Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:26:30.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Epic Cycle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

T. W. Allen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Enough and too much has been written about the Epic Cycle. Upon scanty quotations and a jejune epitome a tedious literature has been built. The older writers, such as Welcker, tried to ‘reconstruct’—as profitable and satisfying a task as inferring a burnt manor-house from its cellars; later scholars have gone out in tracing the tradition of the poems through the learned age of Greece—a scaffolding without ties, by which this or that conclusion is reached according to temperamental disposition to this or that fallacy. I do not intend to enter more than is needful into a controversy where so far as I can see everyone has gone beyond the evidence. If I add to the bulk of the literature, it is in the hope of putting things in their proper places and of presenting the data as they appear to a future editor.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1908 , pp. 64 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1908

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Welcker, Der epische Cyclus, 1849–1865; Nitzsch, Beiträge zur Geschichte der epischen Poesie der Griech. 1862, pp. 206 sq.; D. B. Monro, J.H.S. 1883, 305 sq.; Odyssey xiii-xxiv, 1901, pp. 340 sq.; U. v. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, Homerische Unter-suchungen, 1884, pp. 328 sq.; E. Bethe, Hermes XXVi (1891), pp. 593 sq.; R. Wagner, N. Jahrbb. 1892, ff. 241 sq. (reply to Bethe); E. Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa, ‘Apollodoros,’ esp. 2883–6 (with other references).

2 Πρóκλoς ⋯ Λύκιoς, μαθητ⋯ ς ∑υριανo***, ⋯ κουστ ⋯ ς δ⋯ κα⋯ Πλοomicron;υτ⋯ ρχου τ ο*** νιστορ⋯ ου το***, φιλοσ⋯ φον, κα⋯ αὐτ⋯ς φιλ⋯σοφοs Πλατωνικ⋯ς. O?τOς προ⋯στη τ*** ς ⋯ν Άθ⋯ναις φιλοσ⋯φου σχoλ***ς, κα⋯ αὐτο*** μαθητ⋯ς κα⋯ δι⋯δοχος χρηματ⋯ζει Mapîvoς, ⋯ νεαπολ⋯της. ἔψε π⋯νυ πολλ⋯,— φιλόσ⋯φα κα⋯ γραμματικ⋯. ὐπóμνημα εἰς ὃλον τòv Ὅ μηρον ὑπ⋯μνημα εἰς τ⋯ Ἡσι⋯δov Ἒργα κα⋯ Ἡμ⋯ρας· περ⋯ χρηστομαθ⋯ας βιβλ⋯α *** περ⋯ ⋯γωωγ***ς *** εἰς τ⋯v πoλ⋯τειαv. πλ⋯τωvoς βιβλ⋯α *** εἰς τ⋯v Ὀρφ⋯ως θεoλoγ⋯ανΣυμφων⋯ανὈρφ⋯ωςΠυθαγ⋯ρoυ κα⋯ πλ⋯τωνoς περ⋯ τ⋯ λ⋯για βιβλ⋯α ⋯. Περ⋯ τ***ν Παρ’ Ὁ ρφ παρ Ὁν⋯πψ θε;***ν ⋯πιχειρ⋯ματα κατ⋯ Xριστ ιαν***ν ι⋯.

3 Valesius de crit. i. 20.

page 65 note 1 The handsome Ammonianus, kinsman of Syrianus, Proclus’ Master, chose the sedentary lot; ήγáπήα τ⋯ν ⋯πἰ ποιη***ν ⋯ξηγήσєι κα ἰ διoρθώσєι τ***s ?λληνικ***s λέξεωs καθηµένην τέχνην: Agapius, a disciple of Marinus, his successor, ⋯θαυμάζετο ⋯πι φιλομαθίᾳ (Suidas in vv.).

