The Performing and the Reperforming of Masterpieces of Verbal Art at a
Festival in Ancient Athens
The Argument
The Logos that figures in the wording Logos & Tekhnē,
which is the heading for Panel Three of the Six Panels of the Athens
Dialogues of 2010, is not just the Word. It is the art of the Word. And that
art is the Art that is Tekhnē in the combination Logos & Tekhnē. In
other words, Logos is a
verbal art and is thus one form of Tekhnē,
just as
visual art is another form of Tekhnē. As Richard Martin and
I argue jointly in our contributions to the Dialogues, such verbal art was
equated with the visual art of fabric weaving. And, as I argue specifically
in my contribution, such an equation came to life in the performing and the
reperforming of two masterpieces of verbal art at a seasonally recurring
festival celebrated every four years in ancient Athens. Those two
masterpieces, as we will see, were the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey . And the seasonally
recurring Athenian festival, as we will also see, was the Great Panathenaia.
From the start, I make a distinction between
performing and
reperforming . Then, at a later point, I will make a parallel
distinction between the
weaving and the
reweaving of
fabric. Both these distinctions, I argue, were being made in ancient Athens
every time the Athenians celebrated the Great Panathenaia, which was for
them their most important festival.
[1]
The Historical Background
The seasonally recurring celebration of the Great
Panathenaia, which lasted several days and required several months of
preparation, was
quadrennial or
penteteric : that is, it
took place
every fourth year if we count by starting from zero—or
every fifth year if we count, as the ancient Hellenes did, by
starting from the number one in the absence of the idea of zero. This
festival, according to Athenian traditions, was officially started in 566
BCE.
[2] It was
celebrated every fourth year thereafter, well into the third century CE. And
it was evidently designed to rival the four most prestigious older festivals
celebrated in the Peloponnesus, that is, in the region recognized by all
Hellenes as the cradle of their ancient Hellenic civilization:
- The Olympics, operating on a four-year cycle, was celebrated at
Olympia in the summer of every fourth year of the calendar as we number
it, starting with 776 BCE.
- The Pythia, also operating on a four-year cycle, was celebrated at
Delphi in the summer of every second year after the Olympics.
- The Isthmia, operating on a two-year cycle, was celebrated at the
Isthmus of Corinth in the spring of each even-numbered year of the
calendar as we number it, before the summer festivals of the Olympia and
the Pythia.
- The Nemea, operating on a two-year cycle, was celebrated at Nemea on
odd-numbered years of the calendar as we number it, one year before and
one year after the festival of the Olympia.
The Panhellenic prestige of these four festivals, headed by the Olympics as
notionally started in 776 BCE, was rivaled by the newer Panhellenic prestige
of the festival of the Great Panathenaia as notionally started in 566 BCE. This newer festival, operating on a four-year cycle, was celebrated at
Athens in the late summer after the earlier summer celebration of the Pythia
on that same year, which as we have seen took place every second year after
the Olympics.
[3]
The two clearest signs of this rivalry are
- the parallelism between the athletic competitions (agōnes) at the
Great Panathenaia and at the Olympics
- the parallelism between the ‘musical’ competitions (agōnes) at the
Ǧreat Panathenaia and at the Pythia.
I will explain later what I mean when I refer to ‘musical’ competitions here. For now, however, it is enough for us to note that the ‘musical’
competitions of the Great Panathenaia, together with the athletic
competitions, were features that distinguished this festival as
Panhellenic .
To be contrasted with this
Panhellenic festival of the quadrennial
or Great Panathenaia was a corresponding
local festival of the
Athenians, the annual or Lesser Panathenaia, celebrated every year except
for every fourth year reserved for the celebration of the Great Panathenaia. The local festival of the annual or lesser Panathenaia lacked the
Panhellenic features of the quadrennial or Great Panathenaia.
[4]
Despite the lack of Panhellenic features in the annual or Lesser Panathenaia,
this local festival did have features in common with the Panhellenic
festival of the quadrennial or Great Panathenaia. Foremost among these
shared features was the Panathenaic Procession, a ritual held in honor of
the goddess Athena, patroness of the city of Athens.
This ritual of the Panathenaic Procession was linked with a foundational myth
of the Athenians, which told how Athena was born fully formed and fully
armed from the head of Zeus, and how the newborn goddess immediately
proceeded to join her father Zeus and the other Olympian gods in a cosmic
battle against the giants (Hesiod
Theogony verses
886–900, 924–926;
Homeric
Hymn [28]
to Athena verses
4–6).
[5] This myth
of the birth and the battle, to which I will refer hereafter simply as the
Gigantomachy, was represented in the monumental relief sculptures of the
Parthenon in Athens, dating from the 440s and 430s BCE: the East Pediment
showed the birth of Athena while the East Metopes showed the
Gigantomachy.
[6] And, as I say, the ritual of the Panathenaic Procession was linked with the
myth that told of these two events, the birth of Athena and the
Gigantomachy.
It was all a matter of ritual timing. The seasonally recurring day of the
Panathenaic Procession was equated in this ritual with the primordial day
when the events of the myth took place. And the ritual of the Panathenaic
Procession, as a feature that was common to the annual or Lesser Panathenaia
and to the quadrennial or Great Panathenaia, indicates a common origin for
both these Athenian festivals.
The Panathenaic Procession as celebrated at the annual Panathenaia was far
smaller in scale than the corresponding Panathenaic Procession as celebrated
at the quadrennial Panathenaia, just as the annual Panathenaia as a local
festival was far smaller in scale than the corresponding quadrennial
Panathenaia as a Panhellenic festival.
[7] Also, much less is known about the
annual Panathenaia by comparison with its quadrennial counterpart,
especially in the earlier and more formative phases of these Athenian
festivals. Accordingly, I will concentrate here on the Panathenaic
Procession as celebrated at the Great Panathenaia in the classical era of
the fifth and the fourth century BCE. The sources of information we have
from this era are fragmentary but most revealing, as we will see later from
the details provided by Aristotle himself in the
Constitution of the Athenians (60.1–3).
[8] And I highlight here another
important source of information about the Panathenaic Procession as
celebrated at the Great Panathenaia: it is the representation of this ritual
event in the monumental relief sculptures of the Panathenaic Frieze of the
Parthenon.
[9]
The Panathenaic Procession of the quadrennial or Great Panathenaia culminated
with the sacrifice of a hundred oxen and the public presentation of a
gigantic peplos or sacred ‘robe’ woven for Athena the goddess of Athens—a
robe to which I will refer from here on simply as the Peplos.
The relief sculpture of the Panathenaic Frieze actually shows the ritual
moment when the woven Peplos of Athena is handed over to a representative of
the goddess.
[10] The
Peplos is shown at the moment of its being ritually folded, and its ribbed
edge (or selvedge) is visible (Figure A).
[11]
The positioning of this ritual moment as sculpted into the Parthenon Frieze
is most significant: “the human procession, starting from the south-west
corner, proceeds in two directions along the north and south sides of the
temple to converge over the east end where the gods are assembled to witness
the culmination of the ceremony.”
[12] It is at this point of convergence in the narrative of
the Panathenaic Frieze that the presentation of the Peplos takes place.
The Panathenaic Procession took place on the twenty-eighth day of the month
Hekatombaion.
[13] The name of this month means ‘the season of sacrificing a hundred oxen’, and
it was the first month of the Athenian year. I focus here on the
presentation of the Peplos to Athena on that climactic day.
Leading up to the presentation of the Peplos on that day was the weaving of
this fabric, starting on the thirtieth day of the month Pyanopsion, which
was the day of a festival named the Khalkeia (s.v. Χαλκεῖα in the
Suda , in the
Etymologicum
Magnum , and in the collection of Harpocration).
