The Center for Hellenic Studies

Homer the Preclassic

  Use the following persistent identifier: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_Nagy.Homer_the_Preclassic.2009.

Chapter Five: Iliadic multiformities

I 5ⓢ1. The transcendence of Zeus as hymnic subject

I§242 We have seen that the ongoing humnos of the stylized festival of the Phaeacians keeps getting stopped and restarted, and that in two cases the restarting activates a distinct hymnic prooimion. In the first case, the restarting leads to the second song of Demodokos, which activates a hymnic prooimion featuring the personified divine force of Philotēs ‘Bonding’ as its hymnic subject. In the other case, the restarting leads to the third song of Demodokos, which activates a hymnic prooimion featuring Zeus himself as its implied hymnic subject. It does not follow, however, that each restarting of epic requires a distinct hymnic prooimion. As I am about to argue, a hymnic prooimion is not obligatory for restarting or even starting a given epic—provided that Zeus happens to be the implied hymnic subject who authorizes that epic.

I§243 To make this argument, I start with the fact that Zeus is figured as the ultimate cause of the epic that is being narrated in the first song of Demodokos (viii 82) and that he must be the ultimate cause of the restarted epic in the third song as well—that is, according to the logic of the ring composition that links the first song with the third. According to the same logic, Zeus is not only the implied hymnic subject of the prooimion that restarts the epic performance (viii 499): he must be also the implied hymnic subject of the epic as it started in the first song, and this status is signaled by the narrator’s declaration that the epic plot of the first song is equivalent to the Plan of Zeus (viii 82).

I§244 As we contemplate these links between the first and the third songs of Demodokos, we are left with the initial impression that the singer’s second song is an {103|104} intrusion into the ongoing epic about the destruction of Troy in Odyssey viii—an epic continuing from the first to the third song of Demodokos. The integration of this seemingly intrusive second song into the ongoing humnos requires both a distinct hymnic prooimion for the second song to start and yet another distinct hymnic prooimion for the third song to start—that is, to restart by way of metabasis—somewhere after the point where the first song left off. If it had not been for the second song, it seems as if the third song may not have needed a distinct hymnic prooimion of its own.

I§245 The third song of Demodokos needs Zeus as its hymnic subject in order to make it possible for the epic of the first song to resume successfully in the third. Otherwise, the seemingly intrusive second song threatens to divert the ongoing epic that is being maintained by the ongoing humnos. Within the framework of the humnos, Zeus as the supreme god ultimately reasserts control over the direction of the humnos. The diversion caused by the second song in the humnos is transcended by Zeus as the overriding hymnic subject of the overall humnos. In other words, the status of Zeus as the ultimate hymnic subject will override the status of any other god in the ongoing humnos, since Zeus is viewed as the ultimate cause of the ongoing epic that is being continued by the ongoing humnos linking the first and the third songs.

I§246 Zeus is not only the overriding hymnic subject of the ongoing humnos in Odyssey viii. He is also the overriding hymnic subject of all humnoi by virtue of his hierarchical supremacy over all gods celebrated by humnoi—a supremacy acknowledged either explicitly or implicitly in all humnoi. A most prominent example, as I show in Homer the Classic, is the virtual Hymn to Zeus represented by the Hesiodic Theogony; another prominent example is the ostentatiously hierarchical ordering built into the Hymn to Zeus by Callimachus. [1]

I§247 In the Homeric Hymns, on the other hand, the supremacy of Zeus as the hymnic subject is not obvious on the surface. The sequencing of the Homeric Hymns as they survive in the medieval manuscript tradition does not follow the strict hierarchical ordering we see in the sequencing of the Hymns composed by Callimachus. Such lack of hierarchy in the sequencing of attested Homeric Hymns may be an accident due to the vicissitudes of the medieval manuscript transmission. There may have been an earlier phase in the transmission of the Homeric Hymns where the sequencing was logically hierarchical. It may be relevant, as I argue in Homer the Classic, that the hierarchy of sequencing in the Hymns of Callimachus is based on Homeric models. [2] It may also be relevant that Pindar’s imitation of a virtual Homeric Hymn to Zeus in his Nemean 2 makes it explicit, as we have seen, that Zeus is in fact the primary hymnic subject of the epics of Homer as performed by the heirs of Homer, the Homēridai. {104|105}

I§248 Just now, I was careful to say that Zeus is the primary hymnic subject of the epics of Homer. In the precise wording of Pindar, Zeus is the god of the prooimion that is sung ‘most of the time’, ta polla, by the Homēridai:

Iⓣ51 Pindar Nemean 2.1–3

Ὅθεν περ καὶ Ὁμηρίδαι | ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων τὰ πόλλ᾿ ἀοιδοί | ἄρχονται, Διὸς ἐκ προοιμίου…

(Starting) from the point where [hothen] the Homēridai, singers, most of the time [ta polla] begin [arkhesthai] their stitched-together words, from the prooimion of Zeus …

I§249 In this wording of Pindar, as I will now argue, we see a poetic formulation of a poetic principle, that is, the transcendence of Zeus as the ultimate hymnic subject.

I§250 To show the workings of this principle, I begin by considering passages where Zeus is not named as the god of a prooimion for a given epic. In such cases, the god who presides over the given festival that serves as the setting for the performance of that given epic will be named as the primary god of the prooimion. For example, in one of the Homeric Hymns we see an explicit reference to a festival that served as a setting for the performance of the prooimion addressing the god invoked in the Hymn. It happens in Homeric Hymn (6) to Aphrodite 19–20, which refers explicitly to the occasion of the festival where the performance of the Hymn is taking place: δὸς δ’ ἐν ἀγῶνι | νίκην τῷδε φέρεσθαι, ἐμὴν δ’ ἔντυνον ἀοιδήν ‘I pray to you [= Aphrodite] to grant that in the competition [agōn] that is at hand I may win victory. Arrange my song’.

I§251 Even in such prooimia performed at festivals that celebrate gods other than Zeus, Zeus figures as the supreme god who overrides in importance the god who is being celebrated at the given festival. In other words, the divinity who seems to be the primary subject of any prooimion is not the truly primary divinity—if Zeus is factored into the hymnic master plan. Any god of any prooimion can ultimately be replaced by Zeus, who is implicitly the true primary god of all prooimia. In the Homeric Hymns, we can see that gods who figure as the primary hymnic subjects of prooimia will nevertheless be described as secondary to Zeus. In the Homeric Hymn (32) to Selene, for example, where the prooimion addressed to the goddess leads overtly to an epic consequent (17–20), it is made explicit that Zeus is ultimately the primary god, both as the sexual partner of Selene herself (14–15) and as the father of the Muses, who are invoked here as his daughters (2) and, most important, who inspire the whole song in the first place (1–2).

I§252 Zeus is not the only god who transcends the occasionality of festivals by superseding the gods in whose honor the given festivals are being celebrated. Also transcendent are the Muses, whose poetic authority is derived from Zeus, as we saw in the example I just cited. And we have already seen an articulation of such transcendence in the scholia for Pindar’s Nemean 2.1 (d): αἰεὶ οὖν τὴν ἀρχὴν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ {105|106} πλεῖστον ἐκ Διὸς ἐποιοῦντο προοιμιαζόμενοι, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ Μουσῶν ‘and they [= the Homēridai] always started with a prooimion, making mostly Zeus their point of departure and occasionally the Muses.’ Yet another such transcendent god is Apollo, the Muses’ half-brother, who shares his poetic authority with these goddesses and who is also their choral leader. We have already seen an articulation of this relationship of the Muses with Apollo in Hesiodic poetry, which specifies that the authority of kings flows from Zeus, while the authority of poets flows from the authority of the Muses and of Apollo as their choral leader:

Iⓣ52 Hesiod Theogony 94–97

ἐκ γάρ τοι Μουσέων καὶ ἑκηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος
ἄνδρες ἀοιδοὶ ἔασιν ἐπὶ χθόνα καὶ κιθαρισταί,
ἐκ δὲ Διὸς βασιλῆες· ὁ δ’ ὄλβιος, ὅντινα Μοῦσαι
φίλωνται· γλυκερή οἱ ἀπὸ στόματος ῥέει αὐδή.

For the Muses and far-shooting Apollo are the sources
for the existence of singers [aoidoi] and players of the lyre [kitharis] on this earth.
And Zeus is the source for the existence of kings. Blessed [olbios] is he whom the Muses
love. And a sweet voice [audē] flows [rheîn] from his mouth.