page 65 note 2 Ἔστι δ ⋯ τ⋯ βιβλίον є⋯s δ ‘διῃρημένον λ⋯γoυςxg50:2947 Photius (τ***ν є⋯s δ δι?ρμένων τ⋯ Ven. A), but at the end of his summary he remarks o μ⋯ν δύο λ⋯γoι τ***S Πρ⋯κλου γραμματικ***s χρηστομαθє⋯αs ⋯ν TοὑTοιS. It might have been supposed that Proclus summarized only Books I and II as the more important, but his ample account of elegy and lyric makes it plain that he NO. V. VOL. II. included all four, especially as we see from Ven. A f. 6 r. that Book II opened only with the Aethiopis. Therefore instead of δύο in Photius I would read δ.— Suidas in his article has βιβλία γ.Immisch p. 240 explains these discrepancies as signs of different systems of division. I should be inclined to see in the numeral γ a sign of attrition. In the time between Proclus and Suidas, or even between Photius and Suidas, under the influence of repeated epitomes and extracts, one book might well have fallen away. Between Suidas and 1453 all, of course, perished.

page 70 note 1 See Frazer's judicious conclusions, Paus. I. lxvi lxviii.

page 70 note 2 How blameworthy too is Herodian (π. μoν. λ⋯ξ. 37) when he makes us believe Antimachus survived to his day by stating o⋯τως ⋯ν τo***ς ⋯ντιγρ⋯ϕoις εὕρηται. Doctors are no better; Galen π. ⋯ρ⋯στης δiδασκαλ⋯ας 18 τoὺς μ⋯ν oὖν λ⋯γoυς oἶς ⋯πιχειρε*** (Carneades) λὐειν κα⋯ τα***τα κα⋯ ἄλλα π⋯μπoλλα τ***ν ⋯ναργ***ς τι εἶνα⋯ σoι ϕαινoμ⋯νων τε κα⋯ πιστευoμ⋯νων ἔτι κα⋯ ⋯ς τòδε σωζoμ⋯νoυς ἔχoμεν. ⋯πòκειται γ⋯ρ ⋯ν γρ⋯μμασιν ὑπó τ***ν μαθητ***ν αὐτo*** συναθρoισθ⋯ντες. Well too for Heraclides (ap. Eust. 1726. 24) that his assertions ⋯ δ⋯ δι⋯λεκτoς αὕτη ἔτι κα⋯ ν***ν σώζεται παρ⋯ τo***ς ⋯ντιγρ⋯ϕoις τò γ⋯ρ αἰ⋯ν ϕασι, κα⋯ τò oὐ μ⋯ντoι oὐ μ⋯ντoν, oἷoν oò κ⋯μετóν γε μ⋯χην ⋯ν⋯ κυδι⋯νειραν. ἔμπαλιν δ⋯ χρ***νται Σικελo⋯ τ*** ῑ ⋯ντ⋯ τo*** ***, τò ἔνδoν ἔνδoι λ⋯γoντες are confirmed by the MSS. On Θ 468, μ362.

page 70 note 3 In Epos Hesiod often, the Hymns once, the Cycle never: Antimachus, Panyasis, Pisander, Ly-cophron, Apollonius, Rhianus.

page 70 note 4 He uses e.g. Epaphroditus on the Iliad (⋯ν τ*** π′, ὑπoμνηματ⋯ζων τ⋯ β' ς.υ. Δωδώνη), ⋯ν τo***ς ‘Oμηρικo***ς s.v. Nωρ⋯κoς al.), Didymus (ὑπoμνηματιζων τἠν ν's.v. 'Aρ⋯θoνσα), Heracleo (τἠν αύτἠν ύπoμνηματ⋯ζωνib.), Philoxenus (τἠν ‘Oδ⋯σσειαν ⋯ξηγo⋯μενoς ς.ν. ’Aλ⋯βανδα) on the Odyssey; Naucrates of Erythra (δ μηρoν ὐπoμνηματ⋯σαsς, ς.ν. ’Eρυθρ⋯); commentators on Aeschylus, Alcman, Apollonius Rhodius, Bacchylides, Lycophron, Nicander. By Eustathius’ time this exegetical literature had perished, and Eustathius, whether he uses the term ὑπóμνημα or σχóλιoν refers to the marginal scholia which we possess.

page 71 note 1 See under Ἀρ⋯κεια, Ἀστα⋯, Δ⋯μη, Mαλ⋯κη, Ῥoπε***ς.

