nemean 2 (1c) a precious attestation of a poetic practice that can be understood as the basis of the Panathenaic Regulation, which requires that rhapsodes take turns in performing Homer at the festival of the Panathenaia in Athens. What makes this attestation all the more precious is that the Homēridai themselves—not just rhapsodes—are being described here as the models of such a poetic practice. [15]

I§167 From what we have seen so far, the linking of Homer and the Homēridai of Chios {68|69} with the Panathenaia dates back at least as far as the later years of the Peisistratidai. In those later years, as we saw already in Chapter 1, the Panathenaic Regulation started to take shape. Ultimately, this Regulation led to the restricting of the epic repertoire of the Panathenaia to the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey, performed by rhapsodes who took turns in narrating the entire sequence of these two epics. This is not to say, however, that the epic repertoire of rhapsodes performing at the Panathenaia was restricted to the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey already in the earlier years of the Peisistratidai. Such a restriction, as I will argue, was starting to take hold only in the later years. Nor is it to say that the principle of rhapsodic relay that we see at work in the Panathenaic Regulation originated at the Panathenaia. This principle, as mediated by the Homēridai of Chios, was already operational in the late eighth and early seventh centuries BCE at the festival of the Panionia held at the Panionion of the Ionian Dodecapolis in Asia Minor. [16] I will have more to say later about the evolution of Homeric poetry at the Panionia, but for now I continue to focus on its evolution at the Panathenaia. And my point remains that the Panathenaic Homer started taking shape only in the later years of the Peisistratidai, with the introduction of the Panathenaic Regulation by way of the Homēridai.

I§169 I start with the Cyclic traditions, giving here a general summary based on arguments I developed in earlier work. [17] For a lengthy period of time in the evolution of the Panathenaia, the epic Cycle was not distinguished from the Homeric tradition of epic performance. During this time, the epics of the Cycle were not anti-Homeric or even non-Homeric: they were simply Homeric. Homer was considered to be the poet of an epic Cycle that included what we know as the Iliad and Odyssey. Only gradually did the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey become differentiated from the epic Cycle. In the course of this differentiation, the Iliad and Odyssey became the {69|70} only epics that were truly Homeric, while the Cycle became non-Homeric. The epics of the Cycle were then reassigned to poets other than Homer. For example, the Aithiopis and the Iliou Persis were reassigned to Arctinus of Miletus (Proclus summary p. 105.21–22 and p. 107.16–17 ed. Allen). Similarly, the Little Iliad was reassigned to Lesches of Lesbos (p. 106.19–20: his native city is specified as Mytilene). In earlier times, by contrast, the entire epic Cycle had been assigned to Homer. [18]

I§170 At the festival of the Panathenaia in Athens, as we saw in Chapter 1, it was only in the late sixth century BCE that Homer was starting to become differentiated as the author of two epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey. And, as I will argue in the Epilegomena, it was in this period that the epics of the epic Cycle were reassigned to such figures as Arctinus of Miletus and Lesches of Lesbos. At the festival of the Panionia at the Panionion of the Ionian Dodecapolis in Asia Minor, on the other hand, I will argue that such a differentiation was taking place far earlier, as early as the late eighth and early seventh century BCE. [19] I add here that we have just seen a comparable differentiation involving the Homeric Hymn to Apollo: the authorship of this Hymn was at some point reassigned from Homer to a newer poet, Kynaithos of Chios. In this case we can be more precise about the relative date of the reassignment. It must have happened sometime after the era of Thucydides, since the historian still identifies the speaker of the Hymn to Apollo as Homer.

I§174 To test the supposition that Kynaithos added verses to Homer’s own verses, let us consider the structure of the Homeric Hymn (3) to Apollo as we have it. This hymn appears, at least on the surface, to be a combination of two originally separate hymns, and so it seems reasonable to understand the Pindaric scholia to mean that Kynaithos did add verses to an earlier hymn composed by Homer. In terms of such an understanding, the verses supposedly added by Kynaithos could be described as Hesiodic rather than Homeric. Here is why. These verses constitute the part of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo that celebrates the god Apollo as he was worshipped at Delphi. In other words, the referent of these verses was the Pythian Apollo, not the Delian Apollo who was worshipped at Delos. And, as Richard Martin has shown, the verses of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo celebrating the Pythian Apollo are distinctly Hesiodic in style, whereas the verses celebrating the Delian Apollo are distinctly Homeric. [23] By the term “Hesiodic” he means the style that is characteristic of the Theogony and Works and Days; by “Homeric” he means the style that is characteristic of the Iliad and Odyssey.

I§175 If it is true that Kynaithos performed the Homeric Hymn to Apollo at the festival of the Delia at Delos in, say, 522 BCE, it follows that this would-be descendant of Homer conflated a Homeric Hymn to Apollo with a rival Hesiodic Hymn, treating the Hesiodic version as an aspect of an overall Homeric tradition that recognized the myth of the Contest of Homer and Hesiod, actually dramatizing that myth in the form of a juxtaposition of Homeric and Hesiodic versions of hymns to Apollo. [24] This juxtaposition of two distinct styles in performing a Hymn to Apollo anticipates a rivalry between two distinct kinds of epic performance that could potentially follow such a Hymn.