I§253 We find a close parallel in one of the Homeric Hymns:

Iⓣ53 Homeric Hymn (25) to the Muses and Apollo (the complete text)

          Μουσάων ἄρχωμαι Ἀπόλλωνός τε Διός τε·
          ἐκ γὰρ Μουσάων καὶ ἑκηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος
          ἄνδρες ἀοιδοὶ ἔασιν ἐπὶ χθονὶ καὶ κιθαρισταί,
          ἐκ δὲ Διὸς βασιλῆες· ὁ δ’ ὄλβιος ὅν τινα Μοῦσαι
5        φίλωνται· γλυκερή οἱ ἀπὸ στόματος ῥέει αὐδή.
          Χαίρετε τέκνα Διὸς καὶ ἐμὴν τιμήσατ’ ἀοιδήν·
          αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ὑμέων τε καὶ ἄλλης μνήσομ’ ἀοιδῆς.

          Let me begin with the Muses, and Apollo, and Zeus.
          For the Muses and far-shooting Apollo are the sources
          for the existence of singers [aoidoi] and players of the lyre [kitharis] on this earth.
          And Zeus is the source for the existence of kings. Blessed [olbios] is he whom the Muses
5        love. And a sweet voice [audē] flows [rheîn] from his mouth.
          Hail and take pleasure [khairete], children of Zeus. Give honor [timē] to my song.
          As for me, I will keep you in mind along with the rest of the song.

I§254 The correlation of Apollo and the Muses with Zeus as transcendent hymnic subjects is made explicit in Odyssey viii. As Odysseus says to Demodokos, in praising {106|107} the accuracy of that singer’s first song about the story of Troy, Demodokos must have been ‘taught’ by a Muse, described as the daughter of Zeus, or by his son Apollo:

Iⓣ54 Odyssey viii 488

ἢ σέ γε Μοῦσ’ ἐδίδαξε, Διὸς πάϊς, ἢ σέ γ’ Ἀπόλλων·

Either the Muse, child of Zeus, taught you, or Apollo.

I§255 If Demodokos sings his song successfully, Odysseus adds, it will be clear that ‘the god’ who presides over the singing was favorably disposed toward the singer:

Iⓣ55 Odyssey viii 496–498

αἴ κεν δή μοι ταῦτα κατὰ μοῖραν καταλέξῃς,
αὐτίκα καὶ πᾶσιν μυθήσομαι ἀνθρώποισιν,
ὡς ἄρα τοι πρόφρων θεὸς ὤπασε θέσπιν ἀοιδήν.

If you can tell me these things in due order [katalegein], in accord with proper apportioning [moira],
then right away I will say the authoritative word [muthos] to all mortals:
I will say, and I see it as I say it, [3] that the god [theos], favorably disposed toward you, granted [opazein] you a divinely sounding song.

I§256 I note that the name of the god is not given here: the wording refers simply to the theos ‘god’. In the immediate context, theos here can be understood as either ‘the Muse’ or Apollo, as we see from what Odysseus has just said at verse 488, quoted immediately before this last quotation. The wording of verses 496–498 shows that the Muses and Apollo, like Zeus, can supersede other gods who could have presided over the third song of Demodokos. The hymnic prooimion that leads to the epic of the Wooden Horse is described here in words that correspond perfectly to the words of hymnic prooimia as we actually find them attested in the Homeric Hymns:

Iⓣ56 Homeric Hymn (2) to Demeter 494–495

πρόφρονες ἀντ’ ᾠδῆς βίοτον θυμήρε’ ὀπάζειν.
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ σεῖο καὶ ἄλλης μνήσομ’ ἀοιδῆς.

May you [= Demeter and Persephone] be favorably disposed [prophrones], granting [opazein] me a livelihood that fits my heart’s desire, in return for my song.
As for me, I will keep you in mind along with the rest of the song.

Iⓣ57 Homeric Hymn (30) to Gaia 17–19

Χαῖρε θεῶν μήτηρ, ἄλοχ’ Οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος,
πρόφρων δ’ ἀντ’ ᾠδῆς βίοτον θυμήρε’ ὄπαζε·
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ σεῖο καὶ ἄλλης μνήσομ’ ἀοιδῆς. {107|108}

Hail and take pleasure [khaire], mother of the gods, wife of Ouranos of the stars.
Be favorably disposed [prophrōn], and grant [opazein] me a livelihood that fits my heart’s desire, in return for my song.
As for me, I will keep you in mind along with the rest of the song.

Iⓣ58 Homeric Hymn (31) to Helios 17–19

χαῖρε ἄναξ, πρόφρων δὲ βίον θυμήρε’ ὄπαζε·
ἐκ σέο δ’ ἀρξάμενος κλῄσω μερόπων γένος ἀνδρῶν
ἡμιθέων ὧν ἔργα θεοὶ θνητοῖσιν ἔδειξαν.

Hail and take pleasure [khaire], lord, and be favorably disposed [prophrōn], granting [opazein] me a livelihood that suits my heart.
Taking my start from you I will give fame to the lineage [genos] of men,
heroes [hēmitheoi] that they are, whose deeds [erga] have been shown by gods to mortals.

Iⓣ59 Homeric Hymn (32) to Selene 17–20

χαῖρε ἄνασσα θεὰ λευκώλενε δῖα Σελήνη
πρόφρον ἐϋπλόκαμος· σέο δ’ ἀρχόμενος κλέα φωτῶν
ᾄσομαι ἡμιθέων ὧν κλείουσ’ ἔργματ’ ἀοιδοὶ
Μουσάων θεράποντες ἀπὸ στομάτων ἐροέντων.

Hail and take pleasure [khaire], queen goddess, you with the white arms, shining Selene.
Be favorably disposed [prophrōn], you with the beautiful tresses [plokamoi]. Taking my start from you I will perform the famous deeds [kleos plural] of men,
singing of them, heroes [hēmitheoi] that they are, whose deeds [ergmata] singers celebrate with fame [kleos]—
attendants [therapōn plural] of the Muses [4] they are, singing with voices evoking desire.

I§257 Technically, the unnamed theos ‘god’ at verse 498 of Odyssey viii could be any one of these various gods presiding over various festivals. But the wording of the immediate context makes it clear that the implied hymnic subject must be either the Muse or Apollo. I repeat that wording:

Iⓣ60 Odyssey viii 496–498

αἴ κεν δή μοι ταῦτα κατὰ μοῖραν καταλέξῃς,
αὐτίκα καὶ πᾶσιν μυθήσομαι ἀνθρώποισιν,
ὡς ἄρα τοι πρόφρων θεὸς ὤπασε θέσπιν ἀοιδήν.”

If you can tell me these things in due order [katalegein], in accord with proper apportioning [moira],
then right away I will say the authoritative word [muthos] to all mortals: {108|109}
I will say, and I see it as I say it, that, the god [theos], favorably disposed toward you, granted [opazein] you a divinely sounding song.

I§258 The ostentatiously nameless reference to ‘the god’ here is analogous to the nameless reference to ‘the god’ at the moment when Demodokos actually performs the prooimion of his third song:

Iⓣ61 Odyssey viii 499–500

ὣς φάθ’, ὁ δ’ ὁρμηθεὶς θεοῦ ἤρχετο, φαῖνε δ’ ἀοιδήν,
ἔνθεν ἑλών, ὡς …

Thus he [= Odysseus] spoke. And he [= Demodokos], setting his point of departure [hormētheis], started [arkhesthai] from the god [theos]. And he made visible the song,
taking it from the point where …

I§259 As I have been arguing, we see from the short-term context that Demodokos derives his poetic authority from ‘the Muse’ or from Apollo, and the implied hymnic subject seems to be one of these two gods. But we see from the long-term context, as signaled at verse 25 of Odyssey xiii, that the ultimate poetic authority for the songs of Demodokos derives from Zeus himself. So the reference at verse 488 of Odyssey viii to ‘the Muse’ and to Apollo as poetic authorities who figure as alternatives to each other serves to show that such gods are subordinated to the ultimate poetic authority of Zeus. Once again, as we saw earlier in the case of the Hesiodic Theogony (94–97) and the Homeric Hymn (25) to the Muses and Apollo, we see that the Muses and Apollo can stand in for Zeus as hymnic subjects. Moreover, in the case of Odyssey viii, it is made explicit that the Muses and Apollo can be invoked as hymnic subjects of the prooimion that introduces the epic of the third song of Demodokos.

