the babylonian captivity of homer: the case … · the babylonian captivity of homer: the case of...

THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF HOMERTHE CASE OF THE ΔΙΟΣ ΑΠΑΤΗ

The Δις 13πτη or lsquoDeception of Zeusrsquo in the Iliadrsquos 14th and15th books (DA hereafter) was subject to an intense and variedscrutiny in the ancient period ndash moralising disapproving allegor-ical1 Though these judgements have found adherents as well as op-ponents in modern scholarship2 by far the most influential recentinterpretations have been conducted from an lsquoorientalisingrsquo per-spective documenting the links between Greece and the othercivilisations of the Mediterranean basin3 Features in the DA which

) I would like to thank Bill Allan Patrick Finglass Sophie Gibson AntoniaKaraisl Bernd Manuwald Oliver Taplin Stephan Schroumlder Alan Sommerstein andaudiences in Nottingham Oxford and Berlin for their help with this article and itsmaterial and the Institut fuumlr Klassische Philologie der Humboldt-Universitaumlt zuBerlin and the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung for their support The remainingfaults are my responsibility alone

1) The title is strictly applied in ancient sources to the 14th book (Eustathios96322ndash5 [565 van der Valk] cf also Σ L ad Il 14135) but for reasons which willbecome clear it has come to be used also for the episodersquos sequel in the 15th bookFor ancient commentary on the DA cf e g Plato Rep 3390bndashc Eustathios97356f ad Il 14161ndash324 (598ndash9 van der Valk) For a review of modern opinionson the scene cf M Schaumlfer Der Goumltterstreit in der Ilias (Stuttgart 1990) 87ndash9nn 228ndash35

2) Of the latter cf e g H Erbse Hera und Zeus auf dem Idagebirge An-tike und Abendland 16 (1970) 93ndash112 L Golden Δις πτη and the unity of Iliad 14 Mnemosyne 42 (1989) 1ndash11 Schaumlfer (as n 1) 85ndash104 R Janko The IliadA Commentary Volume IV Books 13ndash16 (Cambridge 1992) 168ndash207

3) Cf e g W Burkert Oriental Myth and Literature in the Iliad inR Haumlgg (ed) The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B C Tradition andInnovation (Stockholm 1983) 51ndash6 (hereafter Burkert 1983) id Die orienta -lisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur (Heidelberg 1984)(hereafter Burkert 1984) id The Orientalizing Revolution Near Eastern influenceon Greek Culture in the early Archaic period (Cambridge 1992) (hereafter Burkert1992) id Die Griechen und der Orient von Homer bis zu den Magiern (Munich2003) [tr by author of id Da Omero ai Magi (Venice 1999)] (hereafter Burkert2003) = id Babylon Memphis Persepolis Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture(Cambridge [MA] 2004) (hereafter Burkert 2004) C A Faraone AphroditersquosΚΕΣΤΟΣ and apples for Atalanta Aphrodisiacs in early Greek myth and ritualPhoenix 44 (1990) 219ndash43 M L West The East Face of Helicon West Asiatic Ele-ments in Greek Poetry and Myth (Oxford 1997)

once struck critics as difficult or faulty could now according to thistheory be explained by reference to the fact that these motifs wereshared with or derived from the traditions of the ancient NearEast These studies have proven so successful that a recent com-panion to the Homeric poems can describe the DA straightfor-wardly as lsquoan Oriental episodersquo4 while Richard Jankorsquos excellentvolume in the Cambridge Iliad commentary constantly invokesNear Eastern material to assist the readerrsquos interpretations of thenarrative5

This article proposes to argue the opposite case but not by of-fering a radically new interpretation of the DA for it is already thebeneficiary of several extremely useful treatments6 Instead I shallproceed by subjecting to detailed scrutiny the arguments behindthe consensus view of an lsquoorientalrsquo DA I hasten to add that the pur-pose of this project is not to deny the utility of the Near Easternmaterial the lasting value of which has been established by WalterBurkert and Martin West above all but to incline the balance backtowards the Greek side of the equation7

Before engaging with the individual treatments and their ar-guments it might be helpful to offer a brief characterisation of theorientalising methods we shall encounter The first relatively un-controversial step is the identification of parallels though this isnot without its perils given that similarities can be overplayed Ofcourse in order to suggest Greek textual or cultural dependence onthe ancient Near East it is not enough simply to point out similar-ities8 To rule out the possibility that the parallel is the result of co-incidence or an independent use of the same material orientalistsdeploy two tools (1) the argument by isolation and (2) the argu-ment by association The first of these seeks to separate the featurefrom its Greek context showing that it is unusual defective or

260 Adr i an Ke l ly

4) S Morris Homer and the Near East in I Morris and B B Powell (eds)A New Companion to Homer (Leiden 1997) 599ndash623 602 cf also Faraone (as n 3)202 ldquoan episode which betrays several hallmarks of direct Near Eastern influencerdquo

5) Cf e g Janko (as n 2) ad Il 14200ndash7 181ndash2 ad 15183ndash97 2476) Cf e g the works cited above n 2 It is of course to be hoped that some

new insights on the DA will be offered during the course of the article but that con-clusion is the readerrsquos

7) For much the same purpose cf e g G W Most Hesiodrsquos myth of thefive (or three or four) races PCPhS 43 (1997) 104ndash27 J Haubold Greek epic aNear Eastern genre PCPhS 48 (2002) 1ndash19

8) Cf however below pp 292f 301f for the attitude of West (as n 3)

unique ndash something other than that which is to be expected in thetext under examination The second argument is a cumulative oneonce one feature has been sufficiently isolated so as to bolster thelikelihood of its derived status other features in its vicinity can belinked with it Thus the number and localisation of derived fea-tures in any episode make it more likely that the poet was underthe influence of his source text9 Not all orientalists proceed on thisor indeed the same basis as one another10 but the description re-flects the methodologies shown in the authoritative treatments ofthe DA with which this article is concerned

The most significant of these is without doubt the work ofWalter Burkert whose foundational discussions have been reprint-ed and reworked on a number of occasions11 and have become sostandard that they are cited even outside the confines of classicalscholarship12 Because he structures his case so succinctly and con-stantly uses the argument by association to link each of his pointsmy response will mirror the course of his discussion fairly closelyadducing the opinions of other scholars only when they augmentor vary his central presentation13 To that end this article is sepa-rated into four sections The first two deal with the two most im-

261The Babylonian Captivity of Homer

9) These methods were of course inherited from earlier schools of Homer-ic scholarship specifically the Analysts and Neoanalysts both of whom look for inconsistencies or difficulties in the Homeric text link them together and argue either for Homerrsquos dependence on older epics (Neoanalysts) or that the poems area patchwork of different texts and authors (Analysts)

10) Cf below pp 292f 301f for the differences between lsquohardrsquo and lsquosoftrsquoversions of the methodology

11) Of the works already cited (above n 3) I refer here to Burkert 1983 53ndash4 1984 87ndash92~1992 89ndash6 2003 36ndash42 = 2004 29ndash37 The last two (the first inGerman the second in English) were originally published in Italian (1999) French(2001) and Spanish (2002) I have limited the citations to the English and Germaneditions for reasons of space

12) Cf e g S Dalley Myths from Mesopotamia Creation the Flood Gil-gamesh and others (Oxford 1989) 36 n 4 referring to Burkert 1983 (as n 3) Hisconclusions have even found their way into Wikipedia (httpenwikipediaorgwikiDeception_of_Zeus) and have profoundly influenced public (mis)understand-ings of this issue cf e g R Schrott Der Kampf um Troja und seine realen Hin-tergruumlnde (Munich 2008)

13) I structure my argument in accordance with his first two treatments vizBurkert 1983 and 1984~1992 (all as n 3) discussing the divine lot (section 1 below)directly before the lsquocosmogonicrsquo Okeanos (section 2) and its supplementary paral-lels (section 3) Burkert 2003 = 2004 (as n 3) reverses the order of the two main mo-tifs without substantive alterations to his thesis

portant motifs for Burkertrsquos case the third with his supplementaryparallels and the fourth with several additional features pointedout by Martin West

1 Poseidonrsquos Triple lot and the Atrahasis epic

Burkertrsquos first major motif consists of the similarities betweenPoseidonrsquos reference to a threefold division of the earth (Il 15187ndash93) and the beginning of Atrahasis (OBV 1111ndash16 c 17th c BC)set out below

They took the box (of lots) τρες γρ τrsquo κ Κρνου εμν δελφεο οampς τκετο (α

cast the lots the gods made the Ζε+ς κα- γ τρτατος δrsquo 13δης νροισιν division νσσωνAnu went up to the sky τριχθ4 δ πντα δδασται 5καστος δrsquo

6μορρε τιμ7ς[And Ellil] took the earth for 9τοι γν 6λαχον πολιν ltλα ναιμεν his people () αε-The bolt which bars the sea παλλομνων 13δης δrsquo 6λαχε ζφον

gtερενταwas assigned to far-sighted Enki14 Ζε+ς δrsquo 6λαχ ορανν ερ+ν ν αθρι

κα- νεφληισιγαα δrsquo 6τι ξυν πντων κα- μακρς Bλυμπος

Struck and not unreasonably by the resemblances between thesepassages Burkert concludes

[t]here is hardly another passage in Homer which comes so close to be-ing a translation of an Akkadian epic Actually it is not really a trans-lation but a resetting yet in a way that shows the foreign framework15

In other words the poet of the Iliad himself or at best a recentpredecessor has reworked this passage from Atrahasis and insuch a way that it doesnrsquot really fit with its Greek context Onthe other hand there is other early Greek evidence for this tra-dition of a triple lot16 so one could argue that the idea was typ-


14) Atrahasis is quoted from the translation of Dalley (as n 12)15) Burkert 2004 37 (= 2003 42) 1983 53~1984 87 (= 1992 91) (all as n 3)16) Cf HHDem 85ndash7 (μφ- δ τιμν 6λλαχεν Dς τ4 πρEτα διτριχα

δασμς τFχθη τος μεταναιετει τEν 6λλαχε κορανος εGναι) Pi Ol 754ndash62(φαντ- δrsquo νθρπων παλαια HIσιες οJπω Kτε χθνα δατοντο ΖεFς τε κα-

ical by the time of Homer thus reducing the chances of a singlepoetrsquos lsquotranslationrsquo or lsquoresettingrsquo Nonetheless however tempt-ing it would be unwise to rely on these (mostly much) later ref-erences for there is at least some chance that they may all stemback to Poseidonrsquos speech

One can therefore begin by questioning the strength of theparallel and the desirability of linking the two texts as directly asBurkert does (a) the lot in Homer is between brothers and notcross-generational as in Atrahasis17 (b) the Homeric passage di-


θνατοι φανερ4ν ν πελγει (δον 6μμεν ποντωι Lλμυρος δrsquo ν βνθεσιννNσον κεκρFφθαι πεντος δrsquo οJτις 6νδειξεν λχος 13ελου κα H νιν χραςκλρωτον λπον Lγνν θεν μνασθντι δ Ζε+ς Oμπαλον μλλεν θμεν λλνιν οκ εPασεν) The following (Hellenistic) references are included because theyprovide useful material for anyone seeking to reconstruct earlier traditions cfKallimachos Hy 160ndash5 (δηναιο- δrsquo ο πμπαν ληθες Qσαν οιδο φντοπλον Κρονδηισι διτριχα δματα νεμαι τς δ κrsquo πrsquo ΟλFμπωι τε κα- Rιδικλ7ρον ρFσσαι Sς μλα μ νενηλος πrsquo σαηι γ4ρ 6οικε πIλασθαι τ4 δτσσον Kσον δι4 πλεστον 6χουσι ψευδομην γrsquo οντος lt κεν πεπθοιεν κουIν)id fr 119 Pfeiffer (Μηκνην μακρων 5δρανον αWτις δεν Xχι πλους βλοντοδιεκρναντο δ τιμς πρEτα Γιγαντεου δαμονες κ πολμου) Σ ad Apoll RhodArg 1308b [gt Κλρον] (Νενθης δ φησιν Kτι κατ4 κλ7ρον ^ 13πλλων 6λαχε τνπλιν κα- π το_ κλIρου ο`τως ατν aνομσθαι b δι4 τ ατθι κληρσασθαιΠοσειδEνα Δα 13δην) SH 9903ndash9 (κα- τν ν θαντοισltιgt θεος μσατμ| ποτrsquo6θεντο κλ7ρον τς τνα χEρον νξει πρτωι δrsquo Qλθε λαχεν πντον βαθ+νLλ|μυριδνη χερσ- τραναν 6χοντα ΠοσειδNν Ζε+ς δrsquo 6λαχεν Κρονδης μγανορανν σ|τερεντα εναν cνrsquo 6χηι βασιλεαν 13γεσλας δrsquo 6λαχεν τνΤα[ρταρο) Apoll Bibl 111ndash211 = Theog Orph arg 36f Bernabeacute ( ~ EumelosTheogony cf M L West lsquoEumelosrsquo A Corinthian Epic Cycle JHS 122 [2002]109ndash33 esp 114) (ατο- δ διακληρο_νται περ- τ7ς ρχ7ς κα- λαγχνει Ζε+ς μντν ν ορανEι δυναστεαν ΠοσειδEν δ τν ν θαλσσηι ΠλοFτων δ τν νdδου) cf also Orphica fr 56 Kern with M L West The Hesiodic Catalogue ofWomen (Oxford 1985) 121ndash4 Alkman fr 65 PMG (daggerοcεθενdagger πλως 6παλεδαιμονς τrsquo δσσατο)

