Review of M. Kivilo, Early Greek Poets' Lives

‫۫ۙ۝۪ۙې ۠ٷۗ۝ۧۧٷ۠ﯙ ۙۜے‬ ‫ېﯠﯙﮡۛۦۣﮠۙۛۘ۝ۦۖۡٷۗﮠۧ۠ٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞ﮡﮡﮤۤۨۨۜ‬ ‫‪̀ặẬẾẾẴẮẬặ ẰềẴẰỂ‬‬ ‫‪ ẳẰ‬ۦۣۚ ۧۙۗ۝۪ۦۙۧ ۠ٷۣۢ۝ۨ۝ۘۘﯠ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜ ﭞۗ۝۠ﯙ ﮤۧۨۦۙ۠ٷ ۠۝ٷۡﯗ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜ ﭞۗ۝۠ﯙ ﮤۣۧۢ۝ۨۤ۝ۦۗۧۖ۩ۑ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜ ﭞۗ۝۠ﯙ ﮤۧۨۢ۝ۦۤۙۦ ۠ٷ۝ۗۦۣۙۡۡﯙ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜ ﭞۗ۝۠ﯙ ﮤ ۙۧ۩ ۣۚ ۧۡۦۙے‬ ‫۪ۧۙ۝ﮐ ھۣۧۨۙێ‬ ‫ۣ۠۝۪۝ﮏ ‪۶‬ﮠﯞڿ‬ ‫‪ϋẬẽặỄ ύẽẰẰẶ ẺẰếẾΥ ẴềẰẾέ‬‬ ‫‪ Ϊ‬۝۝‪ ‬ﮠۤێ ‪۶‬ﮠھھڿ ۧۨۢۙۡۙ۠ۤۤ۩ۑ ۙۢۺۣۧۡۙۢﯞڿ ﮠ‪ẳẰ ẳẬẻẴẹẲ Ẻằ ếẳẰ ẽẬắẴếẴẺẹ‬‬ ‫ﮤﯟﯡۑﯢ ﮠ‪Ү‬ۀڽڻۑۓ ﮞڿڼڽ‪ €‬ﮞۘۙۧٷﯙ ﮠڼڽڼھ ﮞ۠۠۝ۦﯡ ﮤۣۣۢۨۧﯡ ۘۢٷ ۢۙۘ۝ۙﮐ ﮠڼ‪Ү‬ھ‬ ‫ﮠ‪Ң­ң‬ڽ‪үң‬ڽ­ۀڼ­ڼ‪ҰҮү­Ұ‬‬ ‫ۘۦۣﯘ ۫ۙۦۘۢﯠ‬ ‫ۀ‪Ң‬ڿ ­ ھ‪Ң‬ڿ ۤۤ ﮞھڽڼھ ۦۣۙۖۨۗۍ ﮡ ھڼ ۙ۩ۧۧﯢ ﮡ ھ‪ Џۣ۠۩ۡۙ ң‬ﮡ ۫ۙ۝۪ۙې ۠ٷۗ۝ۧۧٷ۠ﯙ ۙۜے‬ ‫ھڽڼھ ۦۙۖۡۙۨۤۙۑ ھڽ ﮤۙۢ۝ۣ۠ۢ ۘۙۜۧ۝۠ۖ۩ێ ﮞڽ‪Ұ‬ڼڼڼڼھڽﯥڼۀ‪Ұү‬ڼڼڼۑﮡ‪Ү‬ڽڼڽﮠڼڽ ﮤﯢۍﯚ‬ ‫ڽ‪Ұ‬ڼڼڼڼھڽﯥڼۀ‪Ұү‬ڼڼڼۑﮰۨۗٷۦۨۧۖٷﮡۛۦۣﮠۙۛۘ۝ۦۖۡٷۗﮠۧ۠ٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞ﮡﮡﮤۤۨۨۜ ﮤۙ۠ۗ۝ۨۦٷ ۧ۝ۜۨ ۣۨ ﭞۢ۝ﮐ‬ ‫ﮤۙ۠ۗ۝ۨۦٷ ۧ۝ۜۨ ۙۨ۝ۗ ۣۨ ۣ۫ﯜ‬ ‫ﮞھ‪ң‬ﮞ۫ۙ۝۪ۙې ۠ٷۗ۝ۧۧٷ۠ﯙ ۙۜے ھۣۢ۝ۨ۝ۘٷۦے ۙۜۨ ۣۚ ۛۢ۝ۤٷۜۑ ۙۜے ﮠ۪ۧۙ۝ﮐ ھۣۧۨۙێ ﭞۙۙۦﯛ ۺ۠ۦٷﯗھ ۣ۠۝۪۝ﮏ ‪۶‬ﮠﯞڿ ۣۚ ۫ۙ۝۪ۙې ﮠ‪۶‬ھڽڼھڿ ۘۦۣﯘ ۫ۙۦۘۢﯠ‬ ‫ڽ‪Ұ‬ڼڼڼڼھڽﯥڼۀ‪Ұү‬ڼڼڼۑﮡ‪Ү‬ڽڼڽﮠڼڽﮤ۝ۣۘ ۀ‪Ң‬ڿ­ھ‪Ң‬ڿ ۤۤ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜ ﭞۗ۝۠ﯙ ﮤ ۣۧۢ۝ۧۧ۝ۡۦۙێ ۨۧۙ۩ۥۙې‬ ‫ھڽڼھ ۤۙۑ ڿڽ ۣۢ ڽ‪Ұ‬ﮠڼ‪Ү‬ﮠھڽڽﮠ‪ү‬ھڽ ﮤۧۧۙۦۘۘٷ ێﯢ ﮞېﯠﯙﮡۛۦۣﮠۙۛۘ۝ۦۖۡٷۗﮠۧ۠ٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞ﮡﮡﮤۤۨۨۜ ۣۡۦۚ ۘۙۘٷۣۣ۠ۢ۫ﯚ‬ 352 T HE C LA SSIC A L R EV IEW generating verse are related. The analysis shows that cases of correption in the elegiac distich occur in conjunction with two separate elements of formulaic phraseology or with the modification of a traditional phrase from a metrically stable form into another which otherwise would be metrically intractable, but mostly with a concurrence of both conditions. That is, the use of correption in elegy is similar to that in epic, while elegy is even more conservative and traditional. The third chapter, together with considerable statistical material in appendices, is the main contribution of the study. In the fourth chapter possibilities for further research are discussed, and among other things the importance of formulaic analysis in studying the metrical evolution of the hexameter, since the colometry and formulaic structure of epic and elegy are similar. Research on these lines seems especially interesting in the light of Nagy’s hypothesis that metre is diachronically generated by formula rather than vice versa (1976). Contextual differences in the creation of oral and written poetry are addressed separately; according to G., it is important to comprehend the traditional element in elegy in order to appreciate the original aesthetic and communicative experiences of elegists. G.’s monograph has a twofold significance. On the one hand, its value lies in its descriptive accuracy: it has a wide empirical basis and, most importantly, it is verifiable. Unlike many of his predecessors, G. dares to test his hypotheses with statistics, and that gives more reliability to his assertions. At the same time it should be noted that his statistics are still rather crude and, in essence, confined to rendering summarised data. The use of more complicated statistical mechanisms would allow G. to pose more ambitious hypotheses. Further research in this vein would profit also from more detailed metrical analysis of both the structure and boundaries of formulas. On the other hand, the study contributes to the methods of studies in formula which are now closer to developing a tool to provide a solid descriptive base of formulas in the early Greek hexameter and also for wider formulaic research, not just focussing on one verse form, but allowing for suprametrical analyses as well. University of Tartu MARIA-KRISTIINA LOTMAN [email protected] P OE T S ’ L IVE S K I V I L O (M.) Early Greek Poets’ Lives. The Shaping of the Tradition. (Mnemosyne Supplements 322.) Pp. xii + 270. