Myth making of Pherecydes

8/13/2019 Myth making of Pherecydes

1/20

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 147166

2012 Ulrike Kenens

Greek Mythography at Work:The Story of Perseus

from Pherecydes to TzetzesUlrike Kenens

S IS EVIDENT from a variety of media and from theshelves of popular bookshops and research librariesalike, classical myths have appealed to a broad public

from time immemorial. In fact, the scholarly study of thesemyths draws not only upon great poets such as Homer andOvid, but also upon less-known mythographical writings.Unlike the imaginative creations of poets, the latter treatisesapproach myths from a non-artistic perspective in an attemptto capture their essential plots. Recently there has been astriking revival of interest in this genre of ancient mythography,resulting in the publication of a number of commented editionsand translations.1 However, as many commentaries are par-ticularly concerned with the elementary identification of theliterary sources of the mythographical work, the overall dy-namics within this genre are often underestimated. Moreover,rather little attention is paid to the influence of Hellenisticscholarship, the existence of numerous similar collections nowlost, and the compilatory technique of mythographers.

This paper aims to illustrate the relevance of such a broaderperspective by analysing the Perseus myth as transmitted byvarious mythographical sources: this inquiry will take us from

the fifth-century logographer Pherecydes of Athens to the

1 For recent publications see R. S. Smith and S. M. Trzaskoma,Apollodorus Library and Hyginus Fabulae. Two Handbooks of Greek Mythology(Indianapolis/Cambridge 2007) xxviixxviii.

A


2/20

148 GREEK MYTHOGRAPHY AT WORK


imperial mythographer Ps.-Apollodorusthe main survivingGreek representative of the genre2 and therefore the startingpoint of this inquiry3and the Byzantine scholar John Tzetzes.Thus, this case-study seeks to shed new light on the overallcomplexity of the mythographical genre in which literarysources, Hellenistic scholarly treatises, and earlier mytho-

graphical writings will be shown to be epitomized, modernized,blended, and contaminated continuously. Such a broader per-spective contributes also to our understanding of the nature ofindividual mythographers and their position within thiscomplex mythographical tradition.

1.From Pherecydes to Ps.-Apollodorus

When relating the vicissitudes of Perseus, Ps.-Apollodorus4isgenerally assumed to draw upon the fifth-century logographer

2 Cf. A. Diller, The Text History of the Bibliotheca of Pseudo-Apol-lodorus, TAPA66 (1935) 296; Smith-Trzaskoma, Apollodorus Libraryxxxiixxxvii. The Bibliotheca by Ps.-Apollodorus (first or second century A.D.) isgenerally considered the most comprehensive surviving mythographicalhandbook, tackling almost the whole of mainstream Greek myth anddrawing from various excellent sources, including writings that are now lost.In addition, this bulk of information has been arranged pragmatically withall myths discussed fitted into a systematic genealogical framework. Thus,this compendium became a highly important source for the knowledge ofGreek mythology and religion, not only for Byzantine commentators (e.g.on Homers Iliad, on some dialogues by Plato, and on Lycophrons Alex-andra), but also for modern scholars.

3Since Ps.-Apollodorus is likely to have been mostly indirectly acquaintedwith Greek literature, through intermediary writings such as commentededitions, prose summaries, and secondary companions (cf. A. Cameron,Greek Mythography in the Roman World [Oxford 2004] 103), the study of his

ultimatesources actually results in the study of the sources of these secondarywritings on which he greatly relied (cf. A. Sder, Quellenuntersuchung zum 1.Buch der Apollodorschen Bibliothek [Wrzburg 1939] 4). Hence the use ofphrases such as Ps.-Apollodorus consulted, drew on, modernized in thispaper must be taken with a grain of salt.

4Bibl. 2.3448. The text used here is the most recent edition: M. Papa-thomopoulos, Apollodori Bibliotheca post Richardum Wagnerum recognita (Athens2010).