17) Cf West (as n 3) 110 ldquo[t]hese myths reflect actual use of the lot in theNear East to allocate shares of a manrsquos estate to his sons shares of temple incometo different officials or generally lsquoto establish a sequence among persons of equalstatus that would be acceptable as divinely ordained to all participantsrsquordquo (citingA L Oppenheim Ancient Mesopotamia [Chicago 1977] 208) For fuller examina-tions cf P Steinkeller Communications Revue drsquoAssyrologie et drsquoarcheacuteologie orientale 78 (1984) 83ndash8 at 86 and (for later periods) W Hallo The first Purim Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1983) 19ndash29 also J Lindblom Lot-Casting in the OldTestament Vetus Testamentum 12 (1962) 164ndash178 on the motif in the Hebrew bibleThe fact that the Greek lot is between brothers would seem to reflect lsquoactual usersquomuch more closely than the intergenerational lot in Atrahasis weakening furtherthe conclusion that Homer derived it from the Near Eastern text

vides the universe into four areas not three18 with (c) a neutral areaentirely foreign to the conception of both Atrahasis and the otherNear Eastern texts which show this division19 and (d) a threefolddivision is also found in the Indo-European tradition20 The idea oflsquotranslationrsquo is therefore far from compelling

But after all this preliminary scepticism there is still a strik-ing correspondence between Poseidonrsquos speech and Atrahasis ndash thedivine lot dividing up the universe In suggesting Homeric deriva-tion of this motif from the older poem Burkert deploys the first oftwo lsquoisolatingrsquo arguments21 in order to separate this passage fromthe rest of early Greek epic

This is foreign to Hesiod and isolated within the Iliad whereas thecorresponding passage is basic to the plot of the Atrahasis22

This is not normally the practice among the Greek gods according toHesiod Zeus dethroned his predecessor ndash who was also his father ndash byforce and the other gods asked him to become their king23


18) As Burkert 2003 42 = 2004 36 (as n 3) realises Both divisions by theway are common in early Greek poetry cf E G Schmidt Himmel Erde Meer imfruumlhgriechischen Epos und im Alten Orient Philologus 125 (1981) 1ndash24 also be-low p 271f

19) Details in West (as n 3) 109ndash11 For other Near Eastern examples of thetriple division (without the lot) cf e g Gilgamesh Enkidu and the nether world1ndash25 (J Black G Cunningham E Robson G Zoacutelyomi The Literature of An-cient Sumer [Oxford 2004] 32ndash3) Debate between Bird and Fish 1ndash12 (J Black etal [above] 230ndash1) Both of these texts are c 18th c BC

20) Details in M L West Indo-European Poetry and Myth (Oxford 2007)123ndash4 The significance of this point is underlined in another connection byN Allen review of West (above) BMCR 20071053 with regard to the theme ofldquothe motif of the overburdened Earth and her complaint to a supreme god As haslong been recognised Gersquos complaint to Zeus which causes the Trojan war paral-lels Prithivirsquos complaint to Brahma which causes the central Mahabharata warSince a third parallel occurs a millennium earlier in Atrahasis W judges that themotif is not Graeco-Aryan but rather spread both west and east from MesopotamiaHowever the argument from chronology does not merit so much weight and aGraeco-Aryan common origin remains likelyrdquo

21) Cf above p 260 for the term and below p 271f for the second exam-ple of its type deployed by Burkert in this connection (the apparent uniqueness ofthis triple division of the cosmos) and a concluding associative argument also be-low p 272f for Westrsquos single supplementary

22) Burkert 1983 53 (as n 3)23) Burkert 1992 90 (= 1984 87) ~ 2003 42 (= 2004 36) (all as n 3)

There are two planks to this case (1) the disjunction between Homerand Hesiod and (2) the isolation of the lot motif within the Greektradition Let us deal with these in reverse order in order to beginwith the more important element ndash the characterisation of Poseidonrsquosκλ7ρος as isolated individual or inappropriate for Hellenic epicHowever a consideration of the traditional theme of division orδασμς ndash a term used by epic poets their characters and modernscholars to denote the division of property or booty24 ndash suggests thatthe lot was a well nigh indispensible feature in these contexts25

A δασμς may take two forms depending on the type of material involved and the situation itself Either (1) an existing authority figure apportions out shares of booty from a military expedition or raid (lsquoauthority δασμςrsquo)26 or (2) the beneficiaries inmatters of property inheritance divide up that property in the ab-sence or incapacity of a paternal figure (lsquoinheritance δασμςrsquo)27


24) Cf R Fuumlhrer δασμς LfrGE 22225) The deployment of lsquotraditionrsquo as an hermeneutic device in this article is

grounded in the fact that both Hesiod and Homer were participants in the traditionof archaic Greek epic a tradition witnessed primarily in the texts of these two authors but also in the Homeric Hymns and the fragments of the so-called lsquoEpicCyclersquo The reconstruction from these various sources of the typical circum-stances structures and motifs behind the texts is essential to a proper understand-ing of their narratives particularly (but not only) in filling out the silences gaps andapparent inconsistencies in those narratives For a brief introduction to the import -ance of tradition in these terms which has been the primary object of study for thelsquooralistrsquo school of scholarship since the groundbreaking work of Milman Parry cfA Kelly A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Homer Iliad VIII (Oxford2007) 1ndash14 (with further bibliography)

26) In the list below (from H van Wees Status Warriors War Violence andSociety in Homer and History [Amsterdam 1992] 305) the authority figure isnamed in brackets after the citation itself

(1) Greeks v Thebe (Il 1366ndash9) (Agamemnon) cf also Il 6425ndash7 9188 9365ndash7 16152ndash3 23826ndash9

(2) Greeks v several communities around Troy (Il 1163ndash8) (Agamemnon) cfalso e g Il 2226ndash8 (Agamemnon) 11625ndash7 (lsquothe Achaiansrsquo = Agamemnon)9128ndash30 (Agamemnon to Achilleus) 9666ndash8 (Achilleus to Patroklos)

(3) Pylians v Elis (Il 11696ndash706) (Neleus)(4) Phaiakians v Apeira (Od 79ndash11) (Alkinoos)(5) Ithakans v Ismaros (Od 940ndash2) (Odysseus)(6) Ithakans v Polyphemos (Od 9458ndash61) (Odysseus)(7) lsquoson of Kastorrsquo v several communities (Od 14230ndash3) (lsquoson of Kastorrsquo)

27) In the following citations the parties to the lot are named in brackets after the citation Od 14208ndash10 (legitimate sons of Kastor) WD 37ndash41 (Hesiodand Perses) cf also Il 5158 ~ Theog 606ndash7 (relatives dividing up intestate house-

Though these types are usually exclusive the lot has an importantplace in both of them in fact it is so vital for the latter type thatthe word κλ7ρος has come to be used for the inheritance itself28

In the first circumstance Hans van Wees has detected twotypes of material the γρας (lsquohonour prizersquo) and the μορα (lsquopor-tionrsquo)29 corresponding to the stages of the division itself after taking out a γρας for himself and distributing other γρα to theprinciple leaders the leader then takes part in the process of deter-mining μοραι where the vast bulk of the material is distributed bya mechanism able apparently to preserve group hierarchies whilstsatisfying all its members that they have received their lsquodue por-tionrsquo30 Herein the leader also receives a substantial amount of ma-terial as we can see most clearly in Odysseusrsquo fake speech (Od14230ndash3) The precise nature of this mechanism is not particular-ly clear but λαγχνειν ndash a word naturally suggestive of theκλ7ρος ndash is typically used to refer to the apportionment of μοραι(Il 9367 Od 14233)31


hold) and the curse laid on Eteokles and Polyneikes by Oidipous in the Theban cycle (Thebaid frs 2 and 3 Bernabeacute)

28) Cf WD 37 with M Schmidt κλ7ρος B 2 LfrGE 1443ndash429) Cf van Wees (as n 26) 299ndash310 The most important passages are

Il 9365ndash9 Oλλον δrsquo νθνδε χρυσν κα- χαλκν ρυθρν gtδ γυνακας υζνουςπολιν τε σδηρον Oξομαι ltσσrsquo 6λαχν γε γρας δ μοι Kς περ 6δωκεν αWτιςφυβρζων 5λετο κρεων 13γαμμνων (for the items constituting this μορα from thesack of Thebe cf also 9187ndash8 (a φρμιγξ) 16152ndash3 (trace-horse) 23826ndash9 (ironweight)) Od 11534 μοραν κα- γρας σθλν 6χων π- νης 6βαινεν Od 14230ndash4 ενκις νδρσιν Qρξα κα- aκυπροισι νεσσιν Oνδρας ς λλοδαποFς κα μοιμλα τFγχανε πολλ τEν ξαιρεFμην μενοεικα πολλ4 δrsquo eπσσω λγχανονOther important passages include Od 940ndash2 6νθα δrsquo γ πλιν 6πραθον fλεσα δrsquoατοFς κ πλιος δrsquo λχους κα- κτIματα πολλ4 λαβντες δασσμεθrsquo Dς μI τςμοι τεμβμενος κοι Pσης Od 9548ndash51 μ7λα δ ΚFκλωπος γλαφυρ7ς κ νηςgλντες δασσμεθrsquo Dς μI τς μοι τεμβμενος κοι Pσης ρνειν δrsquo μο- οPωιυκνIμιδες gταροι μIλων δαιομνων δσαν 6ξοχα Il 11696ndash7 κ δrsquo ^ γρωνγλην τε βοEν κα- πEυ μγrsquo οEν εcλετο κρινμενος τριηκσιrsquo gtδ νομ7ας 703ndash5 τEν ^ γρων πων κεχολωμνος gtδ κα- 6ργων ξλετrsquo Oσπετα πολλ τ4 δrsquo Oλλrsquoς δ7μον 6δωκε δαιτρεFειν μI τς οh τεμβμενος κοι Pσης

30) Cf e g the way in which Odysseus distributes booty from the sack ofIsmaros explicitly Dς μI τς μοι τεμβμενος κοι Pσης (Od 942~Od 9549~Il 11705)

31) van Wees (as n 26) 302ndash3 argues that the verb need not have anything todo with an actual lot This is indeed true but his need to reject the κλ7ρος in the al-location of μοραι is because he assumes (with many others e g W Donlan TheHomeric Economy in I Morris B B Powell [eds] A New Companion to Homer

Poseidonrsquos story can be viewed in these terms without anydifficulty Zeus begins by dividing the γρα amongst which wouldbe the claim or retention of things like the thunderbolt given himby the Kyklopes (Poseidonrsquos γρα might be the keeping of his ownCyclopean present the τραινα32) and confirming at least some of


[Leiden 1997] 649ndash67 658) that it is predicated on the equality of the candidates andtheir shares in that the property or material is equally divided This could hardlybe the case in Poseidonrsquos speech (as Kallimachos recognised cf above n 16) for thehouse of Hades is elsewhere in Homer lsquohated by the godsrsquo (Il 2065) Further inOdysseusrsquo story the legitimate sons either exclude Odysseusrsquo character from the lot(thus showing the preservation of hierarchy within the process) and allot him onlya small portion of the inheritance (as claimed by W Ridgeway The Homeric LandSystem JHS 6 [1885] 319ndash39) or he takes part in the process but receives an un-even share from it In either case the property is no t divided into equal parts(though one might argue in the former eventuality that the lsquobastardrsquos sharersquo wastaken out first and then the land divided equally) The Hesiodic evidence is ofcourse crucial but Hesiod doesnrsquot say that he and Perses received equal parts in theinheritance simply that Perses is now taking more than he was originally allotted(WD 37ndash41) Indeed if equal division were the rule how did Perses persuade thelsquogift devouringrsquo kings to allow him to lsquokeep carrying off much extrarsquo (37ndash8) Pos-sibly by quibbling over what was truly a half share which interpretation could drawsupport from the shortly following proverb lsquohow much more is the half than thewholersquo (40) Yet the imperfect tense of the frequentative φορεν (38) suggests thatPerses repeatedly did this if he were arguing each time that his predations wereaimed at an equal division how many times would the same argument haveworked It seems to me that the quarrel is better explained on the basis of an in-heritance system in which inequality was a possible perhaps even a likely result ofthe process On the Near Eastern possibilities of structuring an inheritance lot so asto favour the eldest son cf J N Postgate Early Mesopotamia (London 1992) 98ndash9(specifically restricted to the period 3000ndash1500 BC) This could in fact strengthenBurkertrsquos hypothesis in that an ancient Near Eastern inheritance practice seems toreflect the situation and process which I have suggested pertained after the Titansrsquooverthrow Yet the actual Near Eastern circumstance has nothing to do with theAtrahasis where the father (Anu) is still very much alive and a participant in the lotso it seems a better hypothesis that the lsquostructuredrsquo lot designed to preserve a pref-erential status in matters of inheritance was a widespread Mediterranean phenom-enon with a mythological reflex on ly in a Greek context

32) Cf Apoll Bibl 173ndash4 (κα- ΚFκλωπες ττε Δι- μν διδασι βροντν κα-στραπν κα- κεραυνν ΠλοFτωνι κυνην ΠοσειδEνι δ τραιναν οh δ τοFτοις^πλισθντες κρατο_σι τοFτων) (omitted by Bernabeacute) This gift could be an earlyfeature of the story after all both Hadesrsquo cap (Il 5844ndash5) Poseidonrsquos trident(Il 1327 Od 5292) and Zeusrsquo thunderbolt (Theog 141) all mentioned as Cyclop -ean gifts in the same passage of Apollodoros are well evidenced in early epicthough only Zeusrsquo weapon is explicitly linked with the Kyklopes cf also HHPos(22) 4ndash5 (διχθ τοι iννοσγαιε θεο- τιμν δσσαντο cππων τε δμητ7ρrsquo 6μεναισωτ7ρ τε νηEν) ndash might his γρα have included the former province

the promises he had made to his allies during the war against theTitans33 Next Zeus causes the remaining μοραι and τιμα to bedivided through a κλ7ρος (or κλ7ροι) in (at least one of) which hetakes part The resulting settlement is still a manifestation of his authority for the leader is always responsible for the entire processboth in allotting the material for the division34 and being con-cerned that no-one go away from the δασμς blaming him for itsinequality35

One might object that the division of the universe is too im-portant a matter to be left to the vagaries of a lot However firstlythis mechanism can throw up the lsquorightrsquo winner as e g choosingthe men whom Odysseus would have chosen himself to help himblind the Kyklops (Od 9334ndash5)36 Secondly van Wees has arguedthat the μορα is routinely of greater material value than the γρα37

so it is not incongruous that a lot should be used to settle such aweighty issue Thirdly it is actually typical for early Greek epic touse the language of the κλ7ρος to denote the process by which thegods received their honours38