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010. Cased, €103, US$147. ISBN: 978-90-04-18615-6. doi:10.1017/S0009840X12000091 This revised Oxford D.Phil. dissertation offers a fresh and thought-provoking look at the biographical traditions surrounding six archaic Greek poets. K. aims to challenge the prevalent idea that the Hellenistic bioi of Greek poets were fabrications with very little factual basis, being derived from critically naïve or comically malicious misreadings of early poetry as autobiography. Separate chapters consider Hesiod, Stesichorus, Archilochus, Hipponax, Terpander and Sappho. (Traditions about Homer are adduced from time to time, but a full discussion of them is set The Classical Review vol. 62 no. 2 © The Classical Association 2012; all rights reserved T HE C LA SSIC A L R EV IEW 353 aside as requiring disproportionate space.1) The selection focusses on poets who were early and influential enough to have generated oral traditions during their lives or soon after, thus allowing K. to consider the role of ‘formulaic elements’ in shaping life stories. Each chapter is rewarding in its own right, and overall K. succeeds in showing that interest in the early poets, their works and careers, was a vital and widespread enterprise well before the classical period, one that in some cases may preserve material stemming from the times of the poets themselves. The brief introduction opposes M. Lefkowitz’ ‘extreme’ and ‘radical’ (p. 4) view that virtually all the material in the Lives is fiction. But the difference between them is mainly one of attitude, with Lefkowitz being a minimalist and K. a maximalist. K. is aware that the tradition contains a great deal of fabrication, much of it due to the kind of creative misreading highlighted in Lefkowitz’ work. She allows that much, perhaps most of the material in the lives derives from poetry being misused in this way, but insists there were other sources as well. She scrupulously avoids equating earliness with veracity: ‘There is no way to say with any certainty whether or which of the details in local traditions are historically accurate or not’ (p. 201 n. 2). Acknowledging all this, she can nevertheless argue against an ‘ultra-pessimism’ (p. 226) that assumes we can know nothing of the poets’ lives. Each chapter begins with a brief summary of the tradition about a poet and then examines the sources of its main themes (e.g. place of birth and death, notable journeys, exploits or inventions) to estimate their likely origins and affiliations. One might object that the initial summaries, albeit intended merely as reminders, may in some cases invest ‘the tradition’ with a wholeness and integrity that it never achieved in reality, and there is, naturally, a general tendency to stress the possibility that a given element goes far back. But the handling of the evidence is always even-handed and intelligent. K. says we should assume that the poets’ first audiences would have been curious about their lives, and so should allow for the possibility that poetic traditions began in some cases while the poets were alive. In principle she is likely to be right: in a culture where songs circulate far more often in shows and performances than in texts, opportunities abound for lore or facts about singers to attach themselves to the songs from the start. But the earliest stages in the formation of tradition remain the most elusive and open to dispute. The suggestion that the tradition of a contest between Homer and Hesiod goes back to the seventh century depends on believing that the account in Plutarch draws on the cyclic poet Lesches; and yet K.’s careful dissection of the Plutarchan passage (Moralia 153f–54a, discussed on pp. 23–4) shows how shaky such an assumption would be. In a similar way, the book on Homer ascribed to Theagenes of Rhegium is the anchor that allows K. to date ‘the first attempts to write down the continuous accounts of the poets’ lives’ (p. 225) to the later sixth century; but it is hard to say anything definite about the character of that pioneering work from Tatian’s brief reference (In Graecos 31 = 8.1a DK). The final chapter outlines ‘The Formation of Biographical