With Early Greek Epic Fragments II (EGEF II) Tsagalis continues his effort to provide a running commentary to the early epic fragments not covered by West and Davies.[1] This volume focuses on the Herakles-epics by Kreophylos of Samos and Peisandros of Kamiros, the Oichalias Halosis and Herakleia respectively,[2] both lacking a comprehensive commentary in English. The material pertaining to a third Herakles-epic, by Panyassis of Halikarnassos, is so extensive that it deserves a book of its own, which will appear as the subsequent volume together with the few remains of the epic Theseis.
Herakles must have been popular as subject matter of epic poetry, either presenting comprehensive compositions comprising of all the labors together with parerga and praxeis or pertaining to city sacks or single episodes. Of the two epic works discussed in the current volume, the Oichalias Halosis belongs to the latter category; the assignment of Peisandros’ Herakleia to the former largely depends on the plausibility of reconstruction.
The approach and presentation of EGEF II are familiar from the previous volume: Tsagalis presents per author (Kreophilos pp. 25-71; Peisandros pp. 73-218) the testimonia and fragments, followed by the commentary. The commentary first discusses life and work(s) of the author, plot, style, and date of the poem, and subsequently provides a detailed commentary per fragment. References are categorized in four separate bibliographies: reference works referred to through abbreviations (pp. 219-221), editions and commentaries on the Oichalias Halosis and the Herakleia (p. 222), works cited by author’s name (pp. 223-227), and works cited by author’s name with date (pp. 228-239).[3] Indices of subjects (pp. 241-247) and of Greek (pp. 249-252) are followed by an index of sources per author (p. 253) and a Comparatio Numerorum of the fragments between Kinkel, Allen, Davies, Bernabé, and West (pp. 255-256).[4] A total of six plates (pp. 257-261) conclude the volume.
With only a single verse surviving (Epim. Hom. Ο 96, Herakles addressing Iole: ὦ γύναι, <αὐτὴ> ταῦτα γ΄ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὅρηαι), the Oichalias Halosis ‘The Capture of Oichalia’ requires a lot of contextualizing in order to allow for reconstruction and commentary. Peisandros’ Herakleia hardly fares any better: only two verses are preserved (Σ Ar. Nub. 1051 τῶι δ΄ἐν Θερμοπύληισι θεὰ γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη | ποίει θερμὰ λοετρὰ παρὰ ῥηγμῖνι θαλάσσης). Testimonia and fragments are hence both delved for further single words or collocations of words that may plausibly be considered direct quotations from the original epic. Uncertainty remains, though, unless a specific lemma is elsewhere (Epim. Hom. A 52B) cited as a gloss in Peisandros, as is the case for ἀέ (= αἰεί/ἀεί) ‘always’. Other plausible instances of direct quotation from Peisandros are typographically singled out, like δέπας in Peis. fr. 6 (Athen. 11.496cd), Ἀλκηΐς in Peis. fr. 7 (Σ Pind. P. 9.185a), and ἄλεισον in Peis. fr. 9 (Athen. 11.783c).[5] The commentary on individual fragments (e.g., on Peis. fr. 1A-B) suggests that Tsagalis has felt tempted to expand the number of instances.
Given the limited material available, it is of course hard to extend the identification of direct citation on the bases of prosodic arguments. Tsagalis, however, ventures out to defend the possibility (p. 132-133) that Strabo’s mentioning of σκυταληφορεῖν (15.1.8-9) in the immediate context of the more common synonym ῥόπαλον for σκύταλον/σκυτάλη (a juxtaposition pertaining to a process of language change described by Kuryłowicz as the ‘Fourth Law of Analogy’) and of Peisandros, may indicate that Strabo’s σκυταληφορεῖν instead of the expected σκυταλοφορεῖν betrays his drawing this word from a poetic source in hexameter – Peisandros’ Herakleia mentioned immediately afterwards. I am tempted to fall in with the part of the argument that points at the sequencing of too many short syllables in σκυταλοφορεῖν, but the phonetic adjustment required to shorten the final syllable of finite forms of the verb σκυταληφορεῖν should have earned the same level of consideration. Tsagalis’ approach, however, remains the right course if we are to identify more direct quotations from fragmentary epic in both the testimonia and the fragments.