I 5ⓢ2. Older and newer versions of the Iliad

I§260 The role of the Muses and Apollo as hymnic subjects who can be substituted for Zeus as the ultimate hymnic subject of epic is particularly relevant to a precious piece of surviving information about an older version of the Iliad—older, that is, than the version known to us as the Homeric Iliad. According to this information, there is an older form of the epic that starts with a hymnic prooimion proclaiming the Muses and Apollo as the initial subject of the performance. As we examine the actual wording of this information, we read about a copy of an arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’, acquired by Apellicon of Teos, which begins with this hymnic prooimion: {109|110}

Iⓣ62 Vitae Homeri et Hesiodi ed. Wilamowitz p. 32.16–20 [5]

ἡ δὲ δοκοῦσα ἀρχαία Ἰλιάς, ἡ λεγομένη Ἀπελλικῶντος [απελικωνος ms., corr. Nauck], προοίμιον ἔχει τάδε·

Μούσας ἀείδω καὶ Ἀπόλλωνα κλυτότοξον


ὡς καὶ Νικάνωρ μέμνηται καὶ Κράτης ἐν τοῖς διωρθοτικοῖς. [6]

But what seems to be the old Iliad [arkhaia Ilias], the one that is called “Apellicon’s Iliad,” has this prooimion :

I sing the Muses and Apollo, famed for his bow and arrows.


This is the way Nicanor mentions it, and so too Crates in his Diorthōtika.

I§261 As we see from the information I just quoted, this verse in the arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’ acquired by Apellicon was cited by Crates of Mallos, head of the Library of Pergamon in the second century BCE, and I infer that Apellicon acquired this text from that library. [7]

I§262 The same source gives further testimony about this arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’: this text contained a three-verse alternative to the standard nine-verse beginning of the Iliad that we know from the medieval manuscript tradition of Homer. The three-verse alternative is cited with reference to the authority of the Peripatetic scholar Aristoxenus:

Iⓣ63 Vitae Homeri et Hesiodi ed. Wilamowitz p. 32.20–24 [8]

Ἀριστόξενος δὲ ἐν α´ Πραξιδαμαντείων φησὶ κατά τινας ἔχειν·

ἔσπετε νῦν μοι Μοῦσαι, Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι,
ὅππως δὴ μῆνίς τε χόλος θ’ ἕλε Πηλείωνα
Λητοῦς τ’ ἀγλαὸν υἱόν· ὃ γὰρ βασλῆι χολωθείς …

Aristoxenus, in Book 1 of his Praxidamanteia [F 91a ed. Wehrli], says that, according to some, it [= the arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’ ] had:

So now tell me, Muses, who dwell in your Olympian abodes,
how it was—I now see it—that anger [mēnis] and rage [kholos] seized [Achilles] the son of Peleus,
and [Apollo] the radiant son of Leto. For he [= Apollo], angry at the king [= Agamemnon], …

I§263 We see here an essential difference between the older Iliad as represented by the arkhaia Ilias and the newer Iliad as we know it. The beginning of the narrative of the older Iliad , as I have just quoted it, was preceded by the naming of the Muses {110|111} and Apollo as the hymnic subject, as we saw a few moments earlier in the last quotation but one. By contrast, the beginning of the newer Iliad is without such a naming of a hymnic subject:

Iⓣ64 Iliad I 1–9

          Μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος
          οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί’ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε’ ἔθηκε,
          πολλὰς δ’ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς Ἄϊδι προΐαψεν
          ἡρώων, αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν
5        οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή,
          ἐξ οὗ δὴ τὰ πρῶτα διαστήτην ἐρίσαντε
          Ἀτρεΐδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν καὶ δῖος ᾿Αχιλλεύς.
          Τίς τάρ σφωε θεῶν ἔριδι ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι;
          Λητοῦς καὶ Διὸς υἱός· ὃ γὰρ βασιλῆϊ χολωθεὶς

          The anger [mēnis], goddess, sing it, of Achilles son of Peleus—
          disastrous anger that made countless sufferings [algos plural] for the Achaeans,
          and many steadfast lives it drove down to Hades,
          heroes’ lives, but their selves it made prizes for dogs
5        and for all birds, and the Plan of Zeus was reaching its outcome [telos]—
          sing starting from the point where the two—I now see it—first had a falling out, engaging in
               strife [eris],
          I mean, [Agamemnon] the son of Atreus, lord of men, and radiant Achilles.
          So, which of the gods was it who impelled the two to fight with each other in strife [eris]?
          It was [Apollo] the son of Leto and of Zeus. For he [= Apollo], infuriated at the king
               [= Agamemnon], …

I§264 There are other differences as well between the older and the newer Iliad. By contrast with the newer Iliad as we have just seen it quoted here, which features the Plan of Zeus at verse 5 as the ultimate driving force of the epic plot, the arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’ is without a Plan of Zeus. Although both the older and the newer Iliad attribute the causality of events to Apollo—it all happened because the god was angry at King Agamemnon—the newer Iliad subsumes the divine agency of Apollo under the divine agency represented by the Plan of Zeus, whereas the older Iliad does not.

I§265 Here I turn to an argument I make in Homer the Classic about Homer in the age of Callimachus. I say there that Callimachus leaves a Homeric signature by positioning his own Hymn to Zeus as Hymn 1 in his collection of Hymns—to be followed by his own Hymn to Apollo as Hymn 2. [9] Now I am arguing that the very idea of a Hymn to Zeus followed by a Hymn to Apollo signals two different ways of beginning a Homeric performance. {111|112}

I§266 We can expect that the differences between a Hymn to Zeus and a Hymn to Apollo will affect not only the form of Homeric performance as it starts but also the content of Homeric performance as it continues into the epic narrative after the hymnic start. To support this argument, I begin by taking a second look at the hymnic start of the arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’:

Iⓣ65 Vitae Homeri et Hesiodi ed. Wilamowitz p. 32.19

Μούσας ἀείδω καὶ Ἀπόλλωνα κλυτότοξον

I sing the Muses and Apollo, famed for his bow and arrows.

I§267 An alternative hymnic start is actually attested in the corpus of Homeric Hymns:

Iⓣ66 Homeric Hymn (25) to the Muses and Apollo (complete text)

          Μουσάων ἄρχωμαι Ἀπόλλωνός τε Διός τε·
          ἐκ γὰρ Μουσάων καὶ ἑκηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος
          ἄνδρες ἀοιδοὶ ἔασιν ἐπὶ χθονὶ καὶ κιθαρισταί,
          ἐκ δὲ Διὸς βασιλῆες· ὁ δ’ ὄλβιος ὅν τινα Μοῦσαι
5        φίλωνται· γλυκερή οἱ ἀπὸ στόματος ῥέει αὐδή.
          Χαίρετε τέκνα Διὸς καὶ ἐμὴν τιμήσατ’ ἀοιδήν·
          αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ὑμέων τε καὶ ἄλλης μνήσομ’ ἀοιδῆς.

          Let me begin with the Muses, and Apollo, and Zeus.
          For the Muses and far-shooting Apollo are the sources
          for the existence of singers [aoidoi] and players of the lyre [kitharis] on this earth.
          And Zeus is the source for the existence of kings. Blessed [olbios] is he whom the Muses
5        love. And a sweet voice [audē] flows [rheîn] from his mouth.
          Hail and take pleasure [khairete], children of Zeus. Give honor [timē] to my song.
          As for me, I will keep you in mind along with the rest of the song.

I§268 The hymnic start that I have just quoted could fit as the beginning of the arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’ cited by Crates of Mallos, head of the Library of Pergamon. Also attested in the corpus of Homeric Hymns is a hymnic start that could fit as the beginning of the newer Iliad as we have it:

Iⓣ67 Homeric Hymn (23) to Zeus

Ζῆνα θεῶν τὸν ἄριστον ἀείσομαι ἠδὲ μέγιστον
εὐρύοπα κρείοντα τελεσφόρον, ὅς τε Θέμιστι
ἐγκλιδὸν ἑζομένῃ πυκινοὺς ὀάρους ὀαρίζει.
Ἵληθ’ εὐρύοπα Κρονίδη κύδιστε μέγιστε.