33) E g to Styx (Theog 389ndash403) We shall deal in a moment with the ear-ly Greek evidence for such a broader lot cf below n 38 and p 270f

34) Cf e g Il 11704ndash5 (Neleus) (above nn 26 and 29)35) Cf above n 30 On the question of authority in general cf van Wees (as

n 26) 301ndash2 answering the rather torturous suggestion of (inter al) W DonlanReciprocities in Homer CW 75 (1982) 137ndash75 at 158ndash9 that influence is shared be-tween βασιλεFς and λας in the division of booty

36) Cf above n 31 for the argument that lots could have been structured insuch a way as to favour one of the candidates

37) van Wees (as n 26) 300ndash138) Cf Theog 203ndash4 (Aphrodite) ταFτην δrsquo ξ ρχ7ς τιμν 6χει gtδ

λλογχε μοραν ν νθρποισι κα- θαντοισι θεοσι Theog 412ndash13 (Hekate)Ζε+ς Κρονδης τμησε πρεν δ οh γλα4 δEρα μοραν 6χειν γαης τε κα-τρυγτοιο θαλσσης Theog 421ndash5 (Hekate) Kσσοι γ4ρ Γαης τε κα- Ορανο_ξεγνοντο κα- τιμν 6λαχον τοFτων 6χει αGσαν Lπντων οδ τ μιν ΚρονδηςβιIσατο οδ τrsquo πηFρα Kσσrsquo 6λαχεν Τιτ7σι μτα προτροισι θεοσιν λλrsquo 6χειDς τ πρEτον πrsquo ρχ7ς 6πλετο δασμς Theog 789 (Styx) δεκτη δrsquo π- μοραδδασται HHDem 85ndash7 (Hades) μφ- δ τιμν 6λλαχεν Dς τ4 πρEτα διτριχαδασμς τFχθη τος μεταναιετει τEν 6λλαχε κορανος εGναι These passages in-dicate that not only is a lot of some sort envisaged for the other godsrsquo honours butZeusrsquo control over this process is also assumed the stories of Aphrodite Hekate andStyx suggest an ability to apportion them the same τιμα they had held since the be-ginning independently of any broader δασμς One should probably not seek toimpose too strict a differentiation between γρα and μοραι here (or in trying to sortout the precise stages by which the lot was taken) partially because the language is

These three observations apply primarily to the circumstanceof the authority δασμς but it should not be forgotten that wehave to do here also with the second (lsquoinheritancersquo) type of δασμςA post-Titanic κλ7ρος is actually necessary according to the normsof the early Greek epic world because the inheriting sons ndash ZeusPoseidon and Hades (Theog 453ndash7) ndash are dividing up the κλ7ροςof their absent incapacitated father ndash Kronos This situational mix-ture viz where the division of a private κλ7ρος between severalcontenders is combined with the inheritance of more generalisedpower over and within the community was probably somethinglike that pertaining in the case of Polyneikes and Eteokles39 but isotherwise rare in the remains of early Greek epic The unusualcombination of these two δασμο makes it difficult to determineprecisely what were the τιμα γρα and μοραι involved but theparameters of the δασμς as a whole render such a precise ac-counting unnecessary What matters most of all is that any suchprocess would according to the social practices of early Greekepic naturally contain something like the lot to which Poseidonmakes reference Far from being unusual or isolated in that contextas Burkert has suggested Poseidonrsquos post-Titanic κλ7ρος has ex-cellent Hellenic precedent


to some degree interchangeable but it is not hard to see Zeus removing certain func-tions from the general lsquopotrsquo as it were and assigning them as he willed cf alsoabove n 29 for the link between μορα and λαγχνειν in mortal δασμο

39) It is not actually clear from the existing summaries and fragments pre-cisely what role Oidipous had in sorting out the succession issue beyond deliver-ing the curse(s) on his sons (frs 2 and 3 Bernabeacute) cf J March The Creative PoetStudies on the Treatment of Myths in Greek Poetry (London 1987) 125ndash6 The po-sition of Laertes in Ithaka might suggest that it was typical for the leading βασιλεFςin a community to retire from pre-eminence once his son was of age so Oidipous(even without considering his special circumstance) need not have had a determi-native role in sorting out the division between his sons The earliest (relatively) fulltreatment of the matter is found in the Lille Papyrus of Stesichoros (fr 222[b]PMGF) in which the solution proposed by their mother (unnamed but eitherIokaste or Euryganeia) is to divide the κλ7ρος into two portions ndash the throne onone hand and the flocks (cf WD 163) and gold on the other (220ndash4) The one towin the lot gets the worse portion (cf above n 31 for the lot between Hesiod andPerses) cf P Parsons The Lille lsquoStesichorusrsquo ZPE 26 (1977) 7ndash36 esp 24ndash6 Be-cause of Stesichorosrsquo penchant for epic recomposition and recombination (cfA Kelly Stesikhoros and Helen MH 64 [2007] 1ndash21 at 2ndash11) it is difficult to knowhow far this reflects the pre-Homeric story

On the strength of this reconstruction we can now return tothe first of Burkertrsquos lsquoplanksrsquo on this issue ndash the disjunction be-tween Hesiod and Homer Let us set out the Hesiodic passage(Theog 881ndash5)

ατ4ρ πε Hα πνον μκαρες θεο- ξετλεσσανΤιτIνεσσι δ τιμων κρναντο βηφιδI Hα ττrsquo fτρυνον βασιλευμεν gtδ νσσεινΓαης φραδμοσFνηισιν jλFμπιον ερFοπα Ζ7νθαντων ^ δ τοσιν + διεδσσατο τιμς

The first thing to note is that Hesiodrsquos narrative of the division isconfined to a single verse (885)40 but that it clearly expresses Zeusrsquocontrol over the δασμς As we saw above authority figures of thissort are indispensible for early epic δασμο since they are the onesresponsible for keeping the parties to the division content andproperly rewarded for their services and loyalty It was also seenthat the typical casting of lots in these circumstances is not a chal-lenge to that authority a κλ7ρος is in fact only possible becausesomeone governs and guarantees the process41 So although Hesiod does not state positively that there was a lot in this instancehis narrative does not actually preclude it42 His story in other


40) The passage is interesting for several reasons At first sight its sequenceof events seems quite clear but the progression is a trifle misleading for διεδσσατο(885) cannot only refer to settlements made after the lsquoelectionrsquo in 883 after all Zeushad already made several promises about τιμα before the defeat of the Titans e gto Styx (389ndash403) and Hekate (421ndash5) and took the lead in freeing and directingthe Hundred Handers (501 624 and 643) Indeed Zeusrsquo own statement before thefinal battle (389ndash403) where he promises not only to allow the Titans who fightwith him (esp 392 μετrsquo εkο) to retain their former honours but also to allot τιμαand γρα to anyone previously Oτιμος lπ Κρνου gtδrsquo γραστος (395) makes itclear that his pre-eminence and authority were established well before whateverprocess is denoted at Theog 883 Instead of an lsquoelectionrsquo therefore I suggest thatTheog 883 only means that the gods ratified or confirmed Zeusrsquo right to lead themmuch as e g the Phaiakian βασιλες urge Alkinoos to send Odysseus home (Od1347ndash8 πντες πIινεον gtδrsquo κλευον πεμπμεναι τν ξενον πε- κατ4 μοραν6ειπεν) well after he had already stated his intention to do so

41) Cf above pp 266ndash268 and n 3542) This observation may perhaps be pressed further for Hesiod frequently

uses the language of the lot when speaking about this and previous divine divisionselsewhere in the poem cf above n 38 for the citations Indeed I would go so faras to suspect strongly that Hesiod did know of a κλ7ρος between the brothers but

words does not rule out Poseidonrsquos Accordingly one should notsuggest that the Homeric and Hesiodic versions are mutually ex-clusive as Burkert does But this is actually secondary to and doesnot affect the most important response to Burkertrsquos argument onPoseidonrsquos story ndash a κλ7ρος is in no way inappropriate or alien tothe Greek conception of the divine δασμς

Is there therefore any reason to hypothesise the influence ofthe Atrahasis on Homer An orientalist could reply that mydemonstration has only shown that the lot motif has been adaptedfrom Atrahasis and so thoroughly assimilated and internalised thatit has become fundamental and widespread to the early Greek viewof Zeusrsquo rise to power as witnessed also in all the post-Homericcases in which a divine κλ7ρος is mentioned43 That conclusion isindeed possible but (1) this could have happened at any point fromthe 17th century onwards for the Homeric text certainly gives usno reason to think that any such adaptation was a recent phenom-enon44 and (2) this is neither the aim nor the conclusion of thestandard orientalist treatment of this passage

The second of Burkertrsquos isolating arguments on the motif canbe answered more quickly

[a]lso from another point of view this passage is unique in Greek epicelsewhere when the parts of the cosmos are enumerated there is eithera triad of heaven ndash earth ndash underworld or of heaven ndash sea ndash earth oreven heaven ndash earth ndash sea ndash underworld but not the triad heaven ndash sea ndashunderworld which is here assigned to the three brothers45


did not narrate it in the Theogony simply because he had no need for it For himthe important point was simply Zeusrsquo control over the process as a whole for whichthe lot was neither here nor there simply an understood and conventional part ofthe process

43) Cf above n 1644) This objection will recur several times in the course of this article espe-

cially when addressing the parallels posed by West (below pp 292ndash302) It is oneof the basic problems with the orientalist discussions of the DA that in their searchfor isolated foreign elements they do not properly address the probability that the feature in question is actually typical and thoroughly concordant with its immedi-ate and traditional context Consequently even where an inheritance might reason-ably be hypothesised one must always reckon with the diachronic depth of theGreek tradition cf also below p 284 and n 84 for Burkertrsquos hasty rejection of theBronze Age

45) Burkert 2004 36 (= 2003 42) = 1992 90ndash1 (= 1984 87) cf also 1983 53(all as n 3)

It is indeed true that the divided realms are three in number but thecosmos according to Poseidon comes in four parts (sea ndash under-world ndash sky ndash earth) or even five if Olympos is separated fromearth (Il 15193) This is far from an isolated or unique phenome-non such four (and five) part divisions are quite common and de-ployed on ly in the contexts of divine narratives (Theog 678ndash83[sea ndash earth ndash sky ndash Olympos ndash underworld] 736ndash7 (= 807ndash8)[earth ndash Tartaros ndash sea ndash sky] 839ndash41 [earth ndash heaven ndash sea andOkeanos ndash underworld] HHDem 33ndash5 [earth ndash sky ndash sea ndash un-derworld46])47 The conception of the cosmos in Poseidonrsquos speechis not at all unusual in early Greek epic and no evidence for the in-trusion of a lsquoforeignrsquo element into the text of Homer

After these two isolating arguments Burkert concludes hiscase with an associative argument namely that this motif occurs inthe context of the lsquouniquersquo DA This is a bit of a leap in logic as theκλ7ρος has no necessary connection with the deception narrative48

but much more revealing than mere proximity is the importancewith which Burkert imbues it

Might this also be coincidence There is the context to be taken intoaccount which has indeed a unique status within the Iliad This pas-sage still belongs to the lsquoDeception of Zeusrsquo49

One might still believe this to be a deceptive coincidence were it notfor the special context of the Dios Apate where many different cluescome together to point to the oriental tradition in this case the coin-cidence hypothesis becomes the most improbable option50

In other words Burkert admits that the parallel by itself is notstrong enough without the support of the rest of the DA to es-tablish his thesis If the argument of the next section against thecosmogonic status of Okeanos is even vaguely cogent then thewhole case begins to look very weak

As a final supplementary argument in favour of Burkertrsquosthesis and concerning the way in which Poseidon refers to thetriple division West suggests that


46) The underworld is not actually part of the narrative but it is obviouslyassumed by the circumstance

47) Cf Schmidt (as n 18) 6ndash948) Cf above n 149) Burkert 1983 53 (as n 3)50) Burkert 2004 37 (= 2003 42) ~ 1984 87ndash8 (= 1992 90) (all as n 3)

the tone of the outburst recalls Atrahasis II 266ndash74 = 280ndash8 = 332ndash40where Enlil finds that mankind has survived the famine he ordained hepoints out that the gods had agreed on a plan and that it has not beenkept to51

Indeed it does but it also recalls the lsquotonersquo and circumstance of Poseidonrsquos invocation of the lsquoagreementrsquo to sack Troy in the verysame speech (Il 15213ndash17) to which Here refers when she directsher complaint to Zeus over the same matter (Il 423ndash9) and toAthenersquos not entirely mock outrage at Zeus over keeping Odysseusaway from home for so long (Od 163ndash79 521ndash7) or to Posei-donrsquos disturbance at the thought that his absence has caused thegods to lsquochange their mindsrsquo about Odysseus (Od 5286 μετε-β οFλευσαν) All of these deities react to the fact that an apparentlysettled course of action is no longer being adhered to which typeof situation obviously has something to do with the common di-vine caution about getting in one anotherrsquos way52 One hardlyneeds to look very hard in order to see how pervasive this theme isin early Greek epic As with the motif of the lot the possibility pre-sents itself that any putative (and I stress this word) inheritance isto be placed very far in the Homeric past

In summing up this section it can be said that there is noth-ing in Poseidonrsquos invocation of the divine κλ7ρος which does notmake perfect sense ndash in terms both of its meaning and its origins ndashwithin the conventions and parameters of early Greek epic Bur -kertrsquos attempt to isolate this motif from that context should be con-sidered unsuccessful


51) West (as n 3) 38552) For many parallels this time responding to a very similar point which

West (as n 3) 384 seeks to make about Hypnosrsquo reference to Zeusrsquo anger over Hera-kles (Il 14256) cf below pp 294ndash296 Of course West is not generally seeking tomake precisely the same point as Burkert (i e more or less direct derivation) buthe is trying to bolster Burkertrsquos position (cited and quoted approvingly at West [asn 3] 180 in this very context) and in any case the qualifications which we shall ad-vance to his other parallels (below esp pp 292ndash293) operate just as well here