3/20

ULRIKE KENENS 149


Pherecydes of Athens5 (frr.1012 ex schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1091,4.1515a).6This source identification is convincing, not only byreason of the unique thematic correspondences between bothaccounts,7but also because of the multiple eye-catching verbalsimilarities.8 However, detailed study of both narratives sug-gests that Ps.-Apollodorus did not slavishly copy Pherecydes

text, but rather skilfully adapted it to his own age and projectthat is, the compilation of a comprehensive survey of Greekmythby modernizing and abridging the original text. In ad-dition, he is likely to have contaminated Pherecydes accountwith yet other sources when developing certain episodes.9

First, Ps.-Apollodorus has skilfully adapted his source text to

5Text quoted from R. L. Fowler,Early Greek MythographyI (Oxford 2000).Cf. W. Schmid and O. Sthlin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur I.1 (Munich1929) 710713; Smith-Trzaskoma, Apollodorus Library xxi. Pherecydes isknown to have written ten books of Historiaein which the pedigrees of manyfamous Greekmostly Attic (e.g. frr.145155)heroes are described in a

straightforward and lively style. The some 180 surviving fragments in Ionicdialect reveal the logographers preference for epic sources (esp. Homer andHesiod) and for the introduction of catalogues (e.g. fr.2) and etymologies(e.g. fr.1). Moreover, Pherecydes is the mythographical authority cited mostoften by Ps.-Apollodorus (thirteen instances).

6Cf. C. G. Heyne,Ad Apollodori Bibliothecam observationes(Gttingen 18032)116; Jacoby ad FGrHist 3 FF 1012 (though indirectly); M. van der Valk,On Apollodori Bibliotheca , REG 71 (1958) 118; J. C. Carrire and B.Massonie, La Bibliothque dApollodore (Paris 1991) 180; P. Drger, Apollodor:Bibliotheke. Gtter- und Heldensagen (Dsseldorf/Zurich 2005) 459.

7E.g. Pherec. fr.12 ~ Apollod. 2.46: Dictys is appointed king of the re-maining Seriphians.

8E.g. Pherec. fr.10, !"#$%&'()*+,-."/0"1.%23-)4'536!"71.%89.53 :%;?"41@& '(-."/ -)@'#% A.%$1.#3 B"-"$%#%!"71+7"4)C2$%&8;D94236E7.

9 Van der Valk, REG 71 (1958) 114143: the same working method isevident elsewhere in the Bibliotheca, e.g. Apollod. 1.107109 ~ Pherec. fr.105 (omission of lively details and implausible elements); Apollod. 2.1 ~Acus. fr.23a Fowler (contamination with other genealogies); Apollod.2.113121 ~ Pherec. frr.1617 (modernization of the Pherecydean viewthat the actions of men are guided and prompted by the gods).


4/20



the needs of his contemporary public by modernizing varioustypically archaic features. He has done so in various ways. Thelively details that were recorded abundantly in the originalhave been reduced:10for example, when Perseus got possessionof the single eye and tooth which the daughters of Phorcuspassed to each other in turn, the three maidens are originally

said to have started shouting and to have begged Perseus to returnthem (Pherec. fr.11, )F '( )G19)%H.%)4 I2J14% ?)/ F?.+.D-2


5/20

ULRIKE KENENS 151


cal usage: e.g. Apollod. 2.37 !"2?)97A2


6/20



resemble the latter fifth-century type of 6")%23-loan,14 yet,apart from Ps.-Apollodorus, this meaning is associated withmarriage only at [Plut.]Paroem.2.23, fJ?23Ab"+Z%9


7/20

ULRIKE KENENS 153


the noun in an unusual and less appropriate sense than had hissource.

Similar awkward adaptation has likewise obscured the phras-ing of Perseus contribution to these wedding gifts and haspuzzled many commentators and translators (Apollod. 2.36,+2M'(;."1$#3.G!H%+23?)/:!/+a?.E)La+T3l2"AH%232*?