I will sing Zeus as my subject, best of the gods, and most great,
whose sound reaches far and wide, the ruler, the one who brings things to their outcome [telos], the one who has Themis {112|113}
attentively seated at his side, and he keeps her company with regular frequency.
Be propitious, you whose sound reaches far and wide, son of Kronos, you who are most resplendent and most great.

I§269 The epithet of Zeus here at verse 2, telesphoros ‘the one who brings things to their outcome [telos]’, would be a perfect hymnic motivation for the expression Dios d’ eteleieto boulē ‘and the Plan of Zeus was reaching its outcome [telos]’ at the beginning of the newer Iliad as we have it:

Iⓣ68 Iliad I 1–9

          Μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος
          οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί’ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε’ ἔθηκε,
          πολλὰς δ’ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς Ἄϊδι προΐαψεν
          ἡρώων, αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν
5        οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή,
          ἐξ οὗ δὴ τὰ πρῶτα διαστήτην ἐρίσαντε
          Ἀτρεΐδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν καὶ δῖος ᾿Αχιλλεύς.
          Τίς τάρ σφωε θεῶν ἔριδι ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι;
          Λητοῦς καὶ Διὸς υἱός· ὃ γὰρ βασιλῆϊ χολωθεὶς

          The anger [mēnis], goddess, sing it, of Achilles son of Peleus—
          disastrous anger that made countless sufferings [algos plural] for the Achaeans,
          and many steadfast lives it drove down to Hades,
          heroes’ lives, but their selves it made prizes for dogs
5        and for all birds, and the Plan of Zeus was reaching its outcome [telos]—
          sing starting from the point where the two—I now see it—first had a falling out, engaging in
               strife [eris],
          I mean, [Agamemnon] the son of Atreus, lord of men, and radiant Achilles.
          So, which of the gods was it who impelled the two to fight with each other in strife [eris]?
          It was [Apollo] the son of Leto and of Zeus. For he [= Apollo], infuriated at the king
               [= Agamemnon], …

I§270 It is not only the newer Iliad that features the Plan of Zeus as the driving force of its epic plot. We find the same theme in the epic Cycle, as we see from these verses that survive from the text of the Cypria, the epic that narrates the beginning of the Trojan War:

Iⓣ69 Cypria F 1.1–7 ed. Allen

          ἦν ὅτε μυρία φῦλα κατὰ χθόνα πλαζόμεν’ αἰεὶ
          <ἀνθρώπων ἐπίεζε> βαρυστέρνου πλάτος αἴης,
          Ζεὺς δὲ ἰδὼν ἐλέησε καὶ ἐν πυκιναῖς πραπίδεσσι
          κουφίσαι ἀνθρώπων παμβώτορα σύνθετο γαῖαν,
5        ῥιπίσσας πολέμου μεγάλην ἔριν Ἰλιακοῖο, {113|114}
          ὄφρα κενώσειεν θανάτωι βάρος. οἱ δ’ ἐνὶ Τροίηι
          ἥρωες κτείνοντο, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή.

          There was once a time when countless groupings of humans, wandering aimlessly without
               cease throughout the earth,
          weighted down on the broad mass of Earth.
          And Zeus, seeing all this, took pity on her, and in his compressed thoughts
          he put together a plan to alleviate Earth, the one who nourishes all, of her burden of humans.
5        He fanned the strife [eris] of the Trojan War,
          in order to make the burden [= of overpopulation] disappear by way of death. And they, the
               ones in Troy,
          those heroes were getting killed, and the Plan of Zeus was reaching its outcome [telos].

I§271 So we see that a prooimion like the Homeric Hymn (23) to Zeus fits not only the newer Iliad but also the Cypria, the first epic of the Cycle. Both these epics highlight the Plan of Zeus as a foundational theme. By contrast, a prooimion like the Homeric Hymn (25) to the Muses and Apollo fits only the older Iliad, which does not highlight such a theme.

I§272 To start an epic by naming Apollo as its hymnic subject is not only the mark of an older Iliad in particular. It is also the mark of an older form of epic in general. By contrast, the newer form of epic, as evidenced by the Iliad as we know it, has no explicit hymnic subject. Zeus remains the implicit hymnic subject, however, through the equation of the epic plot with the Plan of Zeus at verse 5 of Iliad I. As we just saw in the Homeric Hymn (23) to Zeus, the status of Zeus as hymnic subject is correlated with such an equation of epic plot with the Plan of Zeus.

I§273 The newer Iliad as we know it not only signals Zeus as the implicit hymnic subject. It also signals Apollo as an alternative hymnic subject. While the epic plot is said to be planned by Zeus, who is thus marked as the ultimate hymnic subject, the agent of the epic plot is said to be Apollo. After equating the epic plot with the Plan of Zeus at verse 5 of the Iliad, the epic narrator goes on to link the planning of Zeus with the agency of Apollo, calling on ‘the Muse’ at verses 6-9 to sing of that agency:

Iⓣ70 Iliad I 1–9

          Μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος
          οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί’ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε’ ἔθηκε,
          πολλὰς δ’ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς Ἄϊδι προΐαψεν
          ἡρώων, αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν
5        οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή,
          ἐξ οὗ δὴ τὰ πρῶτα διαστήτην ἐρίσαντε
          Ἀτρεΐδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν καὶ δῖος ᾿Αχιλλεύς.
          Τίς τάρ σφωε θεῶν ἔριδι ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι;
          Λητοῦς καὶ Διὸς υἱός· ὃ γὰρ βασιλῆϊ χολωθεὶς {114|115}

          The anger [mēnis], goddess, sing it, of Achilles son of Peleus—
          disastrous anger that made countless sufferings for the Achaeans,
          and many steadfast lives it drove down to Hades,
          heroes’ lives, but their selves it made prizes for dogs
5        and for all birds, and the Plan of Zeus was reaching its outcome [telos]—
          sing, starting from the point where the two—I now see it—first had a falling out, engaging in
               strife [eris],
          I mean, [Agamemnon] the son of Atreus, lord of men, and radiant Achilles.
          So, which of the gods was it who impelled the two to fight with each other in strife [eris]?
          It was [Apollo] the son of Leto and of Zeus. For he [= Apollo], infuriated at the king
               [= Agamemnon], …

I§274 Here I compare again the three-verse alternative to this nine-verse version:

Iⓣ71 Vitae Homeri et Hesiodi ed. Wilamowitz p. 32.20–24

Ἀριστόξενος δὲ ἐν α´ Πραξιδαμαντείων φησὶ κατά τινας ἔχειν·

ἔσπετε νῦν μοι Μοῦσαι, Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι,
ὅππως δὴ μῆνίς τε χόλος θ’ ἕλε Πηλείωνα
Λητοῦς τ’ ἀγλαὸν υἱόν· ὃ γὰρ βασλῆι χολωθείς

Aristoxenus, in Book 1 of his Praxidamanteia [F 91a ed. Wehrli], says that, according to some, it [= the arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’ ] had:

So now tell me, Muses, who dwell in your Olympian abodes,
how it was—I now see it—that anger [mēnis] and rage [kholos] seized [Achilles] the son of Peleus,
and [Apollo] the radiant son of Leto. For he [= Apollo], angry at the king [= Agamemnon], …

I§275 As I said before, both the older and the newer Iliad attribute the events to the agency of Apollo, but the newer Iliad subsumes that divine agency under the ultimate divine agency represented by the Plan of Zeus, while the older Iliad does not. Moreover, the newer Iliad invokes a singular Muse, whereas the older Iliad invokes an aggregate of Muses.

I§276 The same can be said about the first song of Demodokos. As in the newer Iliad, the singer is inspired by a singular Muse, and the divine agency of Apollo is subsumed under the divine agency represented by the Plan of Zeus:

Iⓣ72 Odyssey viii 73–82

          Μοῦσ’ ἄρ’ ἀοιδὸν ἀνῆκεν ἀειδέμεναι κλέα ἀνδρῶν,
          οἴμης, τῆς τότ’ ἄρα κλέος οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἵκανε,
75      νεῖκος Ὀδυσσῆος καὶ Πηλεΐδεω Ἀχιλῆος,
          ὥς ποτε δηρίσαντο θεῶν ἐν δαιτὶ θαλείῃ
          ἐκπάγλοισ’ ἐπέεσσιν, ἄναξ δ’ ἀνδρῶν ᾿Αγαμέμνων
          χαῖρε νόῳ, ὅ τ’ ἄριστοι Ἀχαιῶν δηριόωντο. {115|116}
          ὣς γάρ οἱ χρείων μυθήσατο Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων
80      Πυθοῖ ἐν ἠγαθέῃ, ὅθ’ ὑπέρβη λάϊνον οὐδὸν
          χρησόμενος. τότε γάρ ῥα κυλίνδετο πήματος ἀρχὴ
          Τρωσί τε καὶ Δαναοῖσι Διὸς μεγάλου διὰ βουλάς.