[14] We can count a
span of nine months separating this official day of inception from the
official day of completion, which as we have seen took place on the
twenty-eighth day of the month Hekatombaion, the day of the Panathenaic
Procession, which culminated in the presentation of the Peplos to the
goddess Athena on the acropolis of Athens. That same day in the quadrennial
festival was viewed as the day of Athena’s birth (s.v. τριτογενής in the
Suda and in the
Lexicon of Photius; also in the scholia for
Iliad VIII 39).
[15] So the period of time required for the weaving of the
Peplos from start to finish was nine months, matching symbolically the
period of gestation leading up to the birth of the goddess.
[16]
Reweaving the Peplos
This weaving of the Peplos was thought to be a
reweaving . As I have argued in previous work, the very idea of
weaving the Peplos of Athena was the ritual equivalent of narrating the
Gigantomachy.
[17] The myth of the Gigantomachy was intrinsic to and inextricable from the
ritual of weaving the Peplos of Athena—both the quadrennial weaving and the
annual weaving. To that extent, I agree with those who argue that the
pictorial narratives woven into the Peplos of Athena in Athens were
variations on one basic theme, the myth of the Gigantomachy.
[18]
Pursuing the idea of a reweaving of the Peplos at the Panathenaia, I now turn
to the Pandora Frieze, a work of bronze that adorned the base of the statue
of Athena Parthenos inside the Parthenon (Pliny
Natural
History 36.19). In order to appreciate the significance of this
frieze, we must consider its visual relationship to other features of the
Parthenon.Let us take the perspective of a viewer standing before the
entrance to the Parthenon:
[19] Facing the east side of the temple and looking for highlights that
catch the eye, starting from the top, we would first of all see the
birth of Athena sculpted into the pediment on high; next, looking
further below, we would see the battle of the gods and giants sculpted
into the metopes; next, looking even further below and into the
interior, we would see the presentation of the Peplos of Athena sculpted
into the Panathenaic Frieze that wraps around this interior above the
columns of the porch.
[20] Next, ascending the steps of the temple and entering
its open doors, we would see the gigantic figure of Athena Parthenos
standing on top of a commensurately gigantic base; and we would see
worked into the metallic surface of this base the Pandora Frieze.
Let us now follow the perspective of a viewer who has just entered the
interior of the temple:
[21]
As we enter, we see straight ahead the glittering figure of Pandora
at the center of the Frieze, her radiance enhanced by her reflection in
the pool of water at the front of the base; this view gives the viewer
“a premonition of what, once he had accustomed himself to the
semi-darkness in the cella, he would, on directing his gaze upwards,
experience in the statue of the Athena Parthenos herself.”
[22] Even before
the viewer “could have been alerted to the astonishing height and
polychromatic splendour of the chryselephantine statue of Athena itself,
he would have looked straight ahead and glanced at its base.”
[23]
As Pausanias says, the myth that is narrated by the relief work on the base
of the statue of Athena Parthenos is the genesis of Pandora (1.24.7). What
Pausanias does not say, however, is that Pandora is the first Athenian woman
in the Athenian version of the myth, and that she is represented as wearing
the first peplos. The narrative of this myth about Pandora, as worked into
the frieze of the base of the statue of Athena Parthenos, can be
reconstructed primarily on the basis of vase paintings that narrate this
myth.
[24] In terms
of these narrations, Pandora is represented as wearing the first peplos,
given to her by the goddess Athena herself:
[25] This robe, the first peplos,
might have been understood in the widest sense of the word as the
archetypal peplos, given by Athena to the primordial woman. For that
reason its concept was not confined to the bare image of a beautiful
garment, but involved women’s ability to weave peploi as well.
[26] Thus the
peplos of Pandora could have represented the mythical pattern or
prototype for all the peploi in the world.
[27]
Let us consider the narratives of two relevant vase paintings. Both paintings
are dated to the second quarter of the fifth century BCE; so they predate
the Pandora Frieze itself.
[28] The first of these paintings shows a frontal view of the
newly created Pandora. She is wearing a peplos and is flanked by Athena, who
presents her with a garland of flowers (Figure B).
[29]
The second of these two paintings shows Pandora flanked by Athena and
Hephaistos on either side. It is the moment when the two divinities have
just finished creating this female prototype by way of their combined crafts
(Figure C).
[30]
I quote an incisive description:
[31]
The mention here of Athena Erganē is relevant to the Athenian festival that
inaugurated the weaving of the Peplos of Athena, the Khalkeia, the name of
which is derived from the word khalkos ‘bronze’. This festival celebrated
the synergism of the divinities Athena and Hephaistos as models for the work
of craftsmen. As the synergistic partner of Hephaistos, Athena was
worshipped as Erganē, that is, the divinity who presides over the work
(ergon) of craftsmen.
[33] Since the weaving of the Peplos was begun at the
festival of the Khalkeia, it is relevant that the name for the female
weavers of the Peplos presented to Athena at the annual or Lesser
Panathenaia was Ergastinai.
[34]
As we will see presently, the goddess Athena demonstrates her control over
the art of weaving by weaving her own Peplos. And there is a parallelism
between the work of Athena, who practices the craft of weaving her own
peplos, and the work of Hephaistos, who practices the craft of metalwork in
bronze. I argue for a link between the work of the weavers who produced the
Peplos of Athena and the work of the metalworkers who produced artifacts
made of bronze in the sacred space of Athena. The fact that Athena presides
over the craft of weaving the Peplos in conjunction with the craft of bronze
metalwork is relevant to the fact that the relief work of the Pandora
Frieze, which shows Pandora being dressed in a prototypical peplos given to
her by Athena, is an artifact of metalwork in bronze. It is also relevant to
the fact that the metalworker who sculpted the narrative about Pandora and
her peplos was none other than Pheidias himself (Pliny
Natural History 36.19).
[35] This sculptor also metalworked the
narrative of the Gigantomachy into the concave interior of the Shield of
Athena (Pliny
Natural History 36.18)—matching the
narrative of the Gigantomachy woven into the Peplos of Athena.
[36]
Here I stop to note a basic difference:
[37] The metalwork of the
Gigantomachy on the concave interior of the Shield of Athena, as
performed by Pheidias, was of course a singular historic event. To be
contrasted is the weaving of the Gigantomachy, which was a seasonally
recurring event. There was the weaving of the annual Peplos, as
performed by female weavers, and there was the weaving of the
quadrennial Peplos, as performed by professional male weavers (called
poikiltai in Plutarch
Pericles 12.6).
[38] Each time the
Peplos was woven—or, better, rewoven—it was notionally the same but
historically different. So the woven version of the Gigantomachy can be
seen as an ongoing classical process in contrast to the metalworked
version, which is a single classical moment created by Pheidias.
The ritual reweaving of Athena’s Peplos every year at the
Panathenaia—especially every four years at the Great Panathenaia—is a ritual
re-enactment of Athena’s own weaving of her own peplos, which she wears as a
‘robe’:
[39]
Homeric poetry says explicitly, in Iliad
V (734–735), that the goddess
herself had woven—with her own hands—the peplos she is shown as wearing;
when she goes to war, she takes off this peplos (V 734) before she puts
on a khiton (V 736), over which she wears her suit of armor (V 737). Because it is a divinity who is doing these things, what Athena does or
what she makes is absolute and thus permanent. Female and male weavers
keep on repeating the absolute and permanent archetype, and their
repetition formalizes the permanence. So, while the sculpting of a
statue of the goddess is a single act that achieves notional permanence,
the weaving of a web for the goddess is an act that has to be
reperformed year after year for ever and ever in order to achieve, in
the fullness of time, that same kind of notional permanence. The woven
web of Athena is a multiple and fluid eternity, ever recycled, whereas
the sculpted statue of Athena is a single and static moment of that same
eternity, ever the same.