2 The lsquoCosmogonicrsquo Okeanos and Tethys and the Enuma Elis

Moving on from the divine lot in the associative manner men-tioned above Burkert begins with a general characterisation of theDA for which he relies on Albrecht Dihlersquos linguistic and stylisticarguments about the lsquopost-oralrsquo and therefore lsquolatersquo nature of thispassage as a whole53 Dihlersquos methods and his conclusion that thepassage belongs to a late written phase in the epic tradition havefound no favour with subsequent scholarship but they affordBurkert both an isolating description and a reason to downdate theprocess of inheritance

[w]e are dealing with a text which is linguistically unusual isolated inits content and in a way quite lsquomodernrsquo54

It is misleading to introduce the DA in this way for none of thescholars cited for this view could today be invoked without seri-ous qualification55 but it sets the direction of the entire discussion


53) Burkert 1983 54 ~ 1984 88 (= 1992 90ndash1) ~ 2003 36 (= 2004 29) (all asn 3) referring to A Dihle Homer-Probleme (Opladen 1970) esp 83ndash93 Dihlersquosmethod is largely to point out the apparent divergences from lsquonormalrsquo Homeric usage cf the reviews by M Edwards AJP 95 (1974) 68ndash71 esp 70ndash1 and J BHainsworth CR 22 (1972) 316ndash18 esp 316ndash7 Hainsworth is particularly devas-tating on this aspect of Dihlersquos book pointing out that the passage chosen is tooshort for proper statistical analysis and that it is a lsquoleap of logicrsquo to argue from arather subjective list of oddities that they are the result of literary interference withthe oral style I will not deal in detail with his arguments except to add that almostany section of Homeric poetry will throw up exceptional or unusual features Thistype of analysis is an uncertain foundation for a separative argument as shown bythe fate of Pagersquos list of anomalies at the end of the Odyssey (D L Page The Homer-ic Odyssey [Oxford 1955] ch 5) cf H Erbse Beitraumlge zum Verstaumlndnis der Odyssee(Berlin 1972) esp 189ndash229

54) Burkert 1992 91 and n 9 (= 1984 88 and n 9) ~ 2003 36 and n 33(= 2004 29 and n 33) cf also 1983 53ndash4 (all as n 3) Only in 1983 and 2003 ndash sur-prisingly as he does qualify it in 2004 ndash does he fail to mention the fortunes of Dih-lersquos argument which has not however stopped him from using it cf e g Burkert1992 91 (= 1984 88) ~ 2004 29 where he prefaces the quote above with ldquo[t]his re-sult has not been generally accepted but it must (ldquoshouldrdquo 2004 29) be acknow -ledged that in this part of the Iliadrdquo etc It is not at all clear why Dihlersquos unac-cep ted impressions or conclusions ldquomust be acknowledgedrdquo the entire inferenceof these sentences must be rejected particularly in light of Richard Jankorsquos excellentstudy (above n 2)

55) Aside from Dihle who is the on ly scholar invoked in Burkert 2003 36and 38 (= 2004 29 and 32) and an obiter from Wilamowitz ndash increased to two in1992 201 n 9 (as n 3) ndash Burkert 1983 53 n 27 (all as n 3) invokes the analytical tri-

Hence it is no surprise when at the conclusion of this section in histreatments Burkert returns to Dihle as the linguistic and structur-al confirmation of his own study56

After this somewhat partial introduction Burkert proceedsimmediately to speak about the DArsquos lsquoalternative cosmogonyrsquoOkeanos is called the lsquoorigin of godsrsquo (Il 14201 = 302) and the lsquoori-gin for allrsquo (Il 14246) a status which apparently does not fit theHesiodic conception of the universersquos creation where Gaia andOuranos are the first couple57 Burkert argues that this is the ldquoonly


partition of the Iliad by W Theiler Die Dichter der Ilias in Festschrift fuumlr EdouardTiegraveche ehemaligen Professor an der Universitaumlt Bern zum 70 Geburtstag (Bern1947) 126ndash56 esp 135ndash9 (= id Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur [Berlin 1970]1ndash47 esp 21ndash6) though with a qualification (ldquoalso the Beruumlckungsdichter has beenplaced lsquolatersquo in the development of the epic by Homeric analysts but it is clear thatthe Δις πτη is an indispensible element in the overall structure of the Iliad as wehave itrdquo) which is trying to have it both ways by invoking the arguments ndash thoughnot the conclusions ndash of an old style Analyst

56) Cf Burkert 1983 54 1992 93 (= 1984 90) (as n 3) ldquo[t]his argument ac-cords with Albrecht Dihlersquos observations from the other side on the lsquoyoungrsquo char-acter of this Homeric piecerdquo also Burkert 2004 32 = 2003 38 (as n 3) ldquo[t]his (i ehis arguments) confirms from the other side Albrecht Dihlersquos observations on thelate character of this piecerdquo

57) Burkert 1983 54 1984 88ndash9 (= 1992 91ndash2) ~ 2003 36ndash8 (= 2004 29ndash30)(all as n 3) Of course he is not alone here for the lsquocosmogonicrsquo Okeanos could nowbe considered almost the orthodox position on this passage cf e g A BonnafeacuteEris et Eros Mariages divins et mythe du succession chez Heacutesiode (Lyon 1985) 185ndash6 J S Clay Hesiodrsquos Cosmos (Cambridge 2003) 16 22 For Bur kertrsquos modern pre-decessors cf e g A Lesky Thalatta Der Weg der Griechen zum Meer (Vienna1947) 58ndash87 J Germain Genegravese de lrsquoOdysseacutee (Paris 1954) 529ndash32 For the ancientscf e g Plato Crat 402B Theaet 152E Tim 40DndashE Aristotle Met 983b27ndash984a3 also G S Kirk J E Raven and M Schofield The Presocratic Philosophers(Cambridge 1983) 13ndash33 for discussion and full references esp their conclusion at16 ldquo[t]he evidence does not show that there existed in Greece at a comparatively early date a systematic doctrine of the cosmogonical priority of Okeanos Hesiodgives no indication of it and later suppositions s eem to be based on two un-usua l Homer i c pas sages wh ich a re l e f t a s the on ly d i r ec t ev i -dence for any such cosmogon ica l theoryrdquo [my emphasis]

Aside from the arguments against the cosmic reading of these passages of-fered above it is notable that Aristotle Met 983b27f expresses himself very cau-tiously when describing those who interpret the Homeric text in this way ε σ - δέτ ινες ο o κα- το+ς παμπαλαίους κα- πολ+ πρ τ7ς ν_ν γενέσεως κα- πρώτουςθεολογήσαντας ο`τως οPονται περ- τ7ς φύσεως lπολαβενmiddot tκεανόν τε γ4ρ κα-Τηθ+ν ποίησαν τ7ς γενέσεως πατέρας κα- τν Kρκον τEν θεEν `δωρ τνκαλουμένην lπrsquo ατEν Στύγα [τEν ποιητEν]middot τιμιώτατον μν γ4ρ τ πρεσβύτατονKρκος δ τ τιμιώτατόν στιν ε μν οWν ρχαία τ ι ς α`τη κα- παλαι4τετύχηκεν οWσα περ - τ7ς φύσεως v δόξα τάχ rsquo xν Oδηλον ε Pη

passage in the Homeric canon where quite unexpectedly a cos-mogonic theme comes to the forerdquo58 whose most suggestive paral-lel is the mingling of the waters at the beginning of the Akkadiancreation epic the Enuma Elis (11ndash5) where Apsu and Tiamat playthe cosmogonic role attributed in the DA to the two Greek deities

When skies above were not yet namednor earth below pronounced by nameApsu the first one the i r bege t t e rand maker Tiamat who bore them a l l had mixed their waters together 59

Then pointing to the rather isolated position of Tethys within later Greek mythology Burkert argues for a linguistic equationbetween Tiamat Taw(a)tu and Tethys

This entire nexus of isolating argumentation stems from theidentification of the two sets of figures as cosmogonically equiva-lent but the Homeric passages need not be interpreted to makeOkeanos and Tethys the lsquooriginal couplersquo In a brief and apparent-ly little known article Panchenko has argued that Homer refershere in an admittedly elliptical manner only to the birth of riversand bodies of water60 Let us review the relevant passages


Θαλ7ς μέντοι λέγεται ο`τως ποφήνασθαι περ- τ7ς πρώτης ατίας (zππωνα γ4ρ οκOν τις ξιώσειε θεναι μετ4 τούτων δι4 τν ετέλειαν ατο_ τ7ς διανοίας) Cer-tainly this does not suggest that the cosmogoners were either numerous or reflec-tive of general opinion or that Aristotle followed them in their interpretation of thepassages contra Kirk et al (as above) 17 but they do not quote the emphasised sen-tence ε μν οWν Oδηλον εPη which makes Aristotlersquos uncertainty clear as notedby W D Ross Aristotlersquos Metaphysics Volume 1 (Oxford 1924) ad loc 130 ldquothesuggestion has no great historical value as Aristotle himself admits (984a2)rdquo Noris Met 1091b4 contrary evidence for though Aristotle speaks there of the ancientpoets explaining how Zeus is in charge rather than lsquothe firstrsquo gods (το+ς πρτους)he lists as their examples those figures (Night Chaos Ouranos and Okeanos) whoare so linked at Theog 20 and 106ndash7 Furthermore Plato ldquois obviously not entire-ly serious in his treatment of Homer as forerunner of the flux-idea assigned to Hera-clitus so we cannot be sure of the precise value he attached to the HomericOkeanos-passagerdquo (Kirk et al [as above] 15) In sum whilst there was indeed an an-cient strand of the cosmogonic reading it was by no means an inevitable or unani-mous interpretation

58) Burkert 1992 91 (= 1984 88) ~ 2003 36 (= 2004 30) (all as n 3)59) Enuma Elis is cited according to the translation of Dalley (as n 12)60) D Panchenko Γνεσις πντεσσι the Iliad 14201 and 14246 reconsid-

ered Hyperboreus 1 (1994) 183ndash186 In this he was preceded with some (eventu-

14200ndash1 (~ 301ndash2)εGμι γ4ρ eψομνη πολυφρβου περατα γαηςtκεανν τε θεEν γνεσιν κα- μητρα ΤηθFν

14244ndash6Oλλον μν κεν γ γε θεEν αειγενετωνHεα κατευνIσαιμι κα- xν ποταμοο Hεθραtκεανο_ Kς περ γνεσις πντεσσι ττυκται

The first of these is delivered by Here to Aphrodite (and then toZeus 301ndash2) the second by Hypnos to Here when attempting torefuse participation in her scheme In the latter passage the crucialquestion concerns the noun to which the phrase γνεσις πντεσσιin v 246 refers Most scholars have taken it with θεEν from v 244or made it refer simply to lsquoall thingsrsquo however Panchenko sug-gested that it refers to Hεθρα thus implying that Okeanos is mere-ly the origin of all rivers This may seem on first sight a rathercramped reading with πντεσσι amplifying one noun from a for-mulaic phrase61 but the Homeric poet himself seems to understandthe matter in this way in a later passage in the Iliad whereAchilleus compares the progeny of Zeus with that of the rivers(21194ndash7)


al) scepticism by Kirk et al (as above n 57) 14 However elliptical the reading mayseem is it any more difficult than to follow a cosmogonical reading and supposethat Homer has in these two passages forgotten his earlier description of the Titansas lsquosons of Ouranosrsquo at Il 5898 (cf J Latacz et al Homers Ilias Gesamtkommen-tar Band I 2 1 Gesang [Munich 2000] ad Il 1570 176)

61) It might be preferable as Alan Sommerstein suggests to me to referπντεσσι to ποταμοο For substantival πNς in the plural expanding a previous sub-stantive in the singular cf e g Il 8238ndash40 (ο μν δI ποτ φημι τεν περικαλλαβωμν νη- πολυκλIιδι παρελθμεν νθδε 6ρρων λλrsquo π- πNσι βοEν δημν κα-μηρrsquo 6κηα) Il 17670ndash2 (ν_ν τις νηεης Πατροκλ7ος δειλοο μνησσθω πNσινγ4ρ πστατο μελιχος εGναι ζως ν) Od 8166ndash8 (τασθλωι νδρ- 6οικας ο`τως ο πντεσσι θεο- χαρεντα διδο_σιν νδρσιν [the cumulative enjambmenthardly disqualifies the parallel]) Od 8552ndash4 (ο μν γρ τις πμπαν ννυμς στrsquoνθρπων ο κακς οδ μν σθλς πν τ4 πρEτα γνηται λλrsquo π- πNσιτθενται πε κε τκωσι τοκ7ες) Od 11185ndash7 Τηλμαχος τεμνη νμεται κα-δατας σας δανυται ς ποικε δικασπλον Oνδρrsquo λεγFνειν πντες [i e οoOλλοι δικασπλοι Oνδρες] γ4ρ καλουσι) Theog 156ndash7 (κα- τEν μν Kπως τιςπρEτα γνοιτο πντας ποκρFπτασκε) cf also WD 694 (καιρς δrsquo π- πNσινOριστος) where πNσιν generalises the circumstances of which the Nautilia is one illustration

τEι οδ κρεων 13χελιος σοφαρζειοδ βαθυρρεταο μγα σθνος tκεανοοξ ο περ πντες ποταμο- κα- πNσα θλασσακα- πNσαι κρ7ναι κα- φρεατα μακρ4 νουσιν

This is a suggestive complement to Hypnosrsquo description of Oke -anos in Il 14246 Firstly consider the generic similarity betweenthe passages in both speeches Zeusrsquo superiority is emphasised byreference to the fact he is even more powerful than Okeanoswhose source of strength (and suitability for the comparison) is underlined by his genealogical status To this end Achilleusrsquo em-phatic anaphora of πντες πNσα and πNσαι should be comparedwith πντεσσι in Il 14246 and could be considered a fuller ver-sion of the rhetorical ellipse in that earlier passage This gives atleast some justification to interpret πντεσσι in the limited mannerPanchenko does