          The Muse impelled the singer to sing the glories [klea] of men,
          starting from a thread [oimē] that had at that time a fame [kleos] reaching all the way up to
               the vast sky.
75      It was the quarrel of Odysseus and Achilles, son of Peleus,
          how they fought once upon a time at a sumptuous feast [dais] of the gods
          with terrible words, and the king of men, Agamemnon,
          was happy in his mind [noos] at the fact that the best of the Achaeans were fighting.
          For this is the way he was told it would happen by Phoebus Apollo, uttering an oracle,
80      in holy Delphi, when he crossed the stone threshold,
          to consult the oracle. And that was when the beginning [arkhē] of pain [pēma] started rolling
               down [kulindesthai]
          upon Trojans and Danaans—all on account of the plans of great Zeus.

I§277 I emphasize again that the first song of Demodokos, like the newer Iliad, features Zeus as the implicit hymnic subject of its epic about the Trojan War—as signaled by a reference to the Plan of Zeus. In this respect, the first song of Demodokos is also like the epic Cycle, since the Cypria likewise features Zeus as the implicit hymnic subject of its epic about the Trojan War—as signaled again by a reference to the Plan of Zeus. On the basis of this likeness, I will hereafter use the term Cyclic Iliad in referring to the epic of the Trojan War as performed in the first song of Demodokos.

I§278 By contrast with both the Homeric Iliad and the Cyclic Iliad exemplified by the first song of Demodokos, the arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’ exemplifies the relatively oldest form of epic—by virtue of starting with a prooimion naming Apollo as the explicit hymnic subject of the epic. Such an epic is so old, in fact, that Homeric is too specific a term for describing it. The term Hesiodic can be applied to this form just as readily as Homeric. A case in point is the story that tells about a contest between Homer and Hesiod on the island of Delos. In this contest, both singers are performing a Hymn to Apollo:

Iⓣ73 Scholia for Pindar Nemean 2.1d

Φιλόχορος δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ συντιθέναι καὶ ῥάπτειν τὴν ᾠδὴν οὕτω φησὶν αὐτοὺς προσκεκλῆσθαι. δηλοῖ δὲ ὁ Ἡσίοδος λέγων·

ἐν Δήλῳ τότε πρῶτον ἐγὼ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἀοιδοὶ
μέλπομεν, ἐν νεαροῖς ὕμνοις ῥάψαντες ἀοιδὴν,
Φοῖβον Ἀπόλλωνα χρυσάορον, ὃν τέκε Λητώ.

Hesiod F 357 {116|117}

Philochorus [FGH 328 F 212] says that they [= rhapsōidoi] were called that [= rhapsōidoi] on the basis of the idea of composing, that is, stitching together [rhaptein], the song. Proof for this comes from Hesiod, who says:

In Delos, back then at the very beginning, I and Homer, singers [aoidoi],
sang-and-danced [melpein], [10] stitching together [rhaptein] a song in new humnoi,
making Phoebus Apollo the subject of our song, the one with the golden weapon, the one born of Leto.

Hesiod F 357

I§279 What kind of epic form, then, is represented by the arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’ ? Of the three non-Homeric forms of epic that we have been considering so far—that is, the Orphic, the Cyclic, and the Hesiodic forms—the last two can be ruled out: as far as we can tell from the prooimion of the arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’, this epic was neither Cyclic nor Hesiodic in form. To start with the second of these two terms, we have just seen that Hesiodic is no more distinctive a term than Homeric with reference to the hymnic subject of Apollo. Moreover, we saw earlier that the prooimia of the Theogony and the Works and Days are variant Hymns to Zeus, not Hymns to Apollo. As for the term Cyclic, it is relevant to repeat that the epic Cycle is inaugurated in the Cypria by way of equating the epic plot of the whole Trojan story with the planning of Zeus, not with the agency of Apollo. Moreover, even if we use the term Cyclic in a general sense to designate an epic form that is older than what we see in the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey, that sense is still inadequate for describing an epic form that is evidently even older than the Cycle.

I§280 By default, then, Orphic seems to be the most likely term for describing an epic form that is characterized by the naming of Apollo as the hymnic subject. In fact, the singing of epic in the style of Orpheus is traditionally connected with such a naming of Apollo. This connection is evident in the Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes. As I argue in Homer the Classic, this epic draws upon traditions that are evidently Orphic. [11] At the beginning of the Argonautica, we see the naming of the god Apollo as the hymnic subject of the epic, and the hero Orpheus himself is then named both as an epic subject and as a hymnic model for the epic singing:

Iⓣ74 Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica 1–2, 18–34

1        Ἀρχόμενος σέο Φοῖβε παλαιγενέων κλέα φωτῶν
          μνήσομαι οἳ …
18      Νῆα μὲν οὖν οἱ πρόσθεν ἔτι κλείουσιν ἀοιδοί
          Ἄργον Ἀθηναίης καμέειν ὑποθημοσύνῃσι·
20      νῦν δ’ ἂν ἐγὼ γενεήν τε καὶ οὔνομα μυθησαίμην {117|118}
          ἡρώων, δολιχῆς τε πόρους ἁλός, ὅσσα τ’ ἔρεξαν
          πλαζόμενοι· Μοῦσαι δ’ ὑποφήτορες εἶεν ἀοιδῆς.
          Πρῶτά νυν ᾿Ορφῆος μνησώμεθα, τόν ῥά ποτ’ αὐτή
          Καλλιόπη Θρήικι φατίζεται εὐνηθεῖσα
25      Οἰάγρῳ σκοπιῆς Πιμπληίδος ἄγχι τεκέσθαι.
          αὐτὰρ τόνγ’ ἐνέπουσιν ἀτειρέας οὔρεσι πέτρας
          θέλξαι ἀοιδάων ἐνοπῇ ποταμῶν τε ῥέεθρα·
          φηγοὶ δ’ ἀγριάδες κείνης ἔτι σήματα μολπῆς
          ἀκτῇ Θρηικίῃ Ζώνης ἔπι τηλεθόωσαι
30      ἑξείης στιχόωσιν ἐπήτριμοι, ἃς ὅγ’ ἐπιπρό
          θελγομένας φόρμιγγι κατήγαγε Πιερίηθεν.
          Ὀρφέα μὲν δὴ τοῖον ἑῶν ἐπαρωγὸν ἀέθλων
          Αἰσονίδης Χείρωνος ἐφημοσύνῃσι πιθήσας
          δέξατο, Πιερίῃ Βιστωνίδι κοιρανέοντα·

1        Beginning [arkhesthai] with you, Phoebus [= Apollo], I will tell the glories [klea] of men
               born in ancient times,
          having them in my mind [mnēsasthai], I mean the ones who … [here follows a compressed
               narrative of the deeds of the Argonauts].
18      As for the ship [= the Argo], the singers [aoidoi] of the past have maintained its fame [kleos]
               up to now,
          how it was made by Argos, with the help of Athena’s instructions.
20      But now I would be ready to tell the story [muthos] of the lineage and names
          of the heroes [= the Argonauts], of their lengthy travels over the salt sea, and of all the deeds
               they accomplished
          in their wanderings. And may the Muses be the articulators [hupophētores] [12] of the song
               [aoidē].
          First and foremost, let me have in mind [mnēsasthai] Orpheus. He it was whom once upon
               a time she,
          I mean Kalliope, who was bedded by the Thracian, as they say,
25      named Oiagros, bore in the region of the vista of Pimplēis. [13]
          They say that he [= Orpheus] had power over rugged mountain cliffs,
          enchanting them with the sound of his singing. Power he had over the streams of rivers as
               well.
          Then there are those wild oak trees, signatures of that singing of his that have lasted till now,
          there at the Thracian headland, at Zōnē, still blooming,
30      standing there right next to each other, in a row, interwoven, and they were the ones that, one
               after another, {118|119}
          he had enchanted with his phorminx, drawing them down from the heights of Pieria.
          Such was Orpheus, and he was received as a helper for the labors of Jason
          the son of Aison, who trusted the instructions of Cheiron.
          He [= Jason] received him [Orpheus], that one who ruled over Bistonian Pieria.