As was the case in volume I, reconstruction of the plot of the epics relies heavily on mythology and mythography, to the extent that ‘the focus must be on the antiquity of myth, not of poems’ (p. 104). A careful weighing of such focus enables Tsagalis to draw conclusions with regard to the presentation of labors and post-labors episodes in the two-book epic by Peisandros, and consequently fathom the estimated size of individual episodes and hence the style of the Herakleia. In addition to mythography, there is ample attention for early vase paintings (some with names added) brought in to testify to especially the version of the killing of Eurytos and his sons by Kreophylos (Paris, Louvre E635; Antikensammlung n. 1655, Staatliche Museen, Berlin; Palermo Mus. Arch. Regionale V653; Madrid, Museo Arqueológico Nacional inv. N. 10916; New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 12.231.2).
Thus, Early Greek Epic Fragment II not only contributes to a better understanding of two Herakles-epics, but it also contextualizes, in turn, the origins of mythological threads and variants, and the sources of inspiration for vase painters. This widens the readership of EGEF II from classicists with a particular interest in fragmentary epic to historians and students and scholars in the history of art looking for a thorough examination and evaluation of the way early Greek vase painting reflects, and reacts to, the gradual dissemination of tales concerning Herakles. The latter are well advised though to polish their Greek, as the discussion of the plot of the Oichalias Halosis (pp. 44-49) for example, accurately but self-evidently combines indications and evidence from the Hesiodic Catalogue (fr. 26.27-31 M-W), Sophokles’ Trachiniai (268-269), Ion of Chios’ Euryditai (fr. 10 TrGF) with four different vase paintings, some featuring inscribed names, to argue in favor of a reconstructed Doppelmotif of ‘agon and revenge’, and to include into the plot of Kreophylos’ epic all the episodes of the Dichtung von Deianeira (the fight between Herakles and Acheloos, the Eurytos story, the sack of Oichalia, Nessos’ deception of Deianeira), except the death of Herakles through the poisoned robe.[6]
The volume is well produced, with clear-printed images of the vase paintings discussed. Some of the details mentioned, however, in the text are not visible in the images. The book contains hardly any typos.[7] With another two Herculean labors successfully and inspiringly executed, there is no reason to shirk from the next challenge; on the contrary, scholars and students alike will look out eagerly for the volume on Panyassis and the fragments of the Theseis.
Notes
[1] Early Greek Epic Fragments I (EGEF I), volume 47 in the series Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes dealt with antiquarian and genealogical epic (BMCR review). M.L. West, The Epic Cycle. A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013 provides a commentary on the Trojan sections of the Epic Cycle; M. Davies, The Theban Epics. Washington, DC & London: Harvard University Press 2014, The Aethiopis: Neo-Neoanalysis Reanalyzed. Washington, DC & London: Harvard University Press 2016, and The Cypria, Washington DC: Harvard University Press 2019 on various Cyclic epics.
[2] Falling in with Tsagalis’ view that with respect to the spelling of Greek proper names ‘absolute consistency is impossible’ (xi), I adopt his rendering through transliteration.
[3] The latter two categories feature some overlap. ‘Works cited by author’s name’ predominantly lists text editions and commentaries, ‘Works cited by author’s name with date’ mostly interpretative studies.
[4] G. Kinkel, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Leipzig: In Aedibus B.G. Teubneri 1877; (only for the Oichalias Halosis) T.W. Allen, Homeri Opera. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1912; M. Davies (ed.), Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1988; A. Bernabé (ed.), Poetae Epici Graeci. Testimonia et Fragmenta 2 (2 vols). Munich & Leipzig: K.G. Saur 1996-2007 (1st ed. of vol. 1 1987); M.L. West (ed.), Greek Epic Fragments from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press 2003.
[5] In the fragmenta dubia a similar procedure was used to single out νοῦς οὐ παρὰ Κενταύροισι (fr. 2, Hesych. ν 683), δικαιοτάτου δὲ φονῆος (fr. 4, Olymp. In Plat. Alc. I 120e), and οὐ νέμεσις καὶ ψεῦδος ὑπερ ψυχῆς ἀγορεύειν (fr. 6, Stob. Flor. III 12.6).
[6] The latter episode, Tsagalis suggests, may have been foreshadowed by means of extra-textual prolepsis. He is skeptical of pushing the force of analogy through comparison with the Iliou Persis which does not narrate the death of Agamemnon after the eponymous sack of the city.
[7] P. 123: ‘difference’ > ‘different’; p. 156: ‘capture’> ‘captured’; p. 165 ‘geaographical’> ‘geographical’.