The ellipse could still be considered difficult however andnot only because of the proximity of Il 14201 (to which we shallreturn) Nonetheless consider the semantics of Homeric πNςspecifically the fact that its universalism can be qualified by its cir-cumstance62 Artur Ludwich drew attention to this quality whendiscussing the famous crux of Il 15 where an ancient v l (δατα)arose because πNσι was interpreted literally i e implying thatevery bird eats flesh or that every bird in the world swooped downon the plains of Troy63 It only means that every bird present andappropriate did so just as the fulfilment of Poseidonrsquos proposal forequipment exchange (Il 14376ndash7) does not result literally inlsquoeveryonersquo (πντας 381) receiving new equipment simply thosewho were subject to the circumstance set out in Poseidonrsquos speechSo Homeric πNς can denote the entirety of a group considered


62) I am indebted to Alan Sommerstein for discussion and clarification onthis point Of course even in the ancient world it was well known that Homericor indeed poetic πNς need not be taken literally cf Aristotle Poetics 1461a19 τγ4ρ πντες ντ- το_ πολλο κατ4 μεταφορ4ν εPρηται τ γ4ρ πNν πολF τι (citingIl 21ndash2 in mistake for Il 101 and then juxtaposing it to 1013ndash14)

63) A Ludwich Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik nach den Fragmenten desDidymos Zweiter Teil (Leipzig 1885) 89 n 55 discussing vρων ατο+ς δ gλριατε_χε κFνεσσιν οωνοσ τε πNσι (Ar Ω δατα Zen) Δις δrsquo τελεετο βουλI(Il 14ndash5) cf Janko (as n 2) 23 ldquo(δατα is) surely an early emendation to removethe lsquoproblemrsquo that not all birds eat fleshrdquo cf also Il 22354 (λλ4 κFνες τε κα-οωνο- κατ4 πντα δσονται) contra Latacz et al (as above n 60) ad Il 15 19ndash20

appropriate to an action or circumstance64 In line with this prin -ciple πντεσσι at Il 14246 would refer only to those deities usu-ally understood to have their origin in Okeanos65 Who theywere ndash the rivers and water courses ndash is evident from Homerrsquos owndescription of Okeanos in Iliad 21 and of course from Hesiodrsquoscatalogue of his offspring at Theog 337ndash70 I suggest thereforethat an alternative cosmogony is the last thing on Homerrsquos mind atIl 14246 Okeanos is here the origin of all water deities as he iseverywhere else in Homer and the rest of early Greek epic andnothing more

Turning back now to the first apparently cosmogonic ex-pression tκεανν τε θεEν γνεσιν κα- μητρα ΤηθFν (Il 14201)one could argue that the only sense in which Tethys is a lsquomotherrsquois the usual one of having divine children whilst Okeanos is thelsquooriginrsquo only of those gods listed by Achilleus at Il 21194ndash7 and


64) Cf for some other (substantival) cases Il 615 (πντας γ4ρ φιλεσκεν^δEι 6πι οκα ναων) Il 17356 (ΑPας γ4ρ μλα πντας πιχετο πολλ4 κελεFων)Il 24775 (πντες δ πεφρκασιν) Od 11216 (f μοι τκνον μν περ- πντωνκμμορε φωτEν) Od 12323 (ελου Sς πντrsquo φορNι κα- πντrsquo πακοFει[= 11109] but cf 12374f) Od 13312ndash13 (ργαλον σε θε γνEναι βροτEιντισαντι κα- μλrsquo πισταμνωι σ γ4ρ ατν παντ- σκεις) Od 2328 (^ξενος τν πντες τμων ν μεγροισι) WD 80ndash2 (eνμηνε δ τIνδε γυνακα Πανδρην Kτι πντες jλFμπια δματrsquo 6χοντες δEρον δρησαν)

65) That such an ellipse was possible depends of course on the assumptionthat Okeanos was a well-known character in the epic tradition before Homer (andHesiod) This I think may be inferred inter al from his genitive case noun-epithetformulae extending from the two major boundary positions within the verse to theverse-end and showing the Parryan principles of economy and extensionβαθυρρου tκεανοο (Il 7422 14311 Od 1113 19434) and ψορρου tκεανοο(Il 18399 Od 2065 Theog 776) cf also the solely Hesiodic κλυτο_ tκεανοο(Theog 215 274 288 294) The lsquoeconomyrsquo here is clear but for the lsquoextensionrsquo cfM Parry LrsquoEacutepithegravete traditionelle dans Homegravere (Paris 1928) 69ndash9 (also in A Parry[ed] The Making of Homeric Verse the collected papers of Milman Parry [Oxford1971] 55ndash63) An individual poet is unlikely to come up with even a small systemexhibiting these features cf Parry (as above) 17ndash18 (also in A Parry [as above] 18)βαθυρρου and ψορρου are moreover lsquospecial epithetsrsquo ndash i e confined toOkeanos ndash which are generally used for ldquodivine or with some exceptions majorcharacters in the storyrdquo (J B Hainsworth The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula[Oxford 1968] 10) The exceptions listed by Parry (as above) 111ndash13 (also inA Parry [as above] 88ndash93) concern single examples of one special epithet the onlycharacters in that list to have two such epithets are major players (AchilleusOdysseus Agamemnon Hektor Herakles) Not too much can be made of that lastfact because the gods are frequently provided with special epithets as even a quickglance at J H Dee Epitheta Deorum apud Homerum (Hildesheim 2001) will show

Hesiod in the Theogony66 Thus Il 14201 has no more (and noless) significance than Zeusrsquo epithet πατρ νδρEν τε θεEν τε(Il 1544 etc) which does not imply that Zeus is the father of all the gods or all men any more than calling Ide the lsquomother offlocksrsquo means that Phrygia is the origin of species67 In short thehypothesis of an alternative cosmogony in these two Homeric pas-sages is an unnecessary one68 Given the importance of this paral-lel to Burkertrsquos entire equation between the DA and the EnumaElis the case for Homeric dependence on a Near Eastern sourcemust be weakened

Nonetheless on this basis Burkert proceeds to make two fur-ther arguments ndash the first thematic the second linguistic Neitheris persuasive when examined by itself let alone when deprived ofits cosmogonic support The former is of the isolating sort andruns as follows


66) There is of course the signal phenomenon that no other divine parent isdenoted with the word γνεσις in early Greek epic cf M Schmidt γνεσις LfrGE130 I suggest this is another (cf previous note) traditional particularity in the dic-tion applicable to Okeanos reflecting the fact that his relationship with his childrenassumes a physical contiguity and a constant process of renewal which is not repli-cated in other divine generative contexts Interestingly γνεσις as a scientific termseems to have been used in early Presocratic thought to denote the (frequently nev-erending) p roces s of lsquocoming-to-bersquo cf e g Anaximander B 1 DK with W KC Guthrie A History of Greek Philosophy I The Earlier Presocratics and the Py thagoreans (Cambridge 1962) 77 n 1 (the term concept was somewhat dis-credited by Parmenides [B 821 DK] before its rehabilitation by Plato and Aristo-tle cf F Solmsen Aristotlersquos System of the Physical World [Ithaca NY 1960] chs 2and 4) Such a notion is particularly appropriate to a figure described as ψρροοςlsquoflowing back on itselfrsquo and who constantly feeds the waters of the world i e hischildren (Theog 790ndash1 with M L West Hesiod Theogony [Oxford 1966] ad loc374) cf A Kelly 13ΨΟΡΡΟΟΥ tΚΕΑΝΟΙΟ ndash A Near Eastern expression CQ 57(2007) 280ndash2 (with bibliography) In any case Okeanosrsquo status as origin of all riversand water courses makes him a unique figure in divine genealogy so we should notbe surprised to hear him described in a unique way

67) Cf Il 847 14283 15151 also Il 11222 where μητρι μIλων is appliedto Thrace Of course Hesiod refers to Ge as πντων μIτηρ (WD 563) but thisshows how loosely the word could be used in a cosmogonic context In Hesiodrsquosown narrative Gaia is only the direct mother of a relatively small number of deitiesand cannot be linked genealogically e g with the children of Chaos and Night(Theog 123ndash5) but such precision is hardly the point in these expressions

68) That all other ancient references to this interpretation are to be sourcedback to precisely these two passages and have no earlier or wider currency is argued cogently by Kirk et al (as n 57)

The very climax of this song of Homer ndash Zeus and Here making lovewithin a golden cloud on the summit of Mount Ida from which re-splendent drops are falling ndash shows divinity in a naturalistic cosmicsetting which is not otherwise a feature of Homeric anthropomor-phism69

It has often been remarked that the DA refers to a number of lsquocos-micrsquo events including the first sexual activity of Zeus and Here(Il 14295ndash6) and the enmity between Zeus and Kronos (Il 14203ndash4) but in what sense are these stories more lsquocosmicrsquo than e g thereferences to Zeusrsquo conflict with Typhaon (Il 2781ndash3) or the in-surrection of the Olympians which would have undermined thedivine order (Il 1397ndash406) Whilst the activity on Ide might wellre-enact a (rather vague notion of the) original hερς γμος is thismore lsquocosmicrsquo in its suggestions than Zeusrsquo threat to hurl disobe-dient deities into Tartaros with his unpleasant descriptions of itsenvirons (Il 813ndash16 repeated with reference to Iapetos and Kro-nos themselves at 8477ndash81) or (much better) the Theomachy ofBook 2170

Furthermore a lsquonaturalisticrsquo setting or description is typicalfor divine narratives in early Greek epic whether the poet is de-scribing the effect on the natural surroundings of the godsrsquo activ -ities or simply locating them there71 Consider the depiction of Kalypsorsquos cave (Od 563ndash73) the blasting of nature by Hephaistosin his attack on Skamandros (Il 21350ndash5) the progress of Posei-don over the water (Il 1327ndash30) the shuddering of the earth as thegods face off before the Theomachy (Il 2059ndash66) the blooming ofvegetation as Aphrodite reaches Kypros (Theog 194ndash5) the ani-


69) Burkert 1992 91 (= 1984 88) ~ 2003 36 (= 2004 30) (all as n 3)70) Moreover L Slatkin The Power of Thetis (Berkeley 1991) has argued

that there is a cosmological undercurrent to the entire Iliad centred around the un-settling generative potential of Thetis for the hegemony of Zeus

71) West (as n 3) 384 notes ldquo[t]his (burgeoning nature) appears simply toserve their comfort and pleasure but behind it p robab ly lies the idea that the activity of the love-goddess makes the vegetation burgeonrdquo [my emphasis] Hepoints to Hesiod Theog 194 as a parallel before invoking a Sumerian prayer toIshtar where however the goddess is herself said to cause these things activelyrather than having them simply spring up in reaction to her presence Aside fromWestrsquos cautious phrasing note also that this verdancy is known to Homer in the DAto Hesiod and to the poet of the HHAphr (see the discussion above) Once morethis motif if it is not coincidental has been thoroughly hellenised and epicised sug-gesting a general inheritance or interaction rather than a specific and late source

mals fawning on the same deity and making love as she approach-es Mount Ide (HHAphr 69ndash74) or those around the house ofKirke (Od 10212ndash19) or the catalogue of flowers amongst whichPersephone plays (HHDem 5ndash14) As Janko comments ldquo[t]hesympathy of nature is normal in the heroic world72 and our aware-ness of it is fundamental to the beauty of that worldrdquo73 so it is sim-ply incorrect to say that the setting of the love-scene in the DA islsquonot elsewhere a feature of Homerrsquos anthropomorphismrsquo let alonethat of the other early epic texts

Burkertrsquos second linguistic argument also faces considerableobjections He suggests an equation between Taw(a)tu and ΤηθFςon the analogy of Greek Μ7δοι from Persian Mada but the anal-ogy takes insufficient account of the consonant -w- in Taw(a)tuAssuming (with Burkert) that the translation occurred during theArchaic period the resulting word would be subject to the usualphonological changes consequent on the loss of intervocalicdigamma but in Ionic at this period (i e well after the early changeto η of inherited long α) the result of a contraction from the clus-ter -αα- is not η but α as Oτη lt τη lt τα whilst Aeolicwould show -αυα- as Lesb ατα lt τα (cf also να_ος ltνας)74 One might also doubt that these linguistic changes wouldhave been mirrored by an epic poet if he were responsible for thetranslation in the first place for the lsquoKunstsprachersquo is more thanable to resist contraction after the loss of intervocalic digamma(e g αγIς lt αγεσ- εδω lt εδω οιδI lt οιδI ασφ-ρων lt σαι + φρεν-)75 and creates without linguistic lsquojustifica-


72) Cf e g Odysseusrsquo description of Goat Island (Od 9116ndash51) orLaertesrsquo garden (Od 24336ndash44)

73) Janko (as n 2) ad Il 1327ndash31 4574) As a general rule ldquoαα ergibt bei Kontraktion uumlberall auch αrdquo

(E Schwyzer Griechische Grammatik I 1 Lautlehre und Wortbildung Flexion[Munich 1953] 248) cf P Chantraine Grammaire Homerique I phoneacutetique etmorphologie (Paris 1958) sect14 30 A Sihler A New Comparative Grammar ofGreek and Latin (New York 1995) sect 865 81 also sect 1902 185 also K Meister DieHomerische Kunstsprache (Leipzig 1921) 181 193ndash4 (κρNτος lt κρατος) and 193(for examples of short vowels followed by long vowels which are generally left un-contracted) An Ionic poet would therefore have reduced ΤααθFς to ΤαθFς (orΤααθFς) an Aeolic poet to ΤαυθFς which is intriguingly close to the actualtranslation Ταυθ made by the Peripatetic Eudemos of Paros (F 150 Wehrli)

75) Cf J Nuchelmans αγIς LfgrE 3 R Philipp εδω LfgrE 155ndash9J Grimm οιδI LfgrE 976ndash80 H J Mette ασφρων LfgrE 4ndash5

tionrsquo -αα- in both adjectives (e g Oαπτος lt πτος lt Oεπτος ltOεπτος)76 and verbs (e g ^ρασθαι lt ^ρNσθαι lt ^ρεσθαι) bymetrical distension