I 5ⓢ3. An inventory of epic forms

I§281 I offer here an inventory of epic forms that we have considered so far:

  1. An epic that starts with a prooimion referring to Zeus as the transcendent hymnic subject. Such a prooimion is attested as the Homeric Hymn (23) to Zeus.

  2. An epic that starts with a prooimion naming Apollo or the Muses or both as the hymnic subject—substituting for Zeus as the transcendent hymnic subject. Such a prooimion is attested in the arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’ according to Nicanor and Crates.

  3. An epic that starts with a prooimion that shows no explicit hymnic naming of Zeus as the transcendent hymnic subject and no explicit naming of Apollo or the Muses (or both) as the hymnic subject substituting for Zeus as the transcendent hymnic subject. Such a prooimion is attested at the beginnings of the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey as we know them. From here on, I will refer to an epic prooimion that has no naming of the hymnic subject as an acephalic prooimion.

I§282 To these three epic forms I now add a fourth, that is, an epic that starts with no explicit prooimion . Such is the case in the beginning of the Little Iliad as quoted in the Herodotean Life of Homer:

Iⓣ75 Vita 1.202–210

διατρίβων δὲ παρὰ τῷ Θεστορίδῃ ποιεῖ Ἰλιάδα τὴν ἐλάσσω, ἧς ἡ ἀρχή

Ἴλιον ἀείδω καὶ Δαρδανίην ἐΰπωλον,
ἧς πέρι πολλὰ πάθον Δαναοί, θεράποντες ῎Αρηος·

Spending his time in the house of Thestorides, he [= Homer] made [poieîn] the Little Iliad [literally, ‘the Smaller Iliad’ ], which begins this way:

I sing Troy and the land of the Dardanoi, famed for horses.
Many things for the sake of this land did the Danaoi suffer, those attendants [therapōn plural] of Ares.

I§283 Even though there is no god invoked here as the hymnic subject, the actual syntax of this fourth kind of epic beginning is hymnic, as we see from the parallel syntax of Homeric Hymns 12.1, 18.1, and 27.1: in each of these verses, as in the verse {119|120} that begins the Little Iliad, the verb aeidō ‘I sing’ is combined with the accusative of the hymnic subject (Hera in 12.1, Hermes in 18.1, Artemis in 27.1). The difference is, the hymnic subject in the first verse of the Little Iliad is not the sacredness of divinity per se but the sacred city of Troy itself. [14]

I 5ⓢ4. Acephalic and non-acephalic prooimia

I§284 The basic fact is that the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey have been transmitted with acephalic prooimia throughout the medieval manuscript tradition. The opposite situation evolved in the medieval manuscripts of the Hesiodic Theogony and Works and Days, which both survived with prooimia that contain a naming of the hymnic subject: they are the first 115 and the first 10 verses of the respective poems in our modern edited texts. [15] We know that Crates, head of the Library of Pergamon, athetized both these sets of verses. [16] We also know that Aristarchus, head of the Library of Alexandria, athetized the first ten verses of the Hesiodic Works and Days. [17]

I§285 There are still other instructive examples of such critical decisions. It appears that both the Alexandrians and the Pergamenes had inherited a text of the Hesiodic Theogony that included the Catalogue of Women, and that “it was the Alexandrians, in all probability, who decided that the Theogony should end at line 1020, and the Catalogue begin there”; this decision prevailed into the medieval manuscript tradition. [18] Similarly, Apollonius of Rhodes decided that the Works and Days ended at verse 828, rejecting as spurious the verses that followed; this decision has prevailed, and in this case we have lost the rejected verses altogether. [19] Also, Aristophanes of Byzantium decided that the Homeric Odyssey ended at verse 296 of Rhapsody xxiii; this decision, as we know by hindsight, did not prevail. [20]

I§286 Such critical decisions concerning athetesis or omission can be traced back farther, back to the age of Callimachus. The critics who edited the texts attributed to the likes of Homer and Hesiod during that age could not possibly have known that {120|121} their editorial decisions would affect—in some cases irrevocably—the future history of these texts they were seeking to perfect. Even in cases of athetesis, let alone outright omission, their decisions have in some cases led to the permanent loss of significant portions of textual transmission in later times.

I§287 In the case of the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey, the medieval transmission of these epic texts featuring prooimia that are acephalic—that is, without the naming of a hymnic subject—evidently goes back to the age of Callimachus. In that age, as I argue in Homer the Classic, the old poetic form of the prooimion as represented by the Homeric Hymns was rethought as a new genre, separable from the old poetic form of the epic consequent. [21] The Hymns of Callimachus, which preclude an epic consequent, are the clearest examples of this new genre.

I§288 Given the separation of the Homeric Hymns from the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey as their epic consequent in the history of Homeric textual transmission starting with the age of Callimachus and thereafter, we today find it difficult to see by hindsight the prehistory of the links between humnos and epic consequent. As I have argued, some of this prehistory is still visible in the Homeric narrative of Odyssey viii.

I§289 As I have also argued, the attestation of a hymnic prooimion for an arkhaia Ilias ‘old Iliad’ shows an even older phase of this prehistory. By comparison, the acephalic prooimion of the Homeric Iliad represents a newer epic form.

I 5ⓢ5. Variations on the Plan of Zeus

I§290 The Homeric Iliad has no explicit hymnic subject, no hymnic prooimion, but, nevertheless, Zeus is envisaged as the ultimate cause of the story of the Trojan War: the epic plot of that story is identified with the Plan of Zeus. To tell that story is tantamount to following through to the telos ‘end’—that is, following through to the ‘outcome’ that the god had intended in the first place. That is the goal conveyed by the expression Dios d’ eteleieto boulē ‘and the Plan of Zeus was reaching its outcome [telos]’ at verse 5 of Iliad I.

I§291 But the telos of the story that is the Homeric Iliad does not in the end reach all the way to the telos that Zeus ultimately intends, which is, the destruction of Troy. The epic plot of the narrative in the Iliad as we have it does not reach that far. Thus the expression Dios d’ eteleieto boulē ‘and the Plan of Zeus was reaching its telos’ at verse 5 of Iliad I presupposes a narrative framework that is far broader than the actual narrative that is getting under way in our Iliad. Zeus is in charge of that broader framework, but the epic plot of our Iliad cannot be explicitly equated with that framework.

I§292 By contrast with these limitations at the beginning of the Homeric Iliad, let us now reconsider the use of this same expression Dios d’ eteleieto boulē ‘and the Plan {121|122} of Zeus was reaching its telos’ in a fragment that evidently derives from somewhere near the beginning of the Cypria, which is the first in a sequence of epics constituting the epic Cycle. In this fragment, we read that the depopulation of Earth is caused by the Trojan War, which in turn is caused by the Plan of Zeus:

Iⓣ76 Cypria F 1.1–7 ed. Allen

          ἦν ὅτε μυρία φῦλα κατὰ χθόνα πλαζόμεν’ αἰεὶ
          <ἀνθρώπων ἐπίεζε> βαρυστέρνου πλάτος αἴης,
          Ζεὺς δὲ ἰδὼν ἐλέησε καὶ ἐν πυκιναῖς πραπίδεσσι
          κουφίσαι ἀνθρώπων παμβώτορα σύνθετο γαῖαν,
5        ῥιπίσσας πολέμου μεγάλην ἔριν Ἰλιακοῖο,
          ὄφρα κενώσειεν θανάτωι βάρος. οἱ δ’ ἐνὶ Τροίηι
          ἥρωες κτείνοντο, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή.

          There was once a time when countless groupings of humans, wandering aimlessly without
               cease throughout the earth,
          weighted down on the broad mass of Earth
          And Zeus, seeing all this, took pity on her, and in his compressed thoughts
          he put together a plan to alleviate Earth, the one who nourishes all, of her burden of humans.
5        He fanned the strife [eris] of the Trojan War,
          in order to make the burden [= of overpopulation] disappear by way of death. And they, the
               ones in Troy,
          those heroes were getting killed, and the Plan of Zeus was reaching its outcome [telos].