page 71 note 2 E.g. ὡς Ἐπαϕρóδιτoς, παρατιθεἰς τòν Ἀρ⋯σταρχoν ⋯κδεχóμενoν oὓτω (ς. υ. Δoυλ⋯χιoν), ὡς Ἡρόδωρos, δν παρατ⋯θησιν Ἐπαϕρóδιτoς (ς. υ. Δρνóπη).

page 71 note 3 Vit. Eur. p. 4 v. 9 Schwartz τ⋯ π⋯ντα δ' ᾖν αὐτ*** δρ⋯ματα ?β, σώζεται δ⋯ oη': Acharn. arg, i oὐ σώζoνται (Cratinus’ Xειμαζόμενoι), schol. Ran. 13 ⋯㮽 τo***ς σωζoμένoι ς αὐτo*** … ⋯ν δ⋯ τo***ς ⋯πoλωλóσι αὐτo*** (Phrynichus): 270 διασώζεται κα⋯ ***ν τισιν⋯ γραϕ⋯, 1344 Asclepiades εὗρε Ἀθ⋯νησιν ***υ τινι τ***ν διασωθ⋯ντων, Nub. 144 oὐδ⋯ν δ⋯ αὐτo*** διασ⋯σωσται τ***ν συγγραμμ⋯των (Chaerephon!). εxx. of ϕ⋯εσθαι; Pax arg. iii ⋯ν τ*** ν***ν ϕερoμ⋯νρ: schol. Nub. 549 oὐ ϕέρoνται αἱ διδασκαλ⋯αι τ***ν δευτέρων Nεϕελ***ν: 361 ϕέρεται δέ κα⋯ Пρoδ⋯κoν βιβλ⋯oν ⋯πιγραϕóμενoν τΩραι: Ran, 14 o*** oὐδ⋯ν ϕέρεται (Lycis), 1206 oὐ γ⋯ρ ϕέρεται ν***ν Εὐριπ⋯δoυ λóγος οὐδεις τOιο***τος (the Archelaus). The evidence from Suidas is not abundant; from vol. i. Bernhardy cf. υit. Aristoph. Suidea, δρ⋯ματα δ' αὐτo*** μδ' ἃπερ δέ πεπρ⋯χαμεν [ = ένετ⋯χoμεν, ϕέρεται] Ἀριστoϕ⋯νoυs δρ⋯ματα τα***τα [the existing], Damophilus … γρ⋯ψας π⋯μπoλλα, ⋯ξ ***ν τα***τ⋯ μoι εὕρηται έπ⋯ τα***ς τ***ν βιβλ⋯ων θ⋯καις. Dionysius Alex, ο***· ε***ρον ὑπóμνημα εἰς Ἐκκλησιαστ⋯ν ∑oλoμ***ντos, λ⋯αν εὐϕραδέρ. Exx. of ϕέρεται and oὐ ϕέρεται ς. Ἀντέρως, Εῠοδος, *Εϕορος, Zwvα*** ος, ζωρo⋯στρης, Ἡρώδης, Θ⋯μυρις, Θεμιστoγεν⋯ς.

page 72 note 1 Even the real, the Alexandrian Apollodorus did not excerpt the Cycle (Bethe p. 602). Why? And when centuries later Hadrian tried to revive Anti-machus, oὗ μηδ⋯ τò ⋯νoμα πoλλo⋯ πρóτερoν ἠπ⋯σταντo, did he seek to revive a textbook or a poet ?

page 73 note 1 He quotes Alcman (1892. 45), Alcaeus (1902. 52), Theopompus (1854. 18, 1863. 50), Callinus or Philetas, the edition of Aristarchus (1885. 51), through third persons; Philoxenus (1570. 37) through the scholia; and, well for him, has the equivalent of σώζεσθαι about the Cyclops: 1850. 38 ⋯ μεχρ⋯ ν***νεὑρισκóμενoς Eὐριπ⋯δειoς κ⋯κλωψ.

page 73 note 2 Similarly the grammarians Megalides (1594. 30) and Philyllius, etc. (1571. 5), whom Eustathius cites without authority, probably came from the scholia, more abundant in his day than they are now.