Here we need to take into account two sculpted statues of Athena on the
Parthenon: on the one hand, there is the archaic statue of Athena Polias
residing in the old temple of Athena, and, on the other hand, there is the
classical statue of Athena Parthenos residing in the Parthenon. As we see
from the explicit testimony of Pausanias (1.24.7), the statue of Athena
Parthenos is featured as wearing a khiton under her armor, and so she is not
even wearing a peplos. It is not necessary, in any case, that that a statue
of Athena should wear a peplos that is sculpted into the statue. As we are
about to see, the peplos to be worn by Athena was not sculpted but woven for
her. And the statues of both Athena Polias and Athena Parthenos can be seen
as appropriate recipients of the Peplos that is forever being ritually
rewoven for the goddess.
[40] In previous work, I have this to say about the notional
permanence of this reweaving, matching the notional permanence of the
statues of Athena:
[41] The ritual reweaving is what makes the weaving permanent. So
long as the reweaving goes on forever, which is the ideology of ritual,
the Peplos is just as permanent as the statue is notionally permanent. The eternity of reweaving makes the rewoven Peplos the same thing,
ritually speaking, as the Peplos that Athena had originally woven. She
can receive for eternity that same Peplos she once wove because it is
rewoven for her by successive generations of weavers weaving into
eternity.
Conversely, Athena can also give the Peplos once
and for all to the first woman, Pandora, as we see from the evidence
about the relief metalwork of Pheidias known as the Pandora Frieze.
[42] In terms of
Athenian myth as represented in this relief metalwork created by
Pheidias, the Peplos given to Pandora by Athena would have been woven
once and for all. In terms of Athenian ritual, on the other hand, women
will be weaving a new Peplos for Athena on a seasonally recurring basis,
year after year for all time to come. The Peplos given by the goddess to
the primal woman will be rewoven and given back to the goddess again and
again for the rest of time on the seasonally recurring occasion of the
feast of the Panathenaia, which celebrates the genesis of Athena.
Reweaving the Peplos, Reperforming the Epic
For the quadrennial or Great Panathenaia, as we have seen,
the reweaving of the Peplos was performed by professional male weavers, and
it was only for the annual or Lesser Panathenaia that the reweaving
continued to be performed by women.
[43] Such a differentiation of
professional male weavers from nonprofessional female weavers is relevant to
traditional metaphors that equate the weaving of fabric with the performing
of epic. A prime example is the word oimē, which refers metaphorically to
the ‘story-thread’ that begins the epic performance of the singer Demodokos
in
Odyssey viii 74.
[44] Such a beginning of epic, as we
see from the wording of Pindar’s
Nemean 2 (line 3),
is a prooimion, which is metaphorically the starting point of the threading,
of the oimē. Comparable to this Greek prooimion is the Latin
exordium . Like the Greek word prooimion, the
Latin word
exordium is applicable to the
beginning of a song, a poem, or a speech. Like the Greek prooimion, the
Latin equivalent
exordium shows a
closely comparable etymology: this noun too refers metaphorically to the
starting point of the threading, as we see from the meaning of the
corresponding verb
ordīrī , which refers
to the actual process of ‘threading’.
[45] And it can also be argued that the
specific meanings of the Greek nouns oimē and prooimion are related to the
general meaning of the noun humnos, which can be interpreted etymologically
as the overall process of weaving as expressed by the verb huphainein
‘weave’.
[46] So
the question is, can we say that the performing of epic at the quadrennial
or Great Panathenaia is visualized metaphorically as the work of male
weavers in particular?
In formulating an answer, I start with the metaphor inherent in the technical
poetic term prooimion. In terms of this metaphor, a performance started by a
singer is like a web started by a weaver. Performing the prooimion is like
weaving the exastis, which is a technical term for the initial phase of the
weaving.
[47] From
the wording of Pindar, we see the application of this metaphor to the start
of Homeric performance
῞Οθεν 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 begin [arkhesthai] their stitched-together
[rhaptein] words, from the prooimion of Zeus …
Pindar
Nemean 2.1–3
The idea of fabric work, implicit in the word prooimion, is made explicit
here through the word rhaptein ‘sew, stitch’, which conveys the idea of
integrating woven fabric into a totality.
[48] The metaphorical world of rhaptein
‘sew, stitch’ is specific to the word rhapsōidoi ‘rhapsodes’, which means
etymologically ‘stitchers of song’.
[49] In the logic of Pindar’s wording,
the primary fabric workers of song are the Homēridai, the ‘descendants of
Homer’ themselves, and the starting point for their fabric work is the web
of song that addresses the primary god, Zeus.
[50] So the metaphorical fabric workers
of epic are specifically male fabric workers. As such, they are analogous to
the poikiltai, as mentioned in Plutarch’s
Pericles
(12.6), who reweave the Peplos that the Athenians present to their goddess
Athena on the occasion of the Great Panathenaia.
Here I return to the point I made at the start about the
reperforming of the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey at this same festival. During the days
of the Panathenaia that led up to the climactic presentation of the Peplos
to the goddess Athena, the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey were reperformed by professional performers
called rhapsōidoi ‘rhapsodes’. The basic meaning of this word, as we have
seen, is
they who stitch together the song . And this meaning is
shaped by a traditional metaphor that can be paraphrased this way:
they
who put together the whole song just as fabric-workers stitch together
the whole fabric .
[51]
I focus here on two distinct mythologized versions of this concept of the
rhapsode, both of which are reported in the scholia for Pindar
Nemean 2.1:
οἱ δέ φασι τῆς Ὁμήρου ποιήσεως μὴ
ὑφ᾿ ἓν συνηγμένης, σποράδην δὲ ἄλλως καὶ κατὰ μέρη διῃρημένης, ὁπότε
ῥαψῳδοῖεν αὐτήν, εἱρμῷ τινι καὶ ῥαφῇ παραπλήσιον ποιεῖν, εἰς ἓν αὐτὴν
ἄγοντας
And some say that—since the poetry of Homer had
been in a state of not being brought together
under the heading of
one thing ,
[52] but instead, in a negative sense [= ἄλλως], had been
in the state of being scattered and divided into parts—whenever they [=
the rhapsodes] would
perform it
rhapsodically they
would be doing something that is similar to
sequencing or
sewing , as they brought it together
into one
thing .
[version 1 at scholia for Pindar Nemean 2.1c]
οἱ δέ, ὅτι κατὰ μέρος
πρότερον τῆς ποιήσεως διαδεδομένης τῶν ἀγωνιστῶν ἕκαστος ὅ τι βούλοιτο
μέρος ᾔδε, τοῦ δὲ ἄθλου τοῖς νικῶσιν ἀρνὸς ἀποδεδειγμένου
προσαγορευθῆναι τότε μὲν ἀρνῳδούς, αὖθις δὲ ἑκατέρας τῆς ποιήσεως
εἰσενεχθείσης τοὺς ἀγωνιστὰς οἷον ἀκουμένους πρὸς ἄλληλα τὰ μέρη καὶ τὴν
σύμπασαν ποίησιν ἐπιόντας, ῥαψῳδοὺς προσαγορευθῆναι, ταῦτά φησι
Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀργεῖος
Others say that previously—since the
poetry had been divided into parts , with each of the
competitors [ agōnistai ] singing whichever
part he wanted, and since the designated prize for the
winners had been a lamb—[those competitors] were in those days called
arnōidoi [= lamb-singers] , but then, later on—since the
competitors [ agōnistai ], whenever each of the two
poems was introduced, were mending the parts to each other, as
it were, and moving toward the whole poem—they were called rhapsōidoi. These things are said by Dionysius of Argos [between fourth and third
centuries BCE; FGH 308 F
2]
[version 2 at scholia for Pindar Nemean 2.1d]
n.53
As I argue in my previous work, these two mythologized versions of the
concept of the rhapsode amount to an
aetiology of the
Panathenaic Regulation .
[54] When I say
aetiology
here, I mean a myth that motivates an institutional reality, especially a
ritual.