I§293 In the epic Cycle as it gets under way in the Cypria, the narration of the Trojan War is notionally being driven from beginning to end by the Plan of Zeus. This broader frame of narration is parallel to what we find in Odyssey viii—if we read the first and the third songs of Demodokos together as parts of a single narrative continuum. The beginning of the first song, which is an epic about the Trojan War, equates the whole plot of that epic with the Plan of Zeus, as we saw earlier when I quoted verse 82. Then, complementing the beginning of the first song, the end of the third song concludes by narrating the destruction of Troy. Meanwhile, already in the first song, the continuum is being maintained by way of restartings, as we saw from the wording aps arkhesthai ‘start again and again’ at verse 90, referring to the continuous restartings of the epic being performed by Demodokos. With each restarting of the first song, the epic continues where it last left off.

I§294 Whereas the first song of Demodokos keeps on continuing until it gets interrupted by Alkinoos, the third song seems to be heading toward a definitive conclusion. The third song, continuing the first song, starts at the point of metabasis that Odysseus had formulated for Demodokos. That starting point of narration, as formulated by Odysseus, leads Demodokos to follow through to the telos of the story {122|123} of Troy, that is, all the way to the moment of Troy’s destruction. As I argue in the twin book Homer the Classic, that story corresponds to the plot of the Iliou Persis, as summarized in the plot outline of Proclus. [22] In the epic Cycle, it is this particular epic that tells the story of the Wooden Horse and the ultimate destruction of Troy. Already in the Cypria, which is the first epic of the Cycle, the destruction of Troy is equated with the ending of the story. This ending is the ultimate telos or ‘outcome’ of the Plan of Zeus: again I recall the wording of the Cypria, where we read Dios d’ eteleieto boulē ‘and the Plan of Zeus was reaching its telos’. So the story of Troy’s destruction will have a ‘perfect’ epic ending, that is, telos. The idea of such ‘perfection’, as we see from the wording of the Cypria, is equated with the idea of telos. This idea of epic telos is realized in the overall narrative of the epic Cycle.

I§295 In the Iliad, by contrast, this idea of epic telos can be realized only in the form of a prophecy. Here I turn to a most revealing passage, where we find Odysseus quoting the mantic words of Calchas the seer, who is prophesying the end of the Trojan War, which is marked by the destruction of Troy:

Iⓣ77 Iliad II 299–332

299 τλῆτε φίλοι, καὶ μείνατ’ ἐπὶ χρόνον ὄφρα δαῶμεν
300 ἢ ἐτεὸν Κάλχας μαντεύεται ἦε καὶ οὐκί.
301 εὖ γὰρ δὴ τόδε ἴδμεν ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ἐστὲ δὲ πάντες
302 μάρτυροι, οὓς μὴ κῆρες ἔβαν θανάτοιο φέρουσαι·
303 χθιζά τε καὶ πρωΐζ’ ὅτ’ ἐς Αὐλίδα νῆες Ἀχαιῶν
304 ἠγερέθοντο κακὰ Πριάμῳ καὶ Τρωσὶ φέρουσαι,
305 ἡμεῖς δ’ ἀμφὶ περὶ κρήνην ἱεροὺς κατὰ βωμοὺς
306 ἕρδομεν ἀθανάτοισι τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας
307 καλῇ ὑπὸ πλατανίστῳ ὅθεν ῥέεν ἀγλαὸν ὕδωρ·
308 ἔνθ’ ἐφάνη μέγα σῆμα· δράκων ἐπὶ νῶτα δαφοινὸς
309 σμερδαλέος, τόν ῥ’ αὐτὸς Ὀλύμπιος ἧκε φόως δέ,
310 βωμοῦ ὑπαΐξας πρός ῥα πλατάνιστον ὄρουσεν.
311 ἔνθα δ’ ἔσαν στρουθοῖο νεοσσοί, νήπια τέκνα,
312 ὄζῳ ἐπ’ ἀκροτάτῳ πετάλοις ὑποπεπτηῶτες
313 ὀκτώ, ἀτὰρ μήτηρ ἐνάτη ἦν ἣ τέκε τέκνα·
314 ἔνθ’ ὅ γε τοὺς ἐλεεινὰ κατήσθιε τετριγῶτας·
315 μήτηρ δ’ ἀμφεποτᾶτο ὀδυρομένη φίλα τέκνα·
316 τὴν δ’ ἐλελιξάμενος πτέρυγος λάβεν ἀμφιαχυῖαν.
317 αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ τέκνα φάγε στρουθοῖο καὶ αὐτήν,
318 τὸν μὲν ἀρίζηλον θῆκεν θεὸς ὅς περ ἔφηνε·
319 λᾶαν γάρ μιν ἔθηκε Κρόνου πάϊς ἀγκυλομήτεω·
320 ἡμεῖς δ’ ἑσταότες θαυμάζομεν οἷον ἐτύχθη.
321 ὡς οὖν δεινὰ πέλωρα θεῶν εἰσῆλθ’ ἑκατόμβας,
322 Κάλχας δ’ αὐτίκ’ ἔπειτα θεοπροπέων ἀγόρευε·
323 τίπτ’ ἄνεῳ ἐγένεσθε κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί; {123|124}
324 ἡμῖν μὲν τόδ’ ἔφηνε τέρας μέγα μητίετα Ζεὺς
325 ὄψιμον ὀψιτέλεστον , ὅου κλέος οὔ ποτ’ ὀλεῖται.
326 ὡς οὗτος κατὰ τέκνα φάγε στρουθοῖο καὶ αὐτὴν
327 ὀκτώ, ἀτὰρ μήτηρ ἐνάτη ἦν ἣ τέκε τέκνα,
328 ὣς ἡμεῖς τοσσαῦτ’ ἔτεα πτολεμίξομεν αὖθι,
329 τῷ δεκάτῳ δὲ πόλιν αἱρήσομεν εὐρυάγυιαν.
330 κεῖνος τὼς ἀγόρευε· τὰ δὴ νῦν πάντα τελεῖται.
331 ἀλλ’ ἄγε μίμνετε πάντες ἐϋκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοὶ
332 αὐτοῦ εἰς ὅ κεν ἄστυ μέγα Πριάμοιο ἕλωμεν.

299 Endure, my near and dear ones, and stay as long as it takes for us to find out
300 whether Calchas is prophesying something that is true or not.
301 For I know this well in my heart, and you all
302 are witnesses, those of you who have not been carried off by the demons of death.
303 It is as if it was yesterday or the day before, when the ships of the Achaeans at Aulis
304 were gathered, portending doom to Priam and the Trojans.
305 Standing around a spring, at a sacred altar,
306 we were sacrificing perfect [telēessai] [23] hecatombs to the immortal ones
307 under a beautiful plane tree, in a place where sparkling water flowed.
308 Then there appeared [phainesthai] a great sign [sēma], a serpent [drakōn] with blood- red
       markings on its back.
309 Terrifying it was. The Olympian [= Zeus] himself had sent it into the zone of light.
310 It darted out from underneath the altar, and it rushed toward the plane tree.
311 Over there were the nestlings of a sparrow, helpless young things.
312 In the highest branch amidst the leaves they were hiding in fear,
313 eight of them. The ninth was the mother that had hatched the young ones.
314 Then it devoured them, in a way that is pitiful [eleeina], while they were chirping.
315 And their mother was fluttering above, lamenting [oduresthai] for her dear little things.
316 Then it threw its coils around her, catching her by the wing as she was wailing over
       [amphiakhuia] them.
317 And when it devoured the young ones of the sparrow and the mother as well,
318 the same god that had made it visible [phainein] now made it most visible [arizēlos].
319 For the son of the crafty Kronos now made it into stone.
320 We just stood there, struck with awe [thauma] at what happened,
321 how such frightful portents invaded the hecatombs of the gods.
322 Then, right away, Calchas spoke, speaking the words of seers: {124|125}
323 “Why are you speechless, Achaeans with the elaborate hair?
324 Zeus, master of craft, made visible [phainein] this great portent [teras].
325 It is late in coming, late in reaching its outcome [telos], and its fame [kleos] will never perish.
326 Just as this thing devoured the young ones of the sparrow and the mother as well,
327 eight in number, while the mother made it nine, the one that hatched the young ones,
328 so also we will wage war for that many years in number,
329 and then, on the tenth year, we will capture the city with its broad streets.”
330 Thus spoke that man. And now I see that all these things are reaching their outcome [telos].
331 So come now, all of you, hold your place, all you Achaeans with the fine shin guards,
332 stay here until we capture the great city of Priam.

