It seemed best to segregate this difficult problem and treat it here. Consideration of the question will also give us an insight into the ways in which past scholars resurrected the plots of lost epics. Bethe’s method was to isolate patterns and tendencies among the forms of the myth preserved by late sources such as the mythographers, and to identify these mutually incompatible patterns and tendencies with the different versions employed by different epics. In addition, Friedländer picked out symmetrically parallel traditions, which could be assigned to the Thebais and its matching sequel, the Epigoni.

Bethe was tireless in his search for examples of “Doppelüberlieferung,” but the energy he put into it was often totally wasted: consider, for instance, his intuition (1891:169) that because Sicyon loomed large in one early epic’s presentation of the Oedipus story (the Ἀμφιάρεω ’Eξελασία), Oedipus’ clash with his father must have taken place between Thebes and Sicyon; whereas because Delphi was significant in the Thebais, he reasoned, the clash took place at the Phocian pass, before Delphi (cf. page 9 above). With Robert’s demolition of the existence of any independent poem called the ’Aμφιάρεω ’Eξελασία (see pages 99–103 above) this distinction can be seen to have been built on sand, and Bethe’s further portentous deductions (1891:169–171) as to why the Thebais eliminated Sicyon in favor of Delphi are so much wasted paper. It is, of course, crucial to this type of approach (cf. Bethe 1891:116) that two different traditions be interpreted as summarizing and representing two different (and specific) sources, rather than being two chance strands that happen to have survived out of any number of variants that have since vanished. The basic implausibility of this presupposition should be instantly obvious, and the need to identify the two alleged sources with two epics totally baffling, even to those who do not bear in {123|124} mind Stesichorus’ Eriphyle. It further overlooks the possibility that mythographers themselves might be capable of reshaping myths. [1]

The second version (which Bethe [1891:78], largely followed by Robert [1915:1.211–212], attributed to the Thebais) stressed Amphiaraus’ hatred of Tydeus (cf. Aeschylus Seven Against Thebes 377–383, 571–575; see page 82 above). To explain this hatred, Bethe argued that (a) it was Tydeus who had persuaded the Argive nobility to take part in the war against Thebes (cf. Statius Thebais III 345–365) and (b) Amphiaraus was consequently no free ruler or agent but was somehow forced against his will to fight. How forced? Bethe (1891:79) here brought in the tradition found in Hyginus Fabulae 73 and Statius Thebaid III 572, [2] and ultimately reflecting Amphiaraus’ original status as an “Unterweltgott” (see page 90 above), whereby Amphiaraus concealed his whereabouts with Eriphyle’s connivance, but was betrayed by his wife, who thus earned his enmity. In this version (cf. Bethe 1891:78 and 82), Eriphyle’s intervention in an original quarrel will not have been relevant, nor would her status as Adrastus’ sister; she will not, then, have been his sister and Talaus’ daughter, but rather the daughter of Iphis, as Σ Odyssey xi 326 records her [3] and, as such, will have functioned merely {124|125} as Amphiaraus’ wife, with none of the important “Entscheidungsrecht” that belongs to her in the first version. But she will still have merited the ultimate punishment from Alcmaeon for revealing his father’s hiding place.

Robert stressed the multiplicity of possible sources, mentioning in particular (1915:1.222–223) Hesiodic catalogue poetry and, more specifically, the Melampodia. [4] Whatever our views as to those specific candidates, we must surely applaud this open-mindedness. With our improved and augmented state of knowledge, we may even observe that the dactylic rhythm and epic structure noted above need not be absolutely inconsistent with derivation from Stesichorus’ Eriphyle.

Bethe (1891:128–135), followed with some modifications by Friedländer (1914:330–332 = 1969:43–44), detected another fine example of “Doppelüberlieferung” in the next major stage of Eriphyle’s story, Alcmaeon’s act of matricide. One version locates it before the expedition of the Epigoni against Thebes. This is preserved in Apollodorus III 6.2 and Σ Odyssey xi 326: [5] Amphiaraus, setting out against the enemy, orders Alcmaeon not to join any further assault upon {126|127} the city until he has punished Eriphyle. It is also implied, according to Bethe and Friedländer, by Ephorus (FGrHist 70 F123a–b), whose account of a wholly successful campaign by the Epigoni leaves no room for Eriphyle’s vengeful Erinyes (her murder is not so much as mentioned) and thus supposedly entails the prior purification of Alcmaeon. Bethe (and Friedländer) derives this version from the Alcmaeonis. [6]

Thersander’s bribe may well have been a constant feature of epic tradition (cf. Prinz 1979:175–176) as Hellanicus (FGrHist 4 F98) implies. Likewise the πέπλος of Harmonía may imply a second stage to the bribing of Eriphyle (cf. Prinz 1979:176n27), though this should be distinguished from the question [7] of the relatively late origin of the whole story of the Epigoni.

According to Bethe, one strand makes Alcmaeon leader by the command of Apollo’s oracle (Apollodorus III 7.2, Diodorus IV 66 = no. 203 Parke–Wormell [2.85], L 38 Fontenrose [Delphic Oracle, p. 370]; cf. Pindar Pythian VIII 39–58), [8] and this derives from the Alcmaeonis. The other (represented by Euripides Suppliant Women 1214–1221; cf. Σ Iliad IV 404 [1.517 Erbse]) bestows this place of honor upon Adrastus’ son Aegialeus. Here we have, according to Bethe, the version of the Epigoni. [9]

Now the founding of Amphilochean Argos by Alcmaeon should give us pause (as it does Prinz [1979:185]), since, even without the explicit testimony of Thucydides (II 68.3), we should have guessed that Amphilochean Argos was originally conceived of as founded by Alcmaeon’s brother Amphilochus (cf. Gomme and Hornblower ad loc. etc.). Furthermore, according to Euripides’ Oeneus (cf. Kannicht, TrGF 5.2.584–585), it was, as their close friendship in the Iliad might lead us to expect, Sthenelus who accompanied Diomedes in the expedition against Aetolia. Prinz (1979:184) would derive this Euripidean account from the Alcmaeonis, whose titular hero, he thinks, cannot have participated in the Aetolian expedition because of his mother’s vengeful Erinyes (page 127 above). He would attribute Ephorus’ incompatible version not to any alternative epic tradition, but rather to the fertile invention of Ephorus himself (185), as part of a complex and elaborate λύσις (“ein rechtes Kunststück antiker Homerphilologie”) designed to solve three related problems: Why did the Acar- {130|131} nanians take no part in the Trojan War? Why did Alcmaeon (in strong contrast to his fellow epigone Diomedes) likewise fail to participate? Why does the Iliad represent Diomedes as ruling over all Argos and Agamemnon merely king of Mycenae? [10] Answer: because Agamemnon establishes his rule in Argos while Diomedes is absent in Aetolia; he then relinquishes power to him upon his return, but obliges him to participate in the war against Troy. Alcmaeon, however, angrily stays behind (ἁγανακτοῦντα). [11]