In any case West has poured cold water on the entire equa-tion pointing out that the spelling Taw(a)tu is an apparent ar-chaism for the much commoner T(i)amat (which would make theidea of a late borrowing virtually impossible) and was probablynever a spoken form and so he returns to Szemereacutenyirsquos derivationof Tethys from Tiamat Tamtu77 This could have occurred at anypoint from the sixteenth century BC onwards given that the Enu-ma Elis is to be dated to the Middle Babylonian period78 If therewas a translation or adaptation then it occurred well before theHomeric poet came to his composition79 Indeed Burkertrsquos pointabout the isolation of Tethys could be invoked here but against hisconclusion to support a very early date for such a process

there is the name of that primeval mother Tethys a purely mytho-logical name for Greeks as far as we see not connected with any liv-ing cult (quite in contrast to Thetis) and known to everyone just fromthis very passage of Homer80

Tethys is in no way an active figure in Greek mythology In contrast tothe sea goddess Thetis (with whom she was sometimes confused evenin antiquity) she has no established cults and no one had anything fur-ther to tell about her She apparently exists only by virtue of the Home-ric passage81


76) Cf H Erbse S Laser Oαπτος LfrGE 377) West (as n 3) 147ndash8 n 200 (to which Burkert 2004 149 n 39 = 2003 141

n 39 [as n 3] refers with a laconic ldquoa phonetic problem remainsrdquo) O SzemereacutenyiThe origins of the Greek lexicon Ex Oriente Lux JHS 94 (1974) 144ndash57 at 150 Iam not competent to comment on the Semitic equation though I note that West ex-presses himself with caution i e ldquomight have been taken overrdquo

78) Cf West (as n 3) 67ndash8 esp 68 n 20 Dalley (as n 12) 228ndash30 favours an early date (probably pre-Kassite) against the increasingly popular claims of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125ndash1104 BC) cf also H Hunger D Pingree Astral Sciencesin Mesopotamia (Leiden 1999) 62

79) This also applies to Westrsquos (as n 3) 148 cautious revival of a theory (ad-vanced earlier by Germain [1954] 531ndash2) that the genitive expression ψορρουtκεανοο (Il 18399 Od 2065 Theog 776) might contain a reference to the Baby-lonian deity Apsu (i e lt 13ψο Hου tκεανοο cf Kelly [as n 66]) Even in the ex-tremely unlikely event that Apsu is concealed here the derivation proposed couldhave occurred at any point from the Kassite period onwards (cf above n 78)


This is considerably overstated for Tethys is a well-established fig-ure in Hesiod (Theog 136 337 362 368) and the days are surelygone when it could be argued that Hesiod derives his genealogicalknowledge only and directly from Homer In these terms Tethysrsquomythological as opposed to cultic lsquoLebendigkeitrsquo could just as eas-ily be explained as a very early inheritance which survived the col-lapse of the Mycenaean world ndash with all its contraction of the con-tacts between Greece and the surrounding civilisations ndash only inepic narrative Such lsquoagainst the oddsrsquo transmission through theDark Ages into a world where it was no longer widely understoodor indicative of broader belief can be easily paralleled in Homericlanguage82 and geography83

To sum up the results of this section (1) there is no need toconclude that the DA contains a unique or alternative cosmogonyfor the crucial passages and expressions admit of a much simplerexplanation which chimes with the rest of Homerrsquos text and in-deed early Greek epic (2) the naturalistic and lsquocosmicrsquo () settingof the DA is entirely typical of early Greek poetry and no proof ofexternal influence on the Homeric poet (3) the linguistic origin ofthe name Tethys is extremely conjectural and if drawn from theNear East should be located much earlier than Burkert allows84

In short there is no support here for the theory that the DA is aNear Eastern derivation


82) Cf e g A Bartonek Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch (Heidel-berg 2003) 464

83) Cf e g J Latacz Troia und Homer (Munich 2001) 282ndash9484) Thus it shows how misplaced is the confidence with which Burkert dis-

misses the Bronze Age as a likely period for any moment or process of transfer Ini-tially Burkert 1983 54ndash5 (as n 3) relied solely on Dihlersquos work to rule out theMycenaean period but given the lack of success his theories have had Burkert 198489ndash90 (= 1992 93 ~ 2003 37ndash8 = 2004 31ndash2 [all as n 3]) contended that oral trans-mission would have changed the story too much and doubted whether the EnumaElis was to be dated that early On the latter point cf above n 78 for the views ofNear Eastern specialists The worth of the former point depends entirely on ac-cepting the parallels which Burkert offers As I hope to have demonstrated this isno firm basis on which to rule out Mycenaean interaction Indeed it has alreadybeen suggested that several motifs e g the name of Tethys could have been inher-ited from Near Eastern traditions but the crucial point is that by the t ime wewi tnes s these mot i f s in a Greek s e t t ing they are thoroughly harmonisedwithin that context (so much so in some cases that one doubts whether it was aquestion of inheritance at all) This point shall be made again

When combined with the conclusion of the first section of thisarticle the entire case that the DA is derived from the Near Eastmust be severely undermined for these are the two main props ofthe whole structure

It is the specific motif of the primordial water gods and the motif ofthe gods casting lots for the three portions of the universe that mustbe judged lsquoa neo-Oriental elementrsquo in the text of Homer as MartinWest has put it85

Thus the proof seems complete that here right in the middle of theIliad the influence of two Akkadian classics can be detected down toa mythical name86

These motifs can bear no such weight

3 Supplementary Parallels (Burkert et al)

Moving forward from the cosmogonic Okeanos Burkertproceeds to identify several other oriental elements within the DAopening the account with an associative argument

Once an orientalizing background is established for the lsquoDeception ofZeusrsquo further observations are bound to follow87

Obviously then the validity of these parallels depends first andforemost on the two major motifs discussed above so it is not sur-prising that in isolation they do not stand up to scrutiny I will dis-cuss the three strongest of these features here omitting only themost speculative88


85) Burkert 1983 54 (as n 3)86) Burkert 1992 93 (= 1984 90) ~ 2003 38 (= 2004 32) (all as n 3)87) Burkert 1992 93 (= 1984 90) ~ 2003 38 (= 2004 32) (all as n 3)88) Amongst them the idea that Zeus and Here on the top of the mountain

is reflected on Near Eastern seals where the storm god and his wife ride on theirdragons (no dragons anywhere in sight in the DA) that the marriage of heaven andearth are known in Akkadian literature (no fecundity in the DA) and the link be-tween clay deities in Akkadian (titu) and the Titans as the defeated deities (of whichBurkert 1992 95 [= 1984 91 ~ 2003 40 = 2004 34] [all as n 3] says ldquo[t]his daringhypothesis lacks specific material for verificationrdquo) cf Burkert 1983 54ndash5 198490ndash1 (= 1992 94ndash5) ~ 2003 38ndash40 (= 2004 32ndash4) His further argument to this lastpoint that the Titans are mentioned in three of their five total Homeric occasionsin the DA (Il 5898 8478ndash80 14274279 15225) indicates nothing whatsoever forthey appear consistently in the Iliad in the context of divine strife and contention

They begin with the κεστς of Aphrodite (Il 14214ndash17)which ldquoseems to be oriental in a particular wayrdquo and which is de-scribed as having various qualities appropriate to Aphrodite fash-ioned or present on it (ττυκτο 14215) including φιλτης cμεροςeαριστFς and indeed θελκτIρια πντα89 It has long been knownthat a description of a lsquosaltirersquo around the chest (or a girdle of somesort around the waist)90 is a typical feature in the iconography ofIshtar Ashtarte Atargatis Aphrodite from early in the thirdmillennium BC91 and several scholars have enthusiastically en-dorsed and developed Burkertrsquos rather bald statement

For instance starting from the indistinct nature of these qual-ities and their presence on the κεστς Faraone argues that magicalspells from the Neo-Assyrian period (c 1000 BC) offer the mostsuggestive parallel for an item which increases the (not only sexu-al) attractiveness of the wearer as he or she attempts to get some-thing out of the addressee so to speak The way he links this to theDA is however all rather indirect

[Herersquos] prayers to Aphrodite and Sleep are perhaps connected withthe other religious overtones of the scene on Mt Ida which s eems toreflect aspects of the hερς γμος of Zeus and Hera Perhaps a prayer


as illustrations of what happens to those who oppose Zeus which concords per-fectly with Hesiodrsquos picture as ldquoan older generation of gods no longer active inthe worldrdquo (West [as above n 66] ad Theog 133 200)

89) Burkert 1992 93 and n 18 (not in 1984 ~ 2003 38 and n 44 [= 2004 32and n 44]) (all as n 3) refers to C Bonner ΚΕΣΤΟΣ ΙΜΑΣ and the saltire ofAphrodite AJP 70 (1949) 1ndash6 and Faraone (as n 3) esp 220ndash9 both of whom aremuch more cautious about both the fact and the time of any Near Eastern inheri-tance cf Bonner (as above) 6 ldquo[t]he argument for identifying the κεστς hμς withthe saltire of the ancient goddess of fecundity deserves to be considered no more isclaimed for itrdquo Faraone (as n 3) 240 ldquo[s]uch direct influence is however more dif-ficult to document when we shift from the rich archaeological record to the paltryremains of early Greek literature and mythrdquo id 241 ldquowe have no way of provingconclusively that the Near Eastern material was borrowed by the Greeks during theeighth century or for that matter at any particular point in time Although my guess would be that these rituals were in fact borrowed at some point from theolder and more sophisticated societies of the Near East there is simply no way toprove it or to disprove a competing claim that such magical rituals evolved inde-pendently in many traditional societies in the circum-Mediterranean basinrdquo

90) Cf Janko (as n 2) ad Il 14214ndash17 184ndash5 for discussion of the nature andappearance of the κεστς

91) Bonner (as n 89) 1ndash3 F Brenk Aphroditersquos girdle No way to treat alady CB 54 (1977) 17ndash20 Faraone (as n 3) 220ndash9 also Janko (as n 90)

similar to Herarsquos prayer to Aphrodite used in conjunction with theκεστς comprised a traditional ritual performed by newly-wed bridesto ward off any future discord in their marriage Such a ritual may i t -s e l f have been borrowed from the east for scholars have long sus-pected Near Eastern influence in Greek celebrations of this sacredwedding92 [my emphasis]

The caution in this language is warranted for Faraone attempts toread a ritual or religious lsquoUrrsquo-narrative beneath a series of Homer-ic features which are not in themselves unparalleled or remark-able93 Secondly each step in the process is deeply conjectural Amay be linked with B which may be linked with C and so on soit is no surprise when he associatively invokes the lsquootherrsquo NearEastern feature of the episode namely the cosmogonic Okeanos94

without the support of which his case can hardly be consideredpersuasive

But perhaps the most important reason why this is so may befound once more through considering the Greek context Faraoneargues that the qualities present on the κεστς are inherent in theitem which would render it a magic amulet of the sort one finds inthe Near East95 Yet the endowing of an item with qualities can bewidely observed in the early epic art of ekphrasis as Faraone him-self points out alluding to the presence ρις 13λκI and ωκI (andthe Gorgonrsquos head) on the αγς (Il 5740ndash1) and (more purely pic-torial) ρις Κυδοιμς and ΚIρ on Achilleusrsquo shield (Il 18535) or


92) Faraone (as n 3) 229 It is only fair to note the caution with which he ex-presses his general conclusions (above n 89) though his language about the κεστςsometimes approaches certainty about derivation cf below n 94

93) For the lsquoprayer-likersquo language of Herersquos request to both Aphrodite andHypnos e g cf Thetisrsquo request to Zeus (Il 1500ndash16) Similarly speculative isJ OrsquoBrien The Transformation of Hera A Study of Ritual Hero and the Goddessin the Iliad (Boston 1994) chs 4 and 5 though she links these features with Myce-naean and Archaic cultic narratives

94) Faraone (as n 3) 229 ldquo[t]he suggestion of influence i s g rounded in theimportant fact that it is uniquely here (in all early Greek literature) that Oceanusand Tethys appear as the progenitors of the gods In any event it need not surpriseus to find a Near Eastern form of erotic magic in a section of the poem which be-trays other important hallmarks of such influencerdquo [my emphasis] id 242 ldquotheHomeric κεστς is embedded in an episode of the Iliad which betrays severalhallmarks of d i r ec t Near Eastern influencerdquo [my emphasis]

95) Cf also West (as n 3) 383ndash4 ldquoThe idea that the love-goddess wears theseabstractions about her body is a striking one hardly typical of Greek theology orpoetic fancyrdquo

Γοργ Δεμος and Φβος on Agamemnonrsquos (Il 1136ndash7)96 Thoughthe depiction of actual figures in these last two cases is not the samething as the presence of those qualities appropriate to Aphroditersquospower certainly the figures on the αγς which is also worn (or car-ried) by the deity97 correspond to the qualities which the holderwishes both to possess and arouse in the character(s) seeing them98

Note that Athene (Il 5740ndash1 18203ndash5 Od 22297) and Apollo(Il 15229ndash30 15308ndash11 2420ndash1) deploy this item (for a range ofpurposes) usually with at least the tacit permission of its ownerZeus (Il 4167ndash8) In all these ways the αγς is an excellent com-parandum for Aphroditersquos magical love-strap99 and providesGreek epic precedent for a divinely-made and worn item to be con-ceived and described in this way

Furthermore some type of strap is also as both Brenk andBielefeld point out a feature in personal decoration from the Mi-noan period right into the Geometric age100 while the word itself


96) Cf also [Hes] Aspis 154ndash597) Cf Janko (as n 2) ad Il 15308ndash11 261 G S Kirk The Iliad A Com-

mentary Volume 1 Books 1ndash4 (Cambridge 1985) ad Il 2446ndash51 161ndash2 J Lataczet al Homers Ilias Gesamtkommentar Band 2 2 2 Gesang (Munich 2003) adIl 2446bndash454 130

98) The common effect of its deployment in battle is to rout (cf Φβος andωκI Il 5749ndash40) the opposing side (cf Il 15318ndash27 Od 22297ndash9) just as theκεστς is assumed to inspire the feelings of love in its audience