I 5ⓢ6. The sorrows of Andromache

I§296 In the Odyssey, this idea of epic telos as the ‘outcome’ of a story can be realized only in the form of a retrospective. Demodokos is challenged by Odysseus to narrate the epic of Troy’s destruction (Odyssey viii 487–498), a virtual Iliou Persis, but Odysseus breaks down in tears during the narration of the story, and the hero’s tears will interrupt the outcome of this story. The interruption takes the form of a simile that compares the weeping of the hero with the lament of a unnamed woman who has just been captured in war (viii 521–531). As I show in the twin book Homer the Classic, the simile of the unnamed lamenting woman is substituted for the telos or ‘outcome’ of the story that tells of the final tearful moments of Troy’s destruction. [24] In the epic Cycle, as represented by the Iliou Persis attributed to Arctinus of Miletus, that unnamed lamenting woman would be Andromache. [25] In Chapter 8, I will have more to say about the relevance of the unnamed lamenting woman in Odyssey viii (521–530) to the sorrows of Andromache as narrated in the Iliou Persis. For now, however, I concentrate on the relevance of this woman’s tears to the sorrows of Odysseus. In the Homeric Odyssey, the tears of the captive woman lead to the tears of Odysseus, which in turn can now lead to the story of his own odyssey as a continuation of the tearful story that almost ended the narrative continuum at the feast of the Phaeacians. The story can now continue, shifting from an Iliad to an Odyssey.

I§297 When I say Odyssey here, I mean not the entire Odyssey as we know it but only the “partial” odyssey as told by Odysseus himself in Rhapsodies ix, x, xi, and xii of {125|126} our Odyssey. Conversely, when I say Iliad here, I mean the entire ‘song of Ilion’ as sung by Demodokos, starting from the beginning of the Trojan War and extending all the way to the moment of Troy’s destruction, which becomes the telos or ‘outcome’ of the singer’s overall story. In other words, I do not mean the “partial” Iliad as we know it: rather, I mean the notionally “complete” Iliad of the epic Cycle, what I have been calling the Cyclic Iliad.

I§298 As I noted earlier, the continuum of song that starts with the singing of Demodokos in Rhapsody viii of the Odyssey and ends with the resumed singing of Demodokos in Rhapsody xiii is coextensive with the continuum of a festival that is being celebrated by the Phaeacians. Zeus presides over the ongoing festival, as we saw from the explicit naming of Zeus as the recipient of the animal sacrifice marking the closure of festivities at verse 23 of Odyssey xiii. Zeus is thus the ultimate hymnic subject of the ongoing humnos, that is, of all the singing—and dancing—that takes place during the festival. The transcendence of Zeus as the hymnic subject in this continuum of song is a sign of Homeric poetry. This sign is correlated with another sign, the Plan of Zeus, as announced at verse 82 of Odyssey viii, at the very start of the epic singing of Demodokos. In the logic of Homeric poetry, the Plan of Zeus is a unifying principle, showing that Zeus transcends all other gods as the hymnic subject of epic just as surely as Homeric poetry transcends all other epic.

I§299 Such a logic, as I just called it, is a unifying principle that transcends even Homeric poetry as we know it from reading the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey. We have seen from the explicit wording of the Cypria that the Plan of Zeus is also a unifying principle of the entire epic Cycle. Thus the Plan of Zeus, as a unifying principle, predates the differentiation of the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey from the epic Cycle. In other words, the epic Cycle was also Homeric—until the Iliad and Odyssey became differentiated as the sole representatives of Homeric poetry. This is not to say that the Cycle had a unified plot that rivaled the unity of the Iliad and Odyssey. It is just the opposite: the Iliad and Odyssey were differentiated from the epic Cycle precisely because their plots became more unified. A case in point is the avoidance of metabasis in the Iliad and Odyssey, to be contrasted with the active use of this device in the epic Cycle, as represented in the third song of Demodokos.

I§300 Conversely, I argue that the use of metabasis in the epic Cycle is a compensation for the lack of a unified plot. In terms of this argument, metabasis functions as an expression of notional unity in an epic plot that lacks real unity: the more this device is needed, the less unity there must have been to start with. A case in point is again the metabasis of the third song of Demodokos in Odyssey viii. The transition from the second to the third song, or even from the first to the third, would be arbitrary if it were not for the unified plot of the Odyssey as we have it.

I§301 Let us consider one last time the most general view of the Plan of Zeus as announced at the beginning of the Cypria, which is at the beginning of the epic Cycle. To be contrasted is the more special and therefore more Iliadic view of the Plan of {126|127} Zeus as announced at the beginning of the Iliad (I 5). In the twin book Homer the Classic, I consider another Iliadic passage where the god nods his head and thus signifies his Plan. This time, the Plan of Zeus is expressed not in terms of the overall plot, as in Iliad I, but in terms of one special theme that pervades the plot. That theme is a picture of Hector that is animated by the sorrows of Andromache. It is explicitly the Plan of Zeus that Hector will never return to Andromache (Iliad XVII 195–214). [26] This most special and therefore most Iliadic view of the Plan of Zeus is ultimately connected with the Plan of Zeus as announced at the very start of the epic singing of Demodokos (Odyssey viii 82).

Footnotes

[ back ] 1. HC 2§§8–21.

[ back ] 2. HC 2§§228–237.

[ back ] 3. Τhe particle ἄρα / ῥα / ἄρ ‘so, then’ has an “evidentiary” force, indicating that the speaker notionally sees what is simultaneously being spoken. See Bakker 2005: 80, 84, 97–100, 104, 146, 172n33.

[ back ] 4. On the significance of the expression ‘therapōn of the Muses’, see BA 17§6 (= p. 295).

[ back ] 5. Wilamowitz 1929. See LP (Nagy 1998) 215. See also West 2003a:454–455, “Life 10B.”

[ back ] 6. See Pfeiffer 1968:239n7 for the correction of a typographical error involving διορθωτικοῖς (which is the correct reading) in the book of Wilamowitz.

[ back ] 7. LP (Nagy 1998) 215, 222–223.

[ back ] 8. Wilamowitz 1929. See Muellner 1996:97, LP (Nagy 1998) 215n103. See also West 2003a:454–457, again in “Life 10B.”

[ back ] 9. HC 2§§11–12.

[ back ] 10. To repeat, the verb melpein / melpesthai and the noun molpē convey the combination of singing and dancing: PH 12§29n62 (= p. 350) and n64 (= p. 351).

[ back ] 11. HC 2§§167, 194, 216, 236.

[ back ] 12. See also Iliad XVI 235, where hupophētai refers to priests of oracular Zeus. As González 2000 argues, the Muses are mediators between Apollo and the poet.

[ back ] 13. Here we see Orpheus linked with Kalliope as the Muse of kings.

[ back ] 14. I find it relevant that Troy is a hieron ptoliethron ‘sacred city’ in Odyssey i 2.

[ back ] 15. West 1966:150 and 1978:137. Pausanias 9.31.4 reports that he saw at Helicon an archaic text of the Hesiodic Works and Days engraved on a lead tablet. Since he also says that the Heliconians accept as authentically Hesiodic only the Works and Days—but without the prooimion—we may infer that the lead tablet featured no prooimion.

[ back ] 16. Pfeiffer 1968:241; Porter 1992:98; West 1966:50, 150 and 1978:65–66, 137. See also the Life of Dionysius Periegetes p. 72, 59–60 ed. Kassel (1973).

[ back ] 17. Pfeiffer 1968:220. It looks as if the athetesis by Aristarchus was based partly on the fact that these verses were missing from a copy of the Works and Days found by Praxiphanes: see Pfeiffer p. 220n2.

[ back ] 18. West 1966:50.

[ back ] 19. West 1966:50 and 1978:64–65, 364.

[ back ] 20. West 1966:50. He infers that the 24-book division of the Iliad and Odyssey was already in place in the era of Aristophanes; at p. 50n3 he says about this division: “it may have been pre-Alexandrian.” See now PP 182n107.

[ back ] 21. HC 2§§118–122. On epic as a hymnic consequent, I refer again to HC 2§§97, 109, 113–114, 116.

[ back ] 22. HC 1§§119–122, 2§§281–350.

[ back ] 23. As we see from this context, the word telos can be used to express the idea of perfection in sacrifice.

[ back ] 24. HC 2§§334–344.

[ back ] 25. HC 2§344.

[ back ] 26. HC 4§§259–270.