I§178 I now turn to the third of the three epic traditions current in the earlier years of the Peisistratidai, that is, the Orphic tradition. Like the epics ascribed to Hesiod, the epics ascribed to Orpheus were already distinct from the Homeric tradition at that time. The most striking evidence involves, once again, Polycrates of Samos, the most powerful rival of the Peisistratidai in the earlier years of their tyranny in Athens. Just as Kynaithos, under the patronage of Polycrates, appropriated the verses of Homer and Hesiod, so also Pythagoras, under the same patronage, appropriated the verses of Orpheus. I quote this summary of the relevant testimonia: “Pythagoras, who began his career in Polycrates’ Samos, started (or was among the first to adopt) the practice of composing poems under the name of Orpheus.” [25] I show here an example of such testimonia:

I§179 I interpret this opaque statement to mean that Pythagoras performed in the persona of Orpheus verses attributed to Orpheus. The attribution to Orpheus and the self-identification with Orpheus are simultaneous in the moment of performance. [26] Similarly, Kynaithos identifies with Hesiod when he performs the verses sacred to the Pythian Apollo just as he identifies with Homer when he performs the verses sacred to the Delian Apollo. [27] In this connection, I note with interest a tradition about the self-presentation of Pythagoras: he customarily wore a golden garland, a white robe, and trousers (Aelian Varia Historia 12.32). [28] I will postpone till the Epilegomena a discussion of the detail about the trousers, which conjures up the Thracian associations of Orpheus. For now I concentrate on the detail about the golden garland. In Plato’s Ion, the rhapsode Ion boasts that he will win as first prize a golden garland awarded by the Homēridai when he performs Homer in the rhapsodic competition at the Panathenaia (Ion 530d); there are also two other contexts where the rhapsode’s golden garland is mentioned (535d, 541c), and, in one of these, Ion is pictured as already wearing it while performing Homer at the Panathenaia (535d). {73|74}

I§180 The Panathenaic Homer of the Peisistratidai that I have been reconstructing here is noticeably different from the figure I reconstruct in the twin book Homer the Classic, namely, the Panathenaic Homer of the democracy in Athens during the second half of the fifth century. [29] The figure we now see emerging is an earlier form of Homer, more congenial to what I am calling the Dark Age. This earlier Homer was thought to have performed not only the Iliad and Odyssey. As we saw from Thucydides, this Homer performed also the Homeric Hymn to Apollo. We saw it also in Vita 2. As for the Homer of Vita 1, this figure is even more noticeably different from the Panathenaic Homer of the democracy in Athens during the second half of the fifth century. The Homer of Vita 1 is an even earlier form of Homer, who composed not only the Homeric Hymns but even the epics of the epic Cycle—or at least some of those epics. As I will now argue, the Homer of Vita 1 matches roughly the Homer of Herodotus, while the Homer of Vita 2 matches the Homer of Thucydides.

I§182 In general, Thucydides would have been speaking as an Athenian when he spoke of Homer. His experience, like that of any other Athenian in his time, would have been based on actually hearing the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey being performed at the seasonally recurring festival of the Panathenaia. Speaking as an Athenian, he would have expected his addressees to know what he knew was said by Homer. In fact, whenever Thucydides uses Homer as evidence, he does so with an attitude that reveals an expectation of full familiarity. [30] But his use of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo stands in sharp contrast. In this case he quotes extensively from Homer, whereas his quotations and citations are minimal in other cases. According to a noted modern commentator on Thucydides, these extensive quotations show that Thucydides did not expect his addressees to know the words spoken by Homer in this Hymn. [31] {74|75} In quoting from the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, Thucydides is taking the stance of an impartial antiquarian conducting an objective study that goes far beyond the common knowledge of his fellow Athenians.

I§183 The situation is different in the case of Herodotus. When he speaks of Homer, he does not speak as an Athenian, and the Homer he cites is not simply presumed to be the Panathenaic Homer. In other words, the Homer he cites is not necessarily restricted to the figure known only as the poet of the Iliad and Odyssey. In one context, for example, Herodotus attributes to Homer an epic about the sons of the Seven against Thebes called the Epigonoi (4.32), though he goes on to express some doubt about the attribution (4.32–33). [32]