B%+.".=%).17

An expression of the type B%+."J :-@ +4%4 is notrecorded in other extant sources; the phrase :-/ +a ?.E)La,moreover, seems to be used exclusively in the literal and localsense (e.g. Hdt. 5.12, Xen. An.2.5.23, Pl. Symp.212E). Despitethese oddities, Heyne seems to have elucidated this locus ob-scurissimus plausibly: :-/ + dative can express the conditionupon which a thing is done (hac condicione proposita; cf. LSJ s.v.:-@ B.III.3). Hence this highly succinct clause may be inter-preted as follows:18 Perseus took an oath that he would notspeak against Polydectes (2*?B%+.".=%), viz. that he agreed tocontribute to the wedding gifts for Hippodamia, even if (?)/)this commitment would imply (:-/) that he would have to ac-

complish a seemingly impossible task, to fetch the Gorgonshead (+a?.E)La+T3l2"AH%23). This explanation is assured ifwe assume that Ps.-Apollodorus phrasing has been influencedby Pherecydes (fr.11), as in his use of 86")%23: since each guestwas expected to contribute to the banquet by bringing presentsfor the host Polydectes, Perseus asked the latter what contribu-tion was demanded from him (;."1$#3'(-


8/20



context, in this case the use of a different verb in his abridgedversion.

Besides modernizing and abridging the original account, Ps.-Apollodorus can be shown to have contaminated Pherecydesversion with yet other sources. For instance, after Perseus hadovercome the horrific sea monster which was about to devour

Andromeda, he returned to the island of Seriphus in order totake revenge on Polydectes: by showing Medusas head, hepetrified the Seriphian king and all other spectators. The exactcircumstances of this petrifaction have been recorded variously.First, Pherec. fr.11 has it that Perseus ordered Polydectes toassemble his subjects in order to adduce proof of his successfulquest for the Gorgons head: once all islanders were im-patiently awaiting the unveiling of the cut-off head, Perseusrevealed it with averted eyes and turned all the Seriphians,including their king Polydectes, to stone. Second, Apollod. 2.45states that Perseus surprised Polydectes and his friends in theroyal palace (cf. schol. Pind. Pyth. 10.72a): he was furious be-

cause his mother Dana and Dictys had been compelled totake refuge at an altar on account of Polydectes violence, andtherefore petrified all those present (cf. schol. Lycoph. Alex.838). Third, Hyg. Fab. 64 states that Polydectes tried to killPerseus by treachery after his return from the Gorgons, sincehe feared the latters courage. Perseus, however, discovered thisplot and turned Polydectes to stone by showing him the Gor-gons head.

Evidently, Ps.-Apollodorus has temporarily exchanged hismain source Pherecydes for some other author. Although hedoes not acknowledge the source from which this episode de-rives, one might conjecture that the flight of Dana and Dictys

to an altar has been borrowed from a now-lost tragedy, e.g.Aeschylus ;2L


9/20

ULRIKE KENENS 155


revenge on Polydectes was staged. Certainly, the solemn ritualof F?.+.@) at the altar of a god is the centre-piece of manyEuripidean plays (e.g.Heracl., Supp.,Andr.,HF,Hel.). This motifwas usually introduced by the tragedian himself and was ex-traneous to earlier mythographical tradition.20

Curiously, Ps.-Apollodorus fails to mention the name of the

god at whose altar Dana and Dictys took refuge. However,the cult-statue of the god Poseidon is clearly depicted on anApulian red-figure volute-crater (370/360 B.C.), which prob-ably reflects the main themes of the Euripidean playDictys.21Asit happens, the same episode is recounted in a second-centurypapyrus remnant of Theons commentary on Pindars PythianOdes (P.Oxy. XXXI 2536): like Ps.-Apollodorus, the papyrusdetails that Dana, when Polydectes was trying to violate her,fled for refuge to an altar (col. i.57): I4)C2$%73 A(b") +T3R)[%U73 X-5 +2M ;2L


10/20



erally assumed to have known ancient literature primarily in-directly, through intermediary writings, such as commentededitions, prose summaries, and similar compendia (see n.3above). Similarly, the Augustan commentator Theon is likely tohave derived his mythological material from learned mono-graphs on the poets and from earlier mythographical treatises

or closely related writings, such as collections of Euripideanhypotheseis.242.From Ps.-Apollodorus to Tzetzes