Traditions’, including the role of ‘formulaic themes’ in the lives. The ultimate sources go back to a period of oral transmission in which local and possibly authentic details were often stitched to typical story patterns, patterns that resembled yet were distinct from those used to tell the stories of seers, sages or heroes. (An appendix charts 1 K. has published separately an ‘outline’ of her views on Homer as ‘The Early Biographical Tradition of Homer’ in T.R. Kämmerer (ed.), Identities and Society in the Ancient EastMediterranean Regions: Comparative Approaches (2011). (K.’s references to this book use a different, presumably working title.) 354 T HE C LA SSIC A L R EV IEW the presence and distribution of 44 ‘formulaic themes’ such as ‘unusual death’ and ‘connection with cult’ in the lives of the six poets treated plus Homer, and sets them beside the lives of representative seers, sages, tyrants and heroes.) By the classical period, stories about the early poets had consolidated into a reasonably coherent biographical tradition, and these were the source for Hellenistic biographers and their Peripatetic forerunners. K. does not intend to change scholars’ attitude towards this material, which is to view the lives with suspicion while leaving open the possibility that a given nugget of information may be authentic. Her work will be invaluable for anyone pursuing such a study. But given the small role that biographical information plays in current literary interpretation, it is worth stressing the book’s value for two other areas of research on early Greek poetry. Quite apart from the question whether the tradition about a given poet is historically accurate, the material K. assembles can inform us about the early stages of poetic reception. The fact that poetry was always an important source for biographical stories means that even a tradition drenched in folklore and fiction may inform us about ways that early audiences were trying to understand the poetry, to give songs coherence by setting them against a life and within a body of work, and to connect the songs of one community to another proposing to use them. More broadly, K.’s research throws light on the many professionals and laymen whose preoccupation with poetry built up a comprehensive and coherent history of the poetic arts in the two generations preceding Herodotus. One can begin with the usual anecdotes about early poets and their works to be found among sixth- and early fifth-century poets, historians and philosophers (collected on p. 5 n. 13). Thanks to her meticulous study of the poets’ genealogies, we can add in the labours of the early mythographers, whom Robert Fowler is bringing into the light. To these we may add, with all due caution, such groups as the Pythagoreans, for K. makes a good case that they interested themselves not only in Hesiod, the cosmognic poet, but also in Stesichorus, presumably as an eminent musical figure in the West. Altogether there emerges a picture of lively and expansive interest in poetry throughout the Greek world from east to west, and of a not always harmonious exchange among different kinds of groups – from the performers themselves and their dependants, to promoters of local interests, to scholars surveying and synthesising various local traditions and even at times consulting such archives as were accessible. This useful book has much to teach about how archaic Greek song traditions were created and shaped before the classical age. ANDREW FORD [email protected] Princeton University THE GE RY ON E IS C U RT I S (P.) (ed., trans.) Stesichoros’s Geryoneis. (Mnemosyne Supplements 333.) Pp. xvi + 201, pls. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011. Cased, €95, US$133. ISBN: 978-90-04-20767-7. doi:10.1017/S0009840X12000108 The distinguished series Mnemosyne Supplementa reaches its Triple Nelson with C.’s edition of Stesichorus’ Geryoneis. Our knowledge of this poem was vastly augmented by Lobel’s publication of P. Oxy. 2617 in 1967; the work now ranks The Classical Review vol. 62 no. 2 © The Classical Association 2012; all rights reserved