Iⓣ39 Herodotus 2.116.1–2.117.1

Δοκέει δέ μοι καὶ ῞Ομηρος τὸν λόγον τοῦτον πυθέσθαι· ἀλλ’, οὐ γὰρ ὁμοίως ἐς τὴν ἐποποιίην εὐπρεπὴς ἦν τῷ ἑτέρῳ τῷ περ ἐχρήσατο, [ἐς ὃ] μετῆκε αὐτόν, δηλώσας ὡς καὶ τοῦτον ἐπίσταιτο τὸν λόγον. Δῆλον δέ, κατά περ ἐποίησε ἐν Ἰλιάδι (καὶ οὐδαμῇ ἄλλῃ ἀνεπόδισε ἑωυτόν) πλάνην τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου, ὡς ἀπηνείχθη ἄγων Ἑλένην τῇ τε δὴ ἄλλῃ πλαζόμενος καὶ ὡς ἐς Σιδῶνα τῆς Φοινίκης ἀπίκετο. Ἐπιμέμνηται δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐν Διομήδεος Ἀριστηίῃ· λέγει δὲ τὰ ἔπεα ὧδε·

ἔνθ’ ἔσαν οἱ πέπλοι παμποίκιλοι, ἔργα γυναικῶν
Σιδονίων, τὰς αὐτὸς Ἀλέξανδρος θεοειδὴς
ἤγαγε Σιδονίηθεν, ἐπιπλὼς εὐρέα πόντον,
τὴν ὁδὸν ἣν Ἑλένην περ ἀνήγαγεν εὐπατέρειαν.

[Iliad VI 289–292]

Ἐπιμέμνηται δὲ καὶ ἐν Ὀδυσσείῃ ἐν τοῖσδε τοῖσι ἔπεσι·

τοῖα Διὸς θυγάτηρ ἔχε φάρμακα μητιόεντα,
ἐσθλά, τά οἱ Πολύδαμνα πόρεν Θῶνος παράκοιτις
Αἰγυπτίη, τῇ πλεῖστα φέρει ζείδωρος ἄρουρα
φάρμακα, πολλὰ μὲν ἐσθλὰ μεμιγμένα, πολλὰ δὲ λυγρά.

[Odyssey iv 227–230]

Καὶ τάδε ἕτερα πρὸς Τηλέμαχον Μενέλεως λέγει· {75|76}

Αἰγύπτῳ μ’ ἔτι δεῦρο θεοὶ μεμαῶτα νέεσθαι
ἔσχον, ἐπεὶ οὔ σφιν ἔρεξα τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας.

[Odyssey iv 351–352]

Ἐν τούτοισι τοῖσι ἔπεσι δηλοῖ ὅτι ἠπίστατο τὴν ἐς Αἴγυπτον Ἀλεξάνδρου πλάνην· ὁμουρέει γὰρ ἡ Συρίη Αἰγύπτῳ, οἱ δὲ Φοίνικες, τῶν ἐστι ἡ Σιδών, ἐν τῇ Συρίῃ οἰκέουσι.

Κατὰ ταῦτα δὲ τὰ ἔπεα καὶ τόδε [τὸ χωρίον] οὐκ ἥκιστα ἀλλὰ μάλιστα δηλοῖ ὅτι οὐκ Ὁμήρου τὰ Κύπρια ἔπεά ἐστι ἀλλ’ ἄλλου τινός· ἐν μὲν γὰρ τοῖσι Κυπρίοισι εἴρηται ὡς τριταῖος ἐκ Σπάρτης Ἀλέξανδρος ἀπίκετο ἐς τὸ Ἴλιον ἄγων Ἑλένην, εὐαέϊ τε πνεύματι χρησάμενος καὶ θαλάσσῃ λείῃ· ἐν δὲ Ἰλιάδι λέγει ὡς ἐπλάζετο ἄγων αὐτήν. Ὅμηρος μέν νυν καὶ τὰ Κύπρια ἔπεα χαιρέτω.

I§185 I offer a paraphrase of the arguments made here by Herodotus:

In a non-Homeric version of an epic called the Cypria (a version known to Herodotus but not to us), it is said that Paris and Helen sailed to Troy without making any detour. There is an alternative version in the Homeric Iliad, and Herodotus quotes the relevant verses. In this version, it is said that Paris and Helen did make a detour: they went to Phoenicia before they went to Troy. On the basis of an Egyptian story about Paris and Helen, Herodotus goes on to argue that they went to Egypt as well as Phoenicia, and that Homer knew it. After all, Egypt is next to Phoenicia. But the problem is, Homer later elided the story of Helen in Egypt as inappropriate. So the Iliad tells the story about Helen in Troy, not the story about Helen in Egypt. And the Odyssey follows the Iliad in accepting the story of Helen in Troy. Both epics, however, show traces of the story of Helen in Egypt, though the traces in the Iliad are only indirect.

I§187 I conclude by considering again the fact that Herodotus distinguishes Homer as the poet of the Iliad from the poet of the Cypria. This fact shows that the historian is familiar with the Panathenaic Homer. That is, he thinks of Homer as the poet of the two epics performed at the Panathenaia, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Nevertheless, Herodotus does not presuppose that everyone thinks this way. That is why he makes a point of establishing the distinction in the first place. He speaks of the poet of the Cypria as someone who may be considered to be Homer by others, but Herodotus knows better.

Footnotes