Given its comprehensiveness and pragmatic genealogical ar-rangement, theBibliothecamay have appealed to a wide reader-ship, ranging from students who sought access to the culturalinheritance of earlier Greek literature to educated persons whoneeded a handy guidebook and even professional educatorswho required a basic overview of Greek myth to answer ques-tions quickly and help prepare lectures.25By the Middle Agesthe handbook had become an authoritative reference work, at

least in part because so many similar treatises had been lost,and it was frequently mined by scholars to produce explanatorynotes to various texts (e.g. dialogues of Plato, LycophronsAlexandra, and the parodic epic Batrachomyomachia) and to fleshout their own writings (e.g. paroemiographical explanations bythe interpolator Zenobii and Pediasimus treatise on the twelvelabours of Heracles).26

As regards the myth of Perseus, Ps.-Apollodorus account

___hypothesisrather than depending upon Theons commentary directly.

24 C. Wendel, Mythographie, RE 16 (1935) 13621364; Cameron,Greek Mythography 105.

25Disagreement still exists concerning the audience for whom the Biblio-thecawas designed. For an up-to-date status quaestionissee Smith-Trzaskoma,Apollodorus Library xxxxxxii.

26 For an overview of the text history of Ps.-Apollodorus Bibliotheca seeDiller, TAPA66 (1935) 296313.


11/20

ULRIKE KENENS 157


inspired a number of Byzantine scholars.27First, the so-calledinterpolator Zenobiisupplemented the explanation of the proverbYo'23 ?


12/20



shown to have skilfully adapted the Bibliotheca to their ownproject and age by abridging, annotating, and modernizing theoriginal text. In addition, they have likewise contaminated Ps.-Apollodorus account with other sources when elaborating oncertain details.

First, when fitting Ps.-Apollodorus account into their own

writing, they tended to abridge by omitting less relevant detailsand even entire episodes. Especially source references, variantversions, and catalogues of names were frequently deleted. Forexample, the interpolator Zenobiihas left out the variant versionaccording to which Dana was seduced by her uncle Proetusinstead of by Zeus (Apollod. 2.34). Obviously, he did notrequire all details included in the Bibliotheca to explain theproverb in question. In addition, these Byzantines often re-sorted to paraphrase in order to abridge their source: forinstance, the epitomator Vaticanus has aptly summarized the be-heading of Medusa and the subsequent rescue of Andromeda(Apollod. 2.3646) in a single clause (p.23, u1+."2%'(.+b+5

+Z% l2"AW v$'2


13/20

ULRIKE KENENS 159


synonyms (e.g. B%$-7Q.%for :%$97?., Apollod. 2.46).Most interestingly, these later excerptors were still able to

consult some good manuscripts now lost. Accordingly, theyhave sometimes preserved the correct reading when all surviv-ing manuscripts of the Bibliotheca are in error.30For instance,when Acrisius consulted the oracle about the birth of male de-

scendants (Apollod. 2.34), ominous prophecies were deliveredeither by 89.53(MS. O, rec. Wagner) or by8;D9423(Epit.Vat.,rec. Papathomopoulos). Alluding to this passage, M. van Ros-sum-Steenbeek states that the epitomator Vaticanus sometimesadded names or explications to the original text:31 propernames, for instance, are said to be inserted instead of )*+H3or9.H3. Admittedly, when referring to the Delphic oracle, Ps.-Apollodorus commonly prefers the noun 8 9.H3 (e.g. 1.84,1.107, 3.21, 3.48, 3.203) instead of a proper name (e.g. 2.73,2.103, 3.207). At first sight, the reading 8;D9423may thus wellbe considered an explanatory remark, introduced by theepitomator Vaticanus himself for the sake of clarity. However,

when skimming Ps.-Apollodorus text, one finds that the fre-quent 9.H3is replaced only twice by some proper name in theEpitome Vaticana, that is in Bibl. 2.82 (Epit.Vat. p.27, +T3 >"-+$4'23, for Bibl. 2.82, +T3 9.2M) and in this prophecy toAcrisius. Furthermore, Ps.-Apollodorus main source for thePerseus myth similarly wrote 89.53 :% ;


14/20



harmonize the linguistic usage of Ps.-Apollodorus who com-monly referred to the Pythian god by the common noun 9.H3.