99) It should also be pointed out that the αγς seems to have an Indo-Eu-ropean heritage for PIE aig- or aik- denotes the oak the Thunder Godrsquos tree cfP Friedrich Proto-Indo-European Trees (Chicago 1970) 132ndash3 133ndash49 M van derValk LfgrE 253ndash5 at 253 G Nagy Perkuacutenas and Perun in M MayrhofferW Meid B Schlerath and R Schmitt (eds) Antiquitates IndogermanicaeGedenkschrift fuumlr Hermann Guumlntert (Innsbruck 1974) 113ndash32 esp 122ndash8 T VGamkrelidze V V Ivanov Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans A Recon-struction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture (Berlin1995) 527ndash31 West (as n 20) 240 242 248 250 267 n 96 The Thunder God (fromPerkuacutenas to Thor) is also associated with goats in a number of traditions leadingM L West Hesiod Works and Days (Oxford 1978) 366ndash8 384 to propose thatZeusrsquo epithet αγοχος conventionally interpreted as lsquoaegis-bearerrsquo originallymeant something like lsquogoat riderrsquo though Janko (as n 2) ad Il 1518ndash31 230 ex-plains it as lsquodriver holder of the thunderboltrsquo The line of development is not clearbut the Indo-European context provides several possible lines of enquiry withwords from this stem being linked variously with the godrsquos conveyance weaponryand natural symbols

100) Cf E Bielefeld Schmuck (Archaeologia Homerica I C) (Goumlttingen1968) 17ndash18 56ndash7

has a good Greek etymology (lt κεντω)101 and even appears in theHomeric compound πολυκεστς (Il 3371) None of this decisive-ly rules out a Near Eastern inheritance or borrowing but given theassimilation of this item into its Greek context (and its own prob-able Indo-European heritage) one cannot argue that it is a recentadaptation which the Homeric poet is trying to fit into a new set-ting

Secondly Burkert suggests that Zeusrsquo catalogue of his lovers(Il 14315ndash28) ldquohas its counterpart in Gilgameshrsquos enumeration ofthe lovers of Ishtarrdquo102 Yet the contexts and purposes of these twocatalogues are entirely different whilst Zeus lists his previous affairs to illustrate his current desire for Here Gilgamesh enumer-ates to an eager Ishtar her previous lovers and their rather unfor-tunate fates as reasons for him not to become involved with her(SBV 627ndash310)103 As such a much better comparison in Greekepic would be Kalypsorsquos list of goddesses with mortal lovers whohave come to a bad end (Od 5118ndash29) but even then it is not aprecise parallel for the Gilgamesh passage since Kalypso com-plains about the preclusive attitude of the male gods in preventingor punishing such episodes whilst Gilgamesh is refusing to get in-volved in the type of action demanded

Perhaps however it is quibbling to ask that the parallel be soprecise rather than seeking a common principle behind the pas-sages as West does

[t]hey have in common the principle of collecting together a number ofseparate mythical events of a particular type and ordering them in a series104

But this is true of and basic to all early Greek epic poetry on thisparticular theme alone and aside from Kalypsorsquos list consider theconcluding catalogues of the Theogony (886ndash1022) Odysseusrsquo cat-


101) P Chantraine κεντω Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque(Paris 21999) 515 also H Nordheider κνσαι LfgrE 1381 W Beck κεστς LfgrE1391

101) Burkert 1992 93 (not in 1984) ~ 2003 38 (= 2004 32) (all as n 3) cfalso 1992 93 n 18 (= 1984 95 n 13) though here Burkert links the catalogue withthe Near Eastern antecedents of the Dione episode from Iliad 5

103) Gilgamesh cited according to the numeration and translation of Dalley(as n 12)

104) West (as n 3) 384 His purpose in invoking parallels is slightly differentfrom Burkertrsquos as we shall see cf below pp 292f 301f

alogue of heroines (Od 11235ndash327) and of course the HesiodicCatalogue of Women which (though dated to the 6th century) ob-viously depends on much older stories105 If Gilgamesh influencedGreek epic on this point and there is to my mind no compellingreason to believe this then it must have happened at a very earlydate indeed for the catalogue form on every level has been com-pletely integrated into that tradition and provides one of its mostbasic structural imperatives

Much the same point is to be made about the last of Burkertrsquossupplementary cases Herersquos cosmic oath by Earth Heaven andStyx which she makes on Zeus waking and threatening her withserious damage (Il 1536ndash8) and which is in fact paralleled in sev-eral Near Eastern traditions

It is prec i s e ly such a cosmic formula which concludes the enumera-tion of divine witnesses in the only Aramaic treaty text which has sur-vived from the eighth century lsquoHeaven and earth the deep and thesprings day and nightrsquo106 [my emphasis]

One wonders what the word ldquopreciselyrdquo is doing here107 for thedifferences between these texts are tremendous Firstly the Iliadicformula i s the list of divine witnesses ndash not the conclusion of alarger list Secondly how is Styx a parallel for ldquothe deep and thespringsrdquo and what of the absence of ldquoday and nightrdquo in the Iliador the fact that Here goes on (Il 1539ndash40) to swear by their mar-riage bed Perhaps more importantly the lsquoparallelrsquo utterly disre-gards the dynamics of the oath in Greek epic which is one of themost well-recognised typical scenes in Homeric poetry108


105) Cf West (as n 16) 125ndash71 One must also e g consider the Apologoias lsquoseparate mythical events of a particular type [ordered] in a seriesrsquo cf espG W Most The Structure and Function of Odysseusrsquo Apologoi TAPA 119 (1989)15ndash30 S Tracey The Structures of the Odyssey in I Morris B B Powell (eds) ANew Companion to Homer (Leiden 1997) 360ndash79

106) Burkert 1992 93ndash4 and n 19 (= 1984 90 and n 19) ~ 2003 38 and n 46(= 2004 32 and n 46) (all as n 3)

107) ldquopreciselyrdquo Burkert 1992 93 = 2004 32 ldquoebenrdquo 2003 32 = 1984 90 (allas n 3)

108) Cf W Arend Die typischen Szenen bei Homer (Berlin 1933) 122ndash4Janko (as n 2) ad Il 14271ndash9 194ndash5 For material on oaths in Archaic literature(and more generally) A Sommerstein et al The Oath in Archaic and ClassicalGreece (httpwwwnottinghamacukclassicsoaths) (Nottingham 2004ndash7) is aninvaluable resource cf also West (as n 20) 199ndash200 for Indo-European parallels

This typicality opens up several avenues First of all Herersquosoath by Gaia Ouranos and Styx is repeated verbatim in theOdyssey (5184ndash6) and again in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (85ndash6)109 Unless we propose a stemmatic relationship or that they areall drawing on the same Near Eastern exemplar then the concaten-ation of these three figures in this context is a traditional Greekone Secondly Gaia and Ouranos are also coupled in another oathfrom the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (334ndash6)110 this time togetherwith the Titans111 whilst the formulaic expression used in all fourof these oaths (γαα κα- ορανς ερ+ς `περθε) is also found out-side an oath context (Theog 702)112 Thirdly the invocation of Styxis not only foreshadowed by Hypnosrsquo request that Here swear bythis river (Il 14271ndash4)113 but her typical presence in such oaths114

which is of course justified by her description in Hesiod (Theog383ndash403 775ndash806)115

So once more the motif is thoroughly embedded in its Hel-lenic epic context though again this need not imply some hermet-ically sealed culture Indeed Burkert et al make it clear that thesesorts of oaths are found in a large number of separate Near East-ern traditions including the Aramaic Hebrew and Sumerianstretching from the late Bronze Age to the Archaic period and later116 We would do better to think of the broad tradition con-


109) Cf A Heubeck S West and J B Hainsworth A Commentary onHomerrsquos Odyssey Volume I Introduction and Books IndashVIII (Oxford 1988) ad Od5184 271 (Hainsworth)

110) And as West (as n 3) 385 points out in Deuteronomy (426 30193128) Itrsquos not hard to see such a natural and common duality arising in the contextof an oath

111) Styxrsquos replacement by the Titans presumably has something to do withthe fact that Herersquos oath there concerns the overthrow of Zeus in which contextStyx Zeusrsquo earliest ally in the Theogony was not particularly useful

112) Cf also Theog 838ndash9 for an expansion of the formula113) Cf below p 296f on Westrsquos treatment of this episode114) Aside from Il 1537ndash8 (= Od 5185ndash6 HHAp 84ndash6) cf HHDem

259ndash61 HHHerm 519115) Cf West (as n 66) ad locc 272ndash6 371ndash8 For other concatenations cf

Il 3276ndash9 (Zeus Helios Gaia rivers and lsquothose aboversquo who punish those whomake false oaths) Il 19258ndash60 (Zeus Ge Helios Erinues)

116) Cf esp M Weinfeld The Common Heritage of Covenantal traditions inthe Ancient World in L Canfora M Liverani and C Zaccagnini (eds) I trattati nelmondo antico Forma ideologia funzione (Rome 1990) 175ndash91 esp 190ndash1 (with fur-ther references) for their widespread diffusion in the ancient worlds both east and west

text and significance of Mediterranean civilisation as a wholerather than the DArsquos direct copying from one or more lsquosourcesrsquo

In concluding this section and my critique of Burkertrsquos treat-ments of the DA it should be remembered that the three parallelsdiscussed above are of secondary importance to the divine lot andthe cosmogonic Okeanos if those features cannot show the DA tobe an lsquoorientalrsquo episode the supplementals are unlikely to do thejob Nonetheless by themselves they are hardly compelling evi-dence that the Homeric poet was under more or less direct NearEastern influence in his composition of the DA As with the divinelot the typicality of these features within the context of earlyGreek epic implies evolution in an Hellenic tradition increasing toprobability the likelihood that any such adaptation occurred solong before the Homeric poet as to have become for all intents andpurposes a native element Add to this the need to avoid exagger-ated or misidentified parallels and it becomes clear that Burkertrsquoslsquohardrsquo117 orientalism is too blunt a tool adequately to capture thecomplexities of the early epic tradition

4 Miscellanea Orientalia (West)

Aside from several points shared with Burkertrsquos treatments(and referred to in the footnotes above) Westrsquos monumental EastFace of Helicon adds quite a few more parallels for our considera-tion118 However although he concludes that the Iliad poet was familiar with a certain recension of Gilgamesh he is generallymuch more cautious than Burkert in explaining similarities be-tween the DA and the texts of ancient Near East

[i]t is not that the Greek poet is drawing capriciously from models indifferent countries it is rather that there is a broad stream of interna-tional tradition the present evidence for which is somewhat fragment-ed119


117) This term coined on the analogy of lsquohardrsquo and lsquosoftrsquo oralism (or lsquoPar-ryismrsquo) denotes the practice of using Near Eastern sources as more or less directlsquoQuellenrsquo for the early Greek epic texts cf below pp 292f 301f for Westrsquos lsquosoftrsquoorient alism

118) West (as n 3) 382ndash5119) West (as n 3) 401 This has long been a characteristic of his treatments

of Near Eastern literature cf id (as n 66) 14 ldquo[The Theogonyrsquos] contents are un-

This welcome qualification is unavoidable given the enormousrange of Westrsquos comparanda which range from the SumerianDescent of Ishtar and Gilgamesh to the Akkadian Atrahasis theHebrew bible and Egyptian stories of the Middle Kingdom Sincetherefore West is not trying to make a case for more or less directderivation of the DA from a Near Eastern text or texts120 he placesless weight on any single parallel and is not really concerned withthe question of how these similarities arose121 Indeed one wondersin many cases what the purpose of the parallel is beyond makingthe very general ndash and indisputable ndash point that ancient Greek poetsused many of the same motifs as poets in a number of culturesaround the Mediterranean basin from the Bronze Age onwards

Nonetheless the kind of criticisms directed earlier againstBurkert can also be applied here firstly because his conclusionsabout the DA are invoked with approval but also because Westrsquosarguments are essentially associative in nature Though there are nomore isolating points he still deploys a lsquoParallelismusrsquo which over-plays similarities with Near Eastern features to the same extent itunderplays the position of the feature within ancient Greek epicTherefore each of his parallels needs to be examined just as thosediscussed earlier But now to the specifics


mistakably Greek or at least hellenized the most reasonable view is thattheogony was a traditional genre with a long history before Hesiodrdquo For the lsquohardrsquoconclusion about the Iliad and Gilgamesh cf West (as n 3) 401 ldquo[b]ut in the caseof Achilles we are faced with the inescapable fact of a special relationship with oneparticular oriental text the Gilgamesh epic The parallels are too numerous and spe-cific to allow of another explanation We can even say what recension of the Gil-gamesh epic it must have beenrdquo Like Burkert (cf above n 12) Westrsquos methods andconclusions are enjoying public currency

120) For a similar conclusion about the Hittite Song of Release cfM Bachvarova The Eastern Mediterranean Epic tradition from Bilgames and Akkato the Song of Release to Homerrsquos Iliad GRBS 45 (2005) 131ndash54 esp 153 ldquoal-though Greek epic could have had the opportunity to draw on Anatolian versionsof Mediterranean epic there is no reason to assume that Homer or one of his an-cestors directly imitated the Song of Release any more than we should assume thatthey directly imitated a version of Gilgamesh preserved for us All of these songsare drawing on a wider tradition of which only a few examples are preservedwhether from the Mycenaean period or from the Archaic periodrdquo

121) Though he devotes the last chapter of the East Face to the question itis of course necessary that he close with a disclaimer about the processes hypothe-sised which are in any case of secondary importance for his purpose cf belowp 301f

To begin with the scene of Herersquos preparations for the DA(Il 14161ndash86) ldquostands in a well-established oriental literary tradi-tionrdquo122 on which West says

Just as (Greek and NE traditions) only register significant nights sothey only attest to significant dressing There is one particular contextcommon to the Mesopotamian Hurro-Hittite and Greek traditionsin which this occurs namely when a goddess dresses and adorns her-self in order to meet her lover or seduce or impress someone This goesback to the Sumerian cult of Inanna and Dumuzi123

Regardless of the many external parallels the toilet in question is anarrative pattern of some frequency in early Greek epic poetryaside from Herersquos preparations consider the beautification ofPenelope (Od 18192ndash7) of Aphrodite (Od 8362ndash6 HHAphr58ndash66) either Aphrodite and or Helen before the seduction ofParis (Kypria frs 4 and 5 Bernabeacute) and Pandora (Theog 573ndash84WD 63ndash8) This multiplicity of examples and their essential struc-tural similarity argues for a typical lsquoseductionrsquo scene the femaleequivalent of the herorsquos arming sequence one of the earliest recog-nised tools in the oral poetrsquos inventory and so something which is(again) thoroughly assimilated and integrated within a Greek con-text124 If Hellenic epic copied or adapted this motif from a NearEastern tradition this happened well before Homer for whosescene(s) the invocation of Near Eastern parallels explains little