[55] And
when I say
Panathenaic Regulation , I mean an institutional reality
that we find described in several ancient sources. I can sum up this reality
in the following formulation: at the quadrennial or Great Panathenaia,
rhapsodes collaborated as well as competed in the process of reperforming,
by relay, successive parts of the two integral epic compositions that we
know as the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey .
[56]
Among the ancient sources that describe the Panathenaic Regulation is a work
attributed to Plato and named after Hipparkhos son of Peisistratos. The
words of the relevant passage I am about to quote are spoken by Plato’s
Socrates, and he is just on the verge of naming Hipparkhos as an Athenian of
the past who deserves the admiration of Athenians in the present:
…
Ἱππάρχῳ, ὃς ἄλλα τε πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ ἔργα σοφίας ἀπεδέξατο, καὶ τὰ Ὁμήρου
ἔπη πρῶτος ἐκόμισεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ταύτην, καὶ ἠνάγκασε τοὺς ῥαψῳδοὺς
Παναθηναίοις ἐξ ὑπολήψεως ἐφεξῆς αὐτὰ διιέναι, ὥσπερ νῦν ἔτι οἵδε
ποιοῦσιν.
[I am referring to] Hipparkhos, who accomplished
many beautiful things in demonstration of his expertise [sophia],
especially by being the first to bring over [komizein] to this land [=
Athens] the verses [epos plural] of Homer, and he required the rhapsodes
[ rhapsōidoi ] at the
Panathenaia to go through [diienai] these verses in sequence
[ ephexēs ], by
relay [ ex
hupolēpseōs ], just as they [= the rhapsodes] do even
nowadays.
“Plato” Hipparkhos
228b–c
This story is an aetiology in its own right. And, as I argue in previous
work, the institutional reality described here, where rhapsodes compete with
each other as they perform by relay and in sequence the epics of Homer at
the festival of the Panathenaia, is a ritual in and of itself.
[57] Moreover, the
principle of equity that is built into this ritual event of rhapsodic
competition corresponds to the need for equity in the ritual events of
athletic competition.As Richard Martin observes, “The superb management of
athletic games to assure equity could easily have been extended by the
promoters of the Panathenaic games in this way.”
[58] As we will see presently, this
parallelism of athletic and rhapsodic competitions as ritual events is
conveyed by the word
agōnes , which applies to both
kinds of competition.
In the era of the Athenian democracy, which started in 510 BCE and lasted
through the fifth century and beyond, it was not Hipparkhos but the earlier
Athenian figure of Solon who was highlighted as the culture hero of the
Panathenaic Regulation:
τά τε Ὁμήρου ἐξ ὑποβολῆς γέγραφε ῥαψῳδεῖσθαι,
οἷον ὅπου ὁ πρῶτος ἔληξεν, ἐκεῖθεν ἄρχεσθαι τὸν ἐχόμενον
He [= Solon as Lawgiver of the Athenians] has written a
law that the words of Homer are to be performed rhapsodically
[ rhapsōideîn ], by
relay [ hupobolē ], so that wherever the first person left
off [ lēgein ], from
that point the next person should start [ arkhesthai ].
Dieuchidas of Megara FGH 485 F 6 via Diogenes Laertius 1.57
The predemocratic version of the aetiology of the Panathenaic Regulation,
however, featuring Hipparkhos, makes more sense than this democratic version
featuring Solon. As I argue in previous work, the predemocratic version is
consistent with a whole nexus of additional information concerning the
earlier phases of the Panathenaia.
[59] This is not to say, however, that Hipparkhos himself
should be credited with instituting rhapsodic competitions in the
performance of epic at the Panathenaia.
[60] It is only to say that he
instituted a reform of these rhapsodic competitions by introducing the
Panathenaic Regulation.
I now turn to a third source about the Panathenaic Regulation. The speaker in
the passage I am about to quote avoids any direct attribution of the
Panathenaic Regulation to Solon, despite the fact that he speaks in terms
that presuppose the prevailing ideologies of the Athenian democracy;
instead, he attributes the Regulation to the initiative of unnamed ancestors
of the Athenians of his day.
[61] Here is the passage, taken from a speech delivered by
the Athenian statesman Lycurgus in 330 BCE:
[62] βούλομαι δ᾿ ὑμῖν καὶ τὸν
Ὅμηρον παρασχέσθαι ἐπαινῶν. οὕτω γὰρ ὑπέλαβον ὑμῶν οἱ πατέρες σπουδαῖον
εἶναι ποιητήν, ὥστε νόμον ἔθεντο καθ᾿ ἑκάστην πενταετηρίδα τῶν
Παναθηναίων μόνου τῶν ἄλλων ποιητῶν ῥαψῳδεῖσθαι τὰ ἔπη, ἐπίδειξιν
ποιούμενοι πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας ὅτι τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν ἔργων
προῃροῦντο.
I wish to adduce for you Homer,
quoting [ epaineîn ] him,
[63] since the reception
[64] that he had
from your [Athenian] ancestors made him so important a poet that there
was a law enacted by them that requires, every fourth year of the
Panathenaia,
[65] the
rhapsodic performing [ rhapsōideîn ] of his verses [epos plural] —his
alone and no other poet’s.In this way they [= your (Athenian)
ancestors] made a demonstration [epideixis] ,
[66] intended for all Hellenes to
see,
[67] that
they made a conscious choice of the most noble of accomplishments.
[68] Lycurgus Against Leokrates 102
The Concepts of Epic and Lyric in the Historical Context of Performance
Traditions at the Panathenaia in Athens
The epē ‘verses’ (= epos plural) to which the Athenian
orator is referring in the last of the three passages I quoted in the
previous section represent the epic poetry performed by competing rhapsōidoi
‘rhapsodes’, not the lyric song performed by other kinds of competing
craftsmen known as kitharōidoi ‘citharodes’ and aulōidoi ‘aulodes’.
[69] I propose here to
analyze the distinction between epic poetry and lyric song in the context of
performances by rhapsōidoi ‘rhapsodes’ and kitharōidoi ‘citharodes’ and
aulōidoi ‘aulodes’ at the Great Panathenaia in Athens.
What we know as epic and lyric were forms of verbal art that evolved into
their classical forms in the historical context of separate competitions
among performing rhapsodes, citharodes, and aulodes at the Great Panathenaia
in Athens. We can situate these classical forms in such a historical context
by reviewing all the major classical forms of verbal art as viewed in the
fourth century BCE by Aristotle himself in his
Poetics :
Περὶ ποιητικῆς αὐτῆς τε καὶ τῶν εἰδῶν αὐτῆς, ἥν
τινα δύναμιν ἕκαστον ἔχει, καὶ πῶς δεῖ συνίστασθαι τοὺς μύθους εἰ μέλλει
καλῶς ἕξειν ἡ ποίησις, ἔτι δὲ ἐκ πόσων καὶ ποίων ἐστὶ μορίων, ὁμοίως δὲ
καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσα τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστι μεθόδου, λέγωμεν ἀρξάμενοι κατὰ
φύσιν πρῶτον ἀπὸ τῶν πρώτων. ἐποποιία δὴ καὶ ἡ τῆς τραγῳδίας ποίησις ἔτι
δὲ κωμῳδία καὶ ἡ διθυραμβοποιητικὴ καὶ τῆς αὐλητικῆς ἡ πλείστη καὶ
κιθαριστικῆς πᾶσαι τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι μιμήσεις τὸ σύνολον· διαφέρουσι δὲ
ἀλλήλων τρισίν, ἢ γὰρ τῷ ἐν ἑτέροις μιμεῖσθαι ἢ τῷ ἕτερα ἢ τῷ ἑτέρως καὶ
μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον.