Finally, the Byzantine scholars can be shown to have con-taminated Ps.-Apollodorus account with other sources. Forexample, although Ps.-Apollodorus speaks of three daughters ofPhorcus (2.37, |%


15/20

ULRIKE KENENS 161


scholianamed unfortunately for Didymus of Alexandria (IB.C.) with whom they are now known to have no connectionconstitute the largest group of Homeric scholia: they contain aheterogeneous variety of explanatory comments, ranging fromelementary lexicographical notes through scholarly exegeticalcomments to lengthier paraphrases, plot summaries, and myth-

ological explanations called F1+2"@)4. Importantly, much of thematerial in this collection is very old: not only are the chiefwitnesses for these scholia older than for the other types ofscholia, but also the origins of this collection go back far be-yond the medieval manuscripts, as is evident from the simi-larities between these scholia and Homeric scholarship foundon papyri. For instance, and most important for our purpose, aconsiderable number of mythographical F1+2"@)4not only weretransmitted in the medieval manuscripts, but also have theircounterparts in papyri dating from the first or second to thefifth century.38In fact, it is commonly held that the two sets ofF1+2"@)4represent two different stages in the transmission of a

now lost independent and systematic mythological commen-tary on the Iliad and Odyssey, probably compiled around theend of the first century A.D., that related the full versions of themyths alluded to in the Homeric poems. Obviously, thepapyrus fragments mirror the original make-up of this com-mentary, for which its unknown compiler, called MythographusHomericus, may have consulted several excellent sources,possibly Alexandrian scholarly commentaries.In the followingcenturies, the original collection was supplemented with F1+2-"@)4of varied origin and incorporated into the D-scholia.39___Scholia D in Iliadem (Cologne 2000), at http://ifa.phil-fak.unikoeln.de/6191.html?&L=10.

38 These papyri are collected in van Rossum-Steenbeek, Greek ReadersDigests?278309.

39This overview is based on F. Montanari, The Mythographus Homeri-cus, in J. G. J. Abbenes et al. (eds.), Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle. A Col-lection of Papers in Honour of D. M. Schenkeveld (Amsterdam 1995) 135172; vanRossum-Steenbeek, Greek Readers Digests?85118; van Thiel, Scholia D 23;


16/20



The brief mythological accounts called F1+2"@)4, as pre-served on papyrus as well as in the manuscripts of the HomericD-scholia, aptly summarize a given myth, omitting all variants.The narratives are often followed by a subscription attributingthe content of the narrative to some authority, such as Hesiod(e.g. schol. Il. 2.336), Pherecydes (schol. Il. 6.153), Euripides

(schol. Il.14.323a), Callimachus (schol. Il.18.487), and a cer-tain >-2LLH'#"23 (schol. Il. 1.42, 2.103, 2.494). A number ofthese F1+2"@)4 have close verbal agreements with passages inthe Bibliotheca (e.g. schol. Il.2.103 ~ Apollod. 2.58; schol. Il.2.494 ~ Apollod. 3.2123). The origin of these scholia, andespecially the interpretation of the subscriptions, has been hotlydebated:40 recent research argues that the subscriptions aresimply transcribed from earlier intermediary compendia, theoriginal sources not only unverified but probably also unseen.41Further, all references to >-2LLH'#"23 in the D-scholia areheld to refer to the Hellenistic scholar Apollodorus of Athens(II B.C.) and the undeniable verbal similarities between the D-

scholia and the Bibliotheca are explained by their dependenceupon a common source.42

In order to illustrate this indirect relationship between theBibliothecaand the D-scholia, one can study the case of schol. Il.14.319 relating the captivity of Dana in an undergroundchamber, her impregnation by the golden shower of Zeus, andfinally her exposure in the floating chest. Although the scholionis verbally nearly identical to Ps.-Apollodorus account (2.3435), the Homeric commentator attributes a variant version,according to which Dana was seduced by her uncle Proetus,

___E. Dickey,Ancient Greek Scholarship. A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understand-ing Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises (Oxford 2007) 20, 26.