Next Herersquos125 promise of an Hephaistian footstool and chairto Hypnos (Il 14238ndash41) is paralleled in Ugaritic epic (terminusante quem 1180 BC) where Baal instructs Kothar to make a seatand footstool in order to win the support of Athirat The passagesare indeed very close for they combine divine bribery and the na-ture of the gift viz a chair and footstool made by the craftsmangod Again however the similarity is not quite exact for the gift ispromised but not delivered in the Greek text126 because Hypnos


122) West (as n 3) 382123) West (as n 3) 204124) Cf N Forsyth The Allurement Scene a Typical Pattern in Greek Oral

Epic Classical Antiquity 12 (1979) 101ndash20125) Not Aphroditersquos as West (as n 3) 384 says126) Hypnosrsquo refusal of the gift is also well-paralleled in Homer cf e g

Il 9379ndash87 19145ndash53 (though the offer there is actually enforced) 24429ndash31 Od2260ndash7 For other inappropriate gift-offers in the Iliad cf Kelly (as n 25) sect 147280ndash1

is after a nymph instead More importantly the association be-tween these two items of furniture is extremely common in Homer-ic epic127 whilst there is even a direct parallel in the Odyssey forsomeone making a fine chair and adding a footstool to the package(Od 1955ndash8 τ7ι παρ4 μν κλισην πυρ- κτθεσαν 6νθrsquo xρ φζε δινωτν λφαντι κα- ργFρωι ν ποτε τκτων ποησrsquo κμλιοςκα- lπ θρ7νυν ποσ-ν Xκε προσφυrsquo ξ ατ7ς) In that case thecraftsman is the otherwise unknown Ikmalios128 but in a divinecontext who else should construct the chair but Hephaistos Hisrole is also suggested by his relationship with Here who elsewhereexhibits a powerful influence over him129 whilst making such anoffer to an interlocutor in order to secure adherence is extremelycommon130 All of these factors lead me to suggest that indepen-dent generation of the same motif is as likely an explanation as evena shared inheritance

Thirdly it may well be true that the motif of the ldquochief godrsquosanger on discovering that his plans have been thwartedrdquo131

(Il 14256) occurs several times in Atrahasis (and other Near East-ern texts) yet outbursts on this basis from frustrated gods ndash and notjust the chief ndash are a dime a dozen in Greek epic as West notes132


127) Cf Il 18389ndash90 (Thetis received by He pha i s tos ) Od 1130ndash14136 10314ndash15 = 10366ndash7 (1131~10314 = 10366) 1955ndash8 (κλιση) For thelink between a θρ7νυς and ελαπινζω cf Od 17409ndash10

128) Cf J A Russo M Fernaacutendez-Galiano and A Heubeck A Commen-tary on Homerrsquos Odyssey Volume III Books XVIIndashXXIV (Oxford 1992) ad loc77ndash8 (J A Russo) citing the arguments of L Lacroix that Ikmalios (perhaps derivedfrom κμς lsquosweatrsquo and referring to glue) was ldquothe earliest Greek furniture crafts-manrdquo

129) He is summoned to battle in the Theomachy by Here (Il 21330ndash42)who also calls him off (367ndash76) and he rescues the worsening situation betweenZeus and Here in their opening confrontation (Il 1571ndash94 cf also 1518ndash24) re-minding his mother of a previous occasion when he came to her defence and wascast out of heaven for his pains This paradigm probably gave rise to the story of asecond fall (Il 18394ndash9 cf M Edwards The Iliad A Commentary Volume VBooks 17ndash20 [Cambridge 1991] ad Il 18394ndash409 192ndash3) where their relationshipis considerably less rosy

130) Cf e g Il 8289ndash91 10212ndash17 10304ndash7 24429ndash31 also Kelly (asn 25) sect 147 280ndash1

131) West (as n 3) 180 n 37 also 385 for Enlil angry at the survival of men(and above n 52)

132) Cf also above p 272f for Westrsquos similar argument about Poseidonrsquoscomplaint in Il 15184ndash95

A cursory list would include Zeusrsquo reactions to Prometheusrsquo de-fence of mankind (WD 53ndash9 Theog 565ndash70) and his gτεροζIλωςdivision (Theog 542ndash61) Herersquos fury at Zeus because of his ap-parent opposition to their previous agreement to destroy Troy(Il 424ndash9) which is also at the root of Poseidonrsquos behaviour inIl 13ndash15 where he threatens open conflict should the plan not befulfilled (Il 15212ndash17) and Apollorsquos anger at Telphouse for her de-ception (HHAp 375ndash87) Furthermore Athene avoids helpingOdysseus explicitly in order to avoid Poseidonrsquos wrath lest heknow that she has thwarted him (Od 6328ndash31 13341ndash3) whicheventuality Zeus himself seems to feel some reluctance to bringabout (Od 168ndash79) When Here remonstrates with Zeusrsquo bitterstatements about the re-emergence of Achilleus on these terms(Il 18360ndash7) the theme of closely and jealously guarded divineplans seems to be buried deep within the conventions of the epicand the motivations of its divine characters

Fourthly West notes that one deity making another swear anoath (Il 14270ndash82) is found also in Atrahasis (2383ndash8)

The injured innocence of [Enkirsquos] response (viz to a demand for anoath from Ellil) may r eca l l that of Hera when she swears a solemnoath to Zeus that it is not through any intention of hers that Poseidonhas been attacking the Trojans and helping the Achaeans it must havebeen his own idea133 [my emphasis]

The qualification in Westrsquos language is warranted for the parallelis just not that close Enki is refusing to swear an oath for whichEllil has asked (utterly unparalleled in divine contexts in earlyGreek epic) whilst Here proffers one to Zeus entirely unsolicitedNor is it much closer to Hypnosrsquo request to Here for the statusof the gods involved is inverted and Here is readily persuaded togive the oath because she is after all guaranteeing thereby a sug-gestion she herself had made (Il 14267ndash9) Aside from this con-sider also the importance and pervasiveness of oaths among thegods in early Greek epic134 There are the direct parallels of Heredemanding an oath from Zeus in Agamemnonrsquos parable of Ate


133) West (as n 3) 384 with swift reference to ldquopp 181rdquo (sic) from which thefollowing quote is taken though there he discusses only Herersquos oath to Zeus atIl 1536ndash46

134) Cf also above pp 290ndash292 and n 108 for my response to Burkertrsquosversion of this argument specifically about Herersquos oath at Il 1536f

(Il 19108ndash13)135 or Odysseus (though not a god of course) ex-tracting one from Kalypso (Od 5177ndash91) and another (on Her-mesrsquo advice) from Kirke (Od 10342ndash6) Delos from Leto(HHAp 79ndash90) and Apollo from Hermes (HHHerm 518ndash23)but we also find deities offering unsolicited oaths when they areunder threat Here to Zeus (Il 1536ndash46) Skamandros to Here(Il 21373ndash6) Hermes to Apollo (HHHerm 274ndash7) and so on Ifthis pattern is inherited from the Near East and Westrsquos case is justnot strong enough to make that conclusion compelling then theresponsible party was not the poet of the Iliad for the divine oathis typical in the Greek context136 and deeply assimilated within itstradition

Fifth the very large fir tree on which Hypnos alights (Il14286ndash8) is compared by West to the biblical tower of Babel(Genesis 114) but also to the cedar in Gilgamesh whose lsquocrownpierces the skyrsquo (566) West also points out another similarly gar-gantuan fir tree at Od 5239ndash40 from which inter al Odysseusshapes his craft The fir is generally lofty in real life and in Homer(and elsewhere)137 but two developed examples in Homeric epiccannot be much of an argument for typicality Nonetheless otherphysical features are described as lsquocoming into heavenrsquo vel sim ndashan expression more commonly used with sights and soundsetc138 ndash from the pillars of Atlas which hold the earth apart (Od153ndash4) to Skyllarsquos rock which ορανν ερ+ν hκνει eξεηικορυφ7ι (Od 1273ndash4) and the combination of Pelion and Ossa


135) West (as n 3) 181 links this episode with the oath in the Akkadian De-scent of Ishtar (c 1100 BC) which Ereshkigal is made to swear unwittingly aboutallowing Ishtar out of the Underworld (Dalley [as n 12] 158) Again however theparallel is not that strong for the characters and circumstances are different and thenumber of Greek comparanda for requesting an oath when taken together with theduplicitous nature of the relationship between Zeus and Here in early Greek epicmake it unlikely that an external source is required to explain the origin of Herersquostrick here For another example of her interference in the birth of one of Zeusrsquo (illicit) children cf HHAp 95ndash106

136) Cf above n 108137) Cf Il 5560 J OrsquoSullivan λτη B LfgrE 513ndash14 also S Fellner Die

Homerische Flora (Vienna 1897) 44 ldquo[i]n der That wird sie (λτη) bis 57 m hoch rdquo It seems to be common in special contexts as the weapon of the Lapithai andKentauroi (Aspis 188ndash90) and abode of the nymphs (HHAphr 264) For a sum-mary treatment of Homerrsquos trees cf E S Forster Trees and Plants in Homer CR50 (1936) 97ndash104

138) Cf Kelly (as n 25) sectsect103ndash103a 212ndash14 also sect 206 357ndash8

(Od 11316ndash17) Such features are invoked exclusively in a divinecontext where enormousness is a good and common thing and sothe generation of the motif is once more plausible within theGreek context Finally the very notion of the lsquoworld treersquo so tallthat its branches reach into the sky or heaven is such a commonone in so many different traditions (and evidenced in the Indo- European tradition in the Norse Ash of Yggdrasil)139 that it wouldbe unwise to use the motif for evidence of even the most indirectNear Eastern influence

As for Westrsquos sixth case the similarity between the simile atJoel 25 and Il 14394ndash401 a comparison of the texts reveals somerather notable differences

As with the noise of chariots οJτε θαλσσης κ_μα τσον βοαι ποτ- they dance on the mountain tops χρσον

ποντθεν eρνFμενον πνοι7ιΒορω λεγειν7ι

as with the noise of a flame of fire οJτε πυρς τσσος γ ποθι βρμος devouring the stubble αθομνοιο

οJρεος ν βIσσηις Kτε τrsquo fρετο καιμεν `λην

like a mighty host drawn up οJτrsquo Oνεμος τσσον γε περ- δρυσ-ν for battle140 lψικμοισιν

gtπFει Kς τε μλιστα μγα βρμεται χαλεπανωνKσση Oρα Τρων κα- 13χαιEν 6πλετο φωνδεινν υσντων Kτrsquo 6πrsquo λλIλοισιν ρουσαν

In these two similes the comparison is being made to differentthings (dancing in the Hebrew text battle[-shouting] in the Greek)and to different groups (one in the Hebrew two in Homer) Sec-ondly there is no mention of chariots in the Greek text which usesmany more similes Thirdly the Hebrew does not link the fire withthe mountain tops as Homer does with the mountain glades inIl 14396ndash7 Instead the location of the fire in Joel is actually partof the main narrative (lsquothey dance on the mounta in tops rsquo)and so separated from the second simile concerned with fire (lsquoaswith the noise of a flame of fire devouring the stubblersquo) This is not


139) Cf West (as n 20) 345ndash7 also e g M Eliade Shamanism ArchaicTechniques of Ecstasy (New York 1964) 269ndash74

140) Joel is quoted as in West (as n 3) 384

such a close parallel after all Consider also that such cumulatedsimiles are typical in Homeric narrative and so a traditional fea-ture141 as is the image of a fire in the hills142 and the location ofsimile activity οJρεος ν βIσσηις (Il 14397)143 Inheritance eveninfluence on this point is most unlikely

Similarly explicable i e primarily within the lsquoGleichnistypikrsquoof Greek epic is the simile describing Herersquos journey (Il 1580ndash3)Westrsquos severely qualified144 seventh case for comparison of jour-neys to dreams and or thought is well exampled in early Greekepic145 and usually confined to the journeys of deities with thespecial abilities of the Phaiakian ship in the Odyssey not beingmuch of an exception given their somewhat ambiguous status onthe margins of human society The Egyptian story by contrastuses the simile in the mouth of Sinuhe to explain to the Pharaohwhy he had fled Egypt The differences between the examples aswell as the themersquos traditionality within the Greek setting surelyrender it unlikely that the image is derived directly or indirectlyfrom this Egyptian text or indeed any other

Eighth the mission pattern for Herersquos despatch to Olymposis apparently found in Akkadian epic but West has slightly mis-characterised the Homeric passage

[t]he father of the gods tells god B to fetch god C who is then sent asa messenger with instructions for god D146

However in the DA Zeus sends Here (B) to fetch Iris and Apol-lo (Ca and Cb) each of whom is then despatched on separate mis-sions Iris to Poseidon (Da) and Apollo to Hektor (Db) The pat-tern is repeated in Book 24 when Zeus sends Iris (B) to summonThetis (C) to Zeus on Olympos so that he can instruct her to jour-ney to the Greek camp and give instructions to Achilleus (D)147 In


141) Cf Il 2455ndash83 for a particularly egregious example and W C ScottThe patterning of the similes in Book 2 of the Iliad in R J Rabel (ed) Approach-es to Homer Ancient and Modern (Swansea 2005) for the most recent discussion

142) Cf Il 2455ndash6 15605ndash6 20490ndash2143) Cf Il 334 1187 16634 16766 cf also Il 17283 18588 22190144) West (as n 3) 385 ldquo something of a parallel rdquo145) Cf Od 736 HHAp 186ndash7 448ndash50 HHHerm 43ndash6146) West (as n 3) 385147) One might also compare the complex interaction (Il 1072ndash179) be-

tween Agamemnon and Menelaos (Ba) and Nestor (Bb) both of whom are des -

other words of the three examples of this pattern in the Iliad twoare instructions for a mortal character In the only cited Near East-ern parallel passage ndash from the Standard Babylonian Version ofAnzu (7th c BC) ndash the pattern is confined to gods and happens once