Concerning the craft of poetic
composition [poiētikē (tekhnē)] in and of itself, and its {1447a} forms
[eidē, plural of eidos] , and what is the potential of each form; and how
mythical plots [muthoi] must be put together if the poetic composition
[poiēsis] is to be good at doing what it does; and how many parts it is
made of, and what kinds of parts they are; and, likewise, all other
questions that belong to the same line of inquiry—let us speak about all
these things by starting, in accordance with the natural order, from
first principles.
So, the composition of epic [epopoiia =
the poiēsis of epos] and the
composition [poiēsis] of tragedy
[tragōidia], as well as comedy [kōmōidia] and the poetic craft [poiētikē
(tekhnē)] of the dithyramb [dithurambos] and most sorts of crafts
related to the
aulos [70] and the
kithara [71] —all of these crafts, as it happens, are instances of
reenactment [mimēsis plural] ,
[72] taken as a whole. There are three things that make
these instances of reenactment different from each other: [[1]]
reenacting [mimeîsthai] things in different media, or
[[2]] reenacting different things, or [[3]] reenacting in a mode
[tropos] that is different and not the same as the other
modes.
Aristotle Poetics
1447a.8–18
The idea of mimeîsthai in this formulation of Aristotle, which I translate as
‘reenact’, is the equivalent of the idea of
reperforming as I have
formulated it so far. As I have argued in previous work, all nine of the
media of reenactment mentioned by Aristotle in his formulation can be
analyzed as media of
performance and
reperformance as well
as
composition .
[73] And, as I have also argued, Aristotle views all nine of
these media in Athenocentric terms.
[74] Without saying it explicitly, he
situates all nine media in the historical context of the first and the
second most important festivals of the Athenians:
- the Great Panathenaia, featuring (a) epic recited by rhapsodes and
accompanied by no musical instrument, (b) lyric sung by aulodes and
accompanied by the aulos, (c) lyric sung by citharodes and
self-accompanied by the kithara, (d) instrumental music played on the
aulos, without words, (e) instrumental music played on the kithara,
without words
- the City Dionysia, featuring (a) tragedy, (b) comedy, (c) dithyramb,
and (d) satyr drama.
For the moment, I restrict my scope here to the five media linked with the
first of these two festivals, the Great Panathenaia. Aristotle starts with
the medium I have listed as 1a, which is practiced by rhapsōidoi
‘rhapsodes’. Later, he refers to the media 1b and 1d of the aulōidoi
‘aulodes, aulos-singers’ and the aulētai ‘auletes, aulos-players’, and to
the media 1c and 1e of the kitharōidoi ‘citharodes, kithara-singers’ and the
kitharistai ‘citharists, kithara-players’. We learn directly about these
categories from an Athenian inscription dated at around 380 BCE,
IG II2 2311, which records Panathenaic prizes.
[75] We learn about
these categories also from Plato
Laws VI 764d–e
(mention of rhapsodes, cithara-singers, and aulos-players), where the
wording makes it clear that the point of reference is the Panathenaia.
[76] To sum up, it can
be said in general that epic and lyric were defined by the media of
rhapsodes on the one hand and of aulodes and citharodes on the other.
In the classical period as described by Aristotle, the epic repertoire of the
rhapsodes who were competing with each other in rhapsodic competitions at
the Panathenaia was restricted to reperformances of the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey , as I have
argued in pre vious work.
[77] But what about the lyric repertoire of the aulodes and
the citharodes who were competing with each other in their own separate
aulodic and citharodic competitions at the Panathenaia? As I have also
argued in previous work, the classics of lyric composition that were
reperformed by the aulodes and by the citharodes of the Panathenaia were
compositions attributed to the great lyric poets of the preclassical and the
early classical era, the foremost of whom were
Alcman ,
Stesichorus ,
Ibycus ,
Sappho ,
Alcaeus ,
Anacreon ,
Simonides ,
Bacchylides,
Pindar .
[78] In terms of my argument, I offer this formulation:
Just as Homer becomes
a classic by way of rhapsodic reperformances of Homeric poetry at the
Panathenaia, so also the lyric masters become classics by way of
corresponding aulodic and citharodic reperformances of their lyric songs
at the same Athenian festival, the Panathenaia .
[79] Although this formulation applies
to aulodic as well as citharodic reperformances, I will concentrate here
only on the citharodic, which I will juxtapose with the rhapsodic
reperformances.
The evidence I have adduced so far about these categories of competition at
the Panathenaia is supplemented by what we read in Aristotle’s
Constitution of the Athenians (60.1), where the author
refers to these same Panathenaic categories of competition and where the
overall competition is specified as the ‘competition [agōn] in mousikē’ (τὸν
ἀγῶνα τῆς μουσικῆς). We learn further details from this same source: ten
magistrates called athlothetai ‘arrangers of the contests [athloi] ’ were
selected by lot every four years to organize the festival of the
Panathenaia, and one of their primary tasks was the management of the
‘competition [agōn] in mousikē’. According to Plutarch’s
Pericles (13.9–11), the Athenian statesman Pericles reformed
this competition in mousikē when he was elected as one of the
athlothetai.
[80] What, then, does the author of the
Constitution of the
Athenians actually mean when he says mousikē? In Aristotelian
usage, this word mousikē is a shorthand way of saying mousikē tekhnē,
meaning ‘craft of the Muses’, that is, ‘musical craft’. It would be a
misreading, however, to think of ancient Greek mousikē simply in the modern
sense of
music , since the categories of ‘musical’ performers at the
Panathenaia included not only kitharōidoi ‘kithara-singers’ and kitharistai
‘kithara-players’ and aulōidoi ‘aulos-singers’ and aulētai ‘aulos-players’
but also rhapsōidoi ‘rhapsodes’. The performative medium of rhapsodes in the
era of Aristotle was
recitative and thus not ‘musical’ in the
modern sense of the word. By
recitative I mean (1) performed
without singing and (2) performed without the instrumental accompaniment of
the kithara or the aulos.
[81] In this era, the competitive performances of the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey by
rhapsodes at the Panathenaia were ‘musical’ only in an etymological sense,
and the medium of the rhapsode was actually closer to what we call ‘poetry’
and farther from what we call ‘music’ in the modern sense of the word. Still, the fact remains that the performances of rhapsodes belonged to what
is called the ‘competition [agōn] in mousikē’ (τὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς μουσικῆς), just
like the performances of citharodes, citharists, aulodes, auletes, and so
on.
[82]
Of all the performers at the Panathenaia, I highlight here not only the
rhapsodes performing the masterpieces of epic that we know as the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey but
also the citharodes, who as I argue were performing masterpieces of Greek
lyric at this same festival. By viewing together these two kinds of
performers, we can arrive at a unified explanation for two important rival
trends, as noticed by Richard Martin, in the history of the Panathenaia: (1)
the prioritizing of rhapsodes who recited epic without any instrumental
accompaniment and (2) the rival prioritizing of citharodes who sang lyric
while accompanying themselves on a stringed instrument called the
kithara.
The second of these two rival trends reflects the influence of another great
festival, the Pythia, on the Great Panathenaia. At the Pythia, as Martin
shows, the art of the citharodes was strongly prioritized.
[83] As for the first
of these same two rival trends at the Panathenaia, the prioritizing of
rhapsodes, it reflects the influence of yet another great festival, the
Panionia, which took shape in the late eighth and early seventh century in
the historical context of the Panionion, a sacred meeting space for a
federation of twelve Ionian cities in Asia Minor known as the Ionian
Dodecapolis.
[84] At the festival of the Panionia, the art of the rhapsodes was strongly
prioritized. As Douglas Frame has shown, this festival was the historical
setting for the evolution of a rhapsodic tradition of performing the epics
that we know as the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey , which were divided into six rhapsodic
performance units each, adding up to twelve rhapsodic performance units
representing each one of the twelve cities of the Ionian Dodecapolis; each
one of these twelve rhapsodic performance units corresponds to four
rhapsōidiai ‘rhapsodies’ or ‘books’ of the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey as we know them from
their Panathenaic phase of transmission (‘books’ 1–4, 5–8, 9–12, 13–16,
17–20, 21–24).