40E.g. E. Schwartz, De scholiis Homericis ad historiam fabularem per-tinentibus, Jahrbuch fr classische Philologie 12 (1881) 405463; Diller, TAPA66 (1935) 297300; Cameron, Greek Mythography 97106.

41Cameron, Greek Mythography 104106.42Diller, TAPA66 (1935) 298; Cameron, Greek Mythography 98.


17/20

ULRIKE KENENS 163


to ;@%')"23 ?)/ k+."24 +4%$3. By contrast, Ps.-Apollodorus(2.34) refers vaguely only to 6%424. Cameron has argued thatsuch divergences within two otherwise identical narratives areto be explained by their dependence upon a common source.43

For the source of the variant Proetus version, the poems ofPindar can be left out of consideration, in spite of the explicit

reference to him by the scholiast: the standard version is alwayswhat Pindar evokes in his surviving poems, once explicitlymentioning the shower of gold (e.g. Pyth.12.17, Nem.10.11).44By contrast, this rationalizing version45is more likely to deriveultimately from tragedy, especially from Euripides fragmen-tary R)%U7(TrGFV.1 316330a).46This play staged the oraclethat led Acrisius to imprison Dana in an undergroundchamber, Zeus transformation into a shower of gold, and theexposure of Dana and Perseus in the floating chest.47

Since Ps.-Apollodorus is generally assumed to have been ac-quainted with early literature primarily indirectly, he may haverather depended upon a hypothesisof the Euripidean play. His

formulation of Danas impregnation by the golden shower ofZeus indeed bears verbal resemblance48 to the extant manu-

43Cameron, Greek Mythography 99, against the hypothesis of van der Valk

(REG 71 [1958] 119120) that the scholiast himself added the reference toPindar on the basis of his own reading while copying Ps.-Apollodorus ac-count.

44Karamanou,Euripides, Danae and Dictys 8: although Snell tentatively as-sociated Pind. fr.70d.1415 (Enr+.


18/20



script hypothesis.49 However, perhaps Ps.-Apollodorus had nodirect access to these Hellenistic writings either, but was famil-iar with their contents via intermediary mythographical com-panions.50 Such an intermediary handbook might well havebeen the actual common source on which both the Bibliothecaand the Homeric scholion depended.

Why then has the Homeric commentator attributed thevariant version to Pindar, although it presumably derives ul-timately from Euripides? The answer might again be suppliedby the second-century papyrus remnant of Theons commen-tary on Pindar: the compiler of the common source handbookmay have mistakenly attributed the information that he foundin the Euripidean hypothesisto Pindar because he came across asimilarly phrased narrative in the commentary on PindarsPythiansby Theon, who consulted the very same collection ofEuripidean hypotheseis(contamination), as I have demonstrated.When adapting this common source handbook, the Homericscholiast has simply retained a more detailed, if mistaken,

source reference than Ps.-Apollodorus:

___shown to have adopted the main outlines of the myth from Pherecydes (fr.10), the formulation of Danas conception by the archaic mythographerifquoted verbatim in schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1091is slightly different.

49Apollod. 2.34, `.P3.+)2"E#9./3.G3!"


19/20


20/20



of the surviving mythographical writings are latefrom thefirst century B.C. or laterand are often viewed as interestingmainly for the light they shed on earlier sources. The presentpaper, by contrast, has taken a more balanced approach, byacknowledging that ancient mythographical traditions ex-tended well beyond classical antiquity. As a result, Byzantine

collections should be treated as having equal importance in for-mulating a view of the whole genre.51

February, 2012 Griekse StudiesKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenBlijde-Inkomststraat 21 - bus 33183000 Leuven, [email protected]

51 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2011 ClassicalAssociation Annual Conference, hosted by Durham University. I amgrateful for helpful comments from my supervisor, Prof. dr. Peter Van Deun(University of Leuven), and from my co-supervisor, Prof. Stephen M.Trzaskoma (University of New Hampshire). I also wish to thank my co-supervisor for amending the English text of the manuscript. All remainingerrors are of course my own.

Myth making of Pherecydes

Documents

Transcript of Myth making of Pherecydes