[85] And
this Panathenaic phase of transmission for the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey seems to have
started when Hipparkhos the son of Peisistratos introduced what we know as
the Panathenaic Regulation in Athens, as described in the passage I quoted
previously. It has been conjectured, plausibly, that Hipparkhos arranged for
the first complete performance of the Homeric
Iliad
and
Odyssey by rhapsodes competing at the festival
of the Panathenaia that was celebrated in the summer of 522 BCE.
[86]
We have already seen how the reperformance of the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey every four years at
the Panathenaia was equated metaphorically with a reweaving of these epics
by rhapsodes. But we have yet to see how such a metaphorical reweaving of
these epics was linked with the ritual reweaving of the Peplos of Athena
every four years for the same festival of the Panathenaia.Here again I come
back to Aristotle, who gives a brief outline of five main features of the
Panathenaia at Athens in his
Constitution of the
Athenians (60.1–3):
[87]
1. agōn ‘competition’ in mousikē (τὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς μουσικῆς); prizes awarded:
gold and silver.
2. agōn ‘competition’ in athletics (τὸν γυμνικὸν ἀγῶνα), including equestrian
events (horse-racing and chariot-racing: ἱπποδρομίαν); prizes awarded:
Panathenaic amphoras containing olive oil.
3. peplos ‘robe’ = the ceremonial robe, Peplos (τὸν πέπλον); woven for the
goddess Athena, it was formally presented to her at the Panathenaia.
4. pompē ‘procession’ = the Panathenaic Procession (τήν τε πομπὴν τῶν
Παναθηναίων); at the climax of this procession, the Peplos was formally
presented to Athena.
5. athlothetai = a board of ten magistrates, with one from each phulē
appointed (by lot) every four years for a term of four years; their function
was to organize and supervise all the events of no. 1, no. 2, no. 3, and no. 4, including the arranging and awarding of prizes in the case of no. 1 and
no. 2.
Aristotle’s general reference here in the
Constitution of
the Athenians to an overall agōn ‘competition’ in mousikē (τὸν
ἀγῶνα τῆς μουσικῆς) leaves him free to be unspecific about the specific
forms of agōnes ‘competitions’ in mousikē. Aristotle’s lack of specificity
has contributed to the confusion I mentioned previously about the ‘musical
contests’ of the Panathenaia. As we saw, the conventional but anachronistic
translation ‘musical’ is confusing because the English word seems to
suggest, misleadingly, an exclusion of rhapsōidoi ‘rhapsodes’ and the
inclusion only of kitharōidoi ‘citharodes’, aulōidoi ‘aulodes’, and so
on.
[88] Still,
what is only implicit in Aristotle’s general reference is made explicit in a
corresponding reference to the Panathenaia by Isocrates (
Panegyricus 159), whose words specify that
Homeric
performances were taking place ‘in athla [contests] of mousikē’, ἐν τοῖς
μουσικοῖς ἄθλοις.
[89] Other sources too provide explicit evidence about the institution of
rhapsodic contests at the Panathenaia, and many of these specify the
correlation of contests in athletics with contests in mousikē.
[90]
The essential fact, then, that we can see emerging from the testimony of
Aristotle’s
Constitution of the Athenians is that
the quadrennial reweaving of the Peplos for the Great Panathenaia was
institutionally linked with what he calls the agōn ‘competition’ in mousikē
(τὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς μουσικῆς), which we know was the historical context for the
quadrennial reperforming of the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey by rhapsōidoi ‘rhapsodes’ at the same
festival.
This institutional link between a quadrennial reweaving of the Peplos of
Athena and the quadrennial ‘musical contests’ held at the Great Panathenaia
applies directly to the contests among rhapsodes, whose simultaneously
competitive and collaborative performance of the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey was understood to be
a reperformance, repeated every four years for all eternity. Such a
mentality of repetition evokes for me a work of Kierkegaard, entitled
Repetition (1843).I quote from this work: “repetition
and recollection are the same movement, except in opposite directions, for
what is recollected has been, is repeated backward, whereas genuine
repetition is recollected forward.”
[91] This model of repetition, as I
interpret it, combines the idea of sameness as something old and the reality
of variation as something new. In the ideology of ritual, I must add, such
repetition is understood to be eternal.
[92]
We can see such a notional eternity in the seasonally recurring
reperformances of the Homeric
Iliad and
Odyssey , just as we see it in the seasonally recurring
reweavings of the Peplos of Athena. Both the reperformances and the
reweavings are achieved by way of a seasonally recurring ritual renewal. And
while we see the idea of sameness in the seasonally recurring competitions
among rhapsodes at the Great Panathenaia, since their epic repertoire is
understood to the same for all eternity, we see also the reality of
variation in the likewise recurring competitions among citharodes and
aulodes, since their lyric repertoires would have varied on each quadrennial
occasion of celebrating the festival of the goddess.
At the Great Panathenaia, the sameness of epic and the variation of lyric are
perfectly fused in the ritual mentality of reweaving the Peplos every four
years for all eternity to honor the goddess who presided over her beloved
city of Athens. It is my fondest hope that this city, the venue of the
Athens Dialogues, will continue to foster such an eternal reweaving.
Bibliography
BA. See Nagy 1979.
Barber, E. J. W.
1991. Prehistoric Textiles: The
Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, with Special
Reference to the Aegean. Princeton.
———.
1992. “The Peplos of Athena.” In
Neils 1992a:103–117, plus notes at pp. 208–210.
Bell, M.
1995. “The Motya Charioteer and Pindar’s
Isthmian
2.” Memoirs of the American Academy in
Rome 40:1–42.
Berczelly, L.
1992. “Pandora and Panathenaia: The
Pandora Myth and the Sculptural Decoration of the
Parthenon.” Acta ad archaeologiam et artium
historiam pertinentia 8:53–86.
Blech, M.
1982. Studien zum Kranz bei den
Griechen. Berlin and New York.
Durante, M. 1976. Sulla
preistoria della tradizione poetic greca II. Risultanze della comparazione indoeuropea. Incunabula Graeca 64. Rome.
Elmer, D. F. 2005. “Helen Epigrammatopoios.” Classical Antiquity 24:1–39.
Frame, D.
2009. Hippota Nestor. Cambridge,
MA and Washington, DC.
GM. See Nagy 1990b.
HC. See Nagy 2008/2009.
HPC. See Nagy 2009/2010.
HQ. See Nagy 1996b.
HR. See Nagy 2003.
HTL. See Nagy 2004.
Kierkegaard, S.
1843 [1983]. Fear and
Trembling. Repetition. Translation, with introduction and
notes, by H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong.
Princeton.
Kotsidu, H.
1991. Die musischen Agone der Panathenäen
in archaischer und klassischer Zeit: Eine historisch-archäologische
Untersuchung. Quellen und Forschungen zur
antiken Welt 8. Munich.
Leipen, N.
1971. Athena Parthenos: A
Reconstruction. Toronto.
Martin, R. P. 2000. “Synchronic Aspects of Homeric Performance: The Evidence of the
Hymn to Apollo.” Una nueva visión de la cultura griega
antigua hacia el fin del milenio (ed. A. M. González
de Tobia) 403–432. La Plata.
Mikalson, J. D.
1975. The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the
Athenian Year. Princeton.
Nagy, B.
1992. “Athenian Officials on the Parthenon
Frieze.” American Journal of
Archaeology 96:55–69.
Nagy, G.
1979. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts
of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry. 2nd ed., with new
Introduction, 1999. Baltimore.
———. 1990a. Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric
Possession of an Epic Past. Baltimore.
———.
1990b. Greek Mythology and
Poetics. Ithaca, NY.
———.
1996a. Poetry as Performance: Homer and
Beyond. Cambridge.
———.
1996b. Homeric Questions.
Austin.
———.
2002. Plato’s Rhapsody and Homer’s Music:
The Poetics of the Panathenaic Festival in Classical Athens.
Cambridge, MA and Athens.
———.
2003. Homeric Responses.
Austin.
———.
2007a. “Did Sappho and Alcaeus ever
meet?” Literatur und Religion I.
Wege zu einer mythisch–rituellen Poetik bei den
Griechen (eds. A. Bierl, R.
Lämmle, and K. Wesselmann) 211–269. MythosEikonPoiesis 1.1. Berlin / New York. 2nd ed.
2009 online at http://chs.harvard.edu.
———.
2007b. “Lyric and Greek Myth.”
The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology
(ed. R. D. Woodard) 19–51. Cambridge.
———.
2008/2009. Homer the Classic.
Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC. The 2008 online version is available
at http://chs.harvard.edu. The 2009 printed version is distributed by
Harvard University Press.
———.
2009/2010. Homer the Preclassic.
Berkeley / Los Angeles. The 2009 online version is available at
http://chs.harvard.edu. The 2010 printed version is published by the
University of California Press.
———.
2010. “Ancient Greek Elegy.”
The Oxford Handbook of the Elegy (ed.
K. Weisman) 13–45. Oxford.
Neils, J., ed.
1992a. Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic
Festival in Ancient Athens. Princeton.
———. 1992b. “The
Panathenaia: An Introduction.” In Neils 1992a:13–27. Plus
notes at pp. 194–195.
Nick, G.
2002. Die Athena Parthenos: Studien zum
griechischen Kultbild und seiner Rezeption.
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Athenische Abteilung 19. Mainz.
Papadopoulou-Belmehdi, I.
1992. L’art de Pandora. La Mythologie du
tissage en Grèce ancienne. PhD diss., Ecole des Hautes
Etudes en Sciences Sociales. Paris. Part I was published as
Papadopoulou-Belmehdi 1994. Both Part I and Part II will be republished
in a second edition, Papadopoulou-Belmehdi 2011.
———.
1994.
Le chant de Pénélope: Poétique du tissage féminin dans
l’Odyssée. Paris. Part I of Papadopoulou-Belmehdi
1992.
———.
Forthcoming (2011). L’art de Pandora. La
Mythologie du tissage en Grèce ancienne. ed. 2. online.
Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC.
Parke, H. W.
1977. Festivals of the Athenians.
Ithaca, NY.
PH. See Nagy 1990a.
Power, T.
2010. The Culture of Kitharôidia.
Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC.
PP. See Nagy 1996a.
Rhodes, P. J. 1981. A
Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia.
Oxford.
Rotstein, A.
2004. “Aristotle, Poetics 1447a13–16 and Musical Contests.” Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 149:39–42.
Schmitt, R. 1967. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit.
Wiesbaden.
Shapiro, H. A.
1993. “Hipparchos and the
Rhapsodes.” Cultural Poetics in Archaic
Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics (eds. C.
Dougherty and L. Kurke) 92–107.
Cambridge.
Shear, J. L.
2001. Polis and Panathenaia: The History
and Development of Athena’s Festival. PhD diss., University
of Pennsylvania.
West, M. L. 1999. “The
Invention of Homer.” Classical
Quarterly 49:364–382.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1900.
Die Textgeschichte der griechischen
Lyriker. Berlin.
Footnotes
Note 1
My overall argumentation is set forth most comprehensively in a set of
twin books: HC = Homer the
Classic (2008/2009) and HPC =
Homer the Preclassic (2009/2010). On the
historical context of the Panathenaia, I highlight two other books of
mine: PP = Poetry as
Performance: Homer and Beyond (1996), PR = Plato’s Rhapsody and Homer’s Music:
The Poetics of the Panathenaic Festival in Classical Athens
(2002). I will occasionally refer also to the following related books:
BA = Best of the
Achaeans (1979; 2nd ed. 1999), PH =
Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic
Past (1990a), GM = Greek Mythology and Poetics (1990b), HQ = Homeric Questions (1996),
HR = Homeric
Responses (2003), HTL = Homer’s Text and Language (2004).
Note 2
The primary sources are analyzed by Frame 2009:465n241, 511.
Note 3
Nagy 2007a:236, following Bell 1995:18.
Note 4
This distinction between the Panhellenic Athenian festival of the
quadrennial Great Panathenaia and the local Athenian festival of the
annual Lesser Panathenaia is highlighted by Shear 2001:231. For more on
the Panathenaia in general, see Neils 1992a and b.
Note 5
HC 1§131, 4§§105, 191.
Note 6
HC 4§224.
Note 7
Shear 2001:75–76, 97–103.
Note 8
I analyze this most valuable source, along with other sources, in PR 86–88; also in HC
4§191.
Note 9
That the Panathenaic Frieze is a stylized representation of the
Panathenaic Procession at the Great Panathenaia is argued effectively by
Shear 2001 chapter VIII. See also PR 50–51,
following B. Nagy 1992.
Note 10
There is ongoing debate over whether the Panathenaic Frieze depicts the
woven robe or Peplos of Athena “realistically.” See Barber 1992:114-115,
with further citations.
Note 11
Barber 1992:113; see also Barber 1991:361; see also p. 272, with further
illustrations of selvedges as represented in the sculpture of the
Parthenon Frieze.
Note 12
Leipen 1971:48.
Note 13
The evidence is surveyed by Mikalson 1975:34, who notes that the time
span of the festival of the Great Panathenaia may have extended through
the twenty-ninth and the thirtieth days of Hekatombaion; he also notes
various different reconstructions of the overall time span of the
festival, which may have commenced as early as the twenty-first of
Hekatombaion.
Note 14
Mikalson 1975:78 gives an inventory of the testimonia.
Note 15
By contrast with the annual and the quadrennial birthday of Athena,
which was the twenty-eighth of Hekatombaion, her lunar birthday was the
third day of each month. On the lunar birthday, I value the comments of
Mikelson 1975:23 and of Shear 2001:37 who both review the relevant
ancient testimony (s.v. τριτομηνίς in the collection of Harpocration;
also s.v. τριτομηνίς in the Suda and s.v.
τριτογένεια in the Etymologicum Magnum ). In
response to those comments I need to point out that the variant ideas of
a lunar birthday on the third day of each month and of an annual and
quadrennial birthday on the twenty-eighth day of Hekatombaion are not
mutually contradictory, in that each one of these two ideas represents a
variation on the theme of cyclic recurrence.
Note 17
HC 4§§202–203.
Note 18
HC 4§210, following Barber 1992:114.
Note 19
The following is a revised version of HC
4§225.
Note 20
Berczelly 1992:54.
Note 21
HC 4§226.
Note 22
Berczelly 1992:55.
Note 23
Berczelly 1992:54–55.
Note 24
Berczelly 1992:61–67.
Note 25
HC 4§227.
Note 26
The author refers here to Hesiod Works and Days
63–64.
Note 27
Berczelly 1992:61.
Note 28
Berczelly 1992:61.
Note 29
On the association of Pandora with garlands of flowers, see also Hesiod
Theogony 576–580 and Works
and Days 74–75. See also Blech 1982:34 and Berczelly
1992:63.
Note 30
HC 4§228.
Note 31
Berczelly 1992:62.
Note 33
Parke 1977:92–93.
Note 34
HC 4§206, with reference to the work of B. Nagy
1972.
Note 35
HC 4§§225–226.
Note 36
HC 4§§213–214.
Note 37
HC 4§232.
Note 38
HC 4§203, with special reference to Plato
Euthyphro 6b-c as well as Plutarch Pericles 12.6.
Note 39
HC 4§233.
Note 40
HC 4§188.
Note 41
HC 4§§234–235.
Note 42
Berczelly 1992; also Nick 2002:6.
Note 43
Because of the introduction of male professional weavers for the weaving
of the Peplos for the Great Panathenaia, the idea of Pandora as the
first weaver by virtue of being the first woman was neutralized. Still,
the craft of weaving the Peplos continued to be associated primarily
with the nonprofessional work of women. See HC
4§236.
Note 44
HC 2§290.
Note 45
PR 80.
Note 46
HC 2§91.
Note 47
PR 82.
Note 48
HC §§237–246. For more on the metaphorical
world of rhaptein ‘sew, stitch’ in the sense of a virtuoso integration
of woven fabric, see PR 71. The sewn fabric may
in the end suit a body that is not human but divine.
Note 49
PP 61–76, BA 17§10n5,
PH 1§21 (= p. 28), with reference to
Schmitt 1967:300–301 and Durante 1976:177–179.
Note 50
PP 62–64.
Note 51
PP 68–69.
Note 54
PR 46–47.
Note 55
BA 16§2n2 (= p. 279).
Note 56
PR 36–69, HR 41–45,
HTL 28–30, HC
2§§297, 304, 325; 3§§4, 6, 33.
Note 57
PR 42–47. For a comparative perspective on the
concept of competition-in-collaboration, see PP
18.
Note 58
Martin 2000:422.
Note 59
HPC I§43.
Note 60
Shear 2001:366.
Note 61
PR 14.
Note 62
Further discussion of this passage in PH
1§10n20 (= pp. 21–22), PR 10–12, HPC I§43. See also Shear 2001:367.
Note 63
To make his arguments here in Against Leokrates
102, the orator is about to adduce a quotation from Homer, the
equivalent of what we know as Iliad XV verses
494–499. On my reasons for translating epaineîn as ‘quote’, see PR 27–28. Adducing a Homeric quotation is
presented here as if it were a matter of adducing Homer himself. In the
same speech, at an earlier point, Lycurgus ( Against
Leokrates 100) had quoted 55 verses from Euripides’ Erekhtheus (F 50 ed. Austin). At a later point
( Against Leokrates 107), he quotes 32
verses from Tyrtaeus (F 10 ed. West), whom he identifies as an Athenian
(so also does Plato in Laws 1.629a). On the
politics and poetics of the Athenian appropriation of Tyrtaeus
and of his poetry, see GM
272–273. I suggest that the Ionism of poetic diction in the poetry of
Tyrtaeus can be explained along the lines of an evolutionary model of
rhapsodic transmission: see PH 2§3 (= pp.
52–53), 14§41 (= pp. 433–434) and HQ 111; see
also PH 1§13n27 (= p. 23) on Lycurgus Against Leokrates 106–107, where the orator
mentions a customary law at Sparta concerning the performance of the
poetry of Tyrtaeus. For more on epaineîn, see now Elmer 2005.
Note 64
I deliberately translate hupolambanein as ‘receive’ (that is,
‘reception’) here in terms of reception theory . In terms of
rhapsodic vocabulary, as we saw above in “Plato” Hipparkhos 228b–c, hupolēpsis is not just ‘reception’ but
also ‘continuation’ in the sense reception by way of relay .
Further analysis in PR 11n8.
Note 65
In the orignal Greek, the counting is inclusive: every ‘fifth’ year.
Note 66
Comparable is the context of epideigma ‘display, demonstration’ in
“Plato” Hipparkhos 228d, as discussed in PH 6§30 (= pp. 160–161); see also PH 8§4 (= pp. 217–218) on apodeixis ‘presentation,
demonstration’. The basic idea behind what is being ‘demonstrated’ is a
model for performance . The motivation as described here
corresponds closely to the motivation of Hipparkhos as described in the
first of the three passages that I have been analyzing.
Note 67
By implication, the Panhellenic impulse of the ‘ancestors’ of the
Athenians in making Homer a classic is mirrored by the impulse of
Lycurgus, statesman that he is, to quote extensively from such classics
as Homer, Tyrtaeus, and Euripides. See also “Plutarch” Lives of the Ten Orators 841f on the initiatives taken by
Lycurgus to produce a State Script of the dramas of
Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides (commentary in PP 174–175, 189n6, 204).
Note 68
I infer that the erga ‘accomplishments’ include poetic accomplishments:
on the mentality of seeing a reciprocity between noble deeds and noble
poetry that becomes a deed in celebrating the deed itself, see PH 2§35n95 (= p. 70), 8§5 (= pp. 218–219).
Note 69
For more on the concept of lyric, see Nagy 2007b.
Note 70
The aulos was a double reed, most similar in
morphology to the oboe. Aristotle is referring here to two media that
involved the aulos. One is the medium of aulōidia ‘aulos-singing’, where
the aulōidos ‘aulode, aulos-singer’ sings to the accompaniment of the
aulos. The other is the medium of aulēsis ‘aulos-playing, where the
aulētēs ‘aulete, aulos-player’ plays the aulos without any singing.
Note 71
The kithara was a seven-string lyre.
Aristotle is referring here to two media that involved the kithara. One
is the medium of kitharōidia ‘kithara-singing’, where the kitharōidos
‘citharode, kithara-singer’, sings while accompanying himself on the
kithara. The other is the medium of kitharisis ‘kithara-playing’, where
the kitharistēs ‘citharist, kithara-player’ plays the kithara without
any singing.
Note 72
Here the word is in the plural, and I render it as ‘instances of
reenactment’. In the singular, the basic idea of mimesis is
‘reenactment’: see PH
1 §§ 46 – 50 .
Note 73
PP 81–82.
Note 74
PP 81–82; see also Rotstein 2004.
Note 76
For evidence in the visual arts on rhapsodic competitions at the
Panathenaia, see Shapiro 1993, who disputes some commonly-held
assumptions about representations of competing rhapsodes (for example,
he argues convincingly that the performer represented on Side A of the
red-figure neck amphora [London, British Museum E270], c. 500–490 BCE,
is an aulode, not a rhapsode).
Note 77
PR 10–11.
Note 78
Nagy 2007a:226, 236, 242–248, 252. On the canonical status of the “big
nine,” I find it useful to return to the perspectives of Wilamowitz in
his Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker
(1900).
Note 79
In the case of citharodic reperformances at the Panathenaia, I have in
mind especially the compositions attributed to Sappho, Alcaeus,
Anacreon, and Ibycus. I cite again Nagy 2007a:226, 236, 242–248, 252. In
the case of aulodic performances at the Panathenaia, I propose that
elegiac poetry might have been performed there to the accompaniment of
the aulos: see Nagy 2010:38, with reference to the Plataea Elegy of
Simonides (Poem 22 ed. West). The monodic singing of this elegy, at its
original performance, was evidently a public act of festive lamentation
for the citizen warriors who died in the battle of Plataea in 479 BCE.
Though the original venue for this elegiac performance has yet to be
ascertained, I think that Simonides may have entered his Plataea Elegy
for performance or reperformance in the aulodic competitions at the
festival of the Panathenaia in Athens.
Note 80
Background in Rhodes 1981:670–671.
Note 81
PR 36, 41–42.
Note 82
HC 3§§29–30. There I also analyze a reference
to such rhapsodic ‘competition [agōn] in mousikē’ in Plato’s Ion (530a–c). See also PR
22, 37–38, 99.
Note 83
On the art of the citharodes, Martin cites the foundational work of
Power 2010.
Note 84
HPC I§38, following Frame 2009 ch. 11.
Note 85
Frame 2009 ch. 11.
Note 86
West 1999:382.
Note 87
PR 40–41. Aristotle follows a different order,
however, in his listing of these five features: 5, 4, 1, 2, 3.
Note 91
Kierkegaard 1843 [1983]:131.
Note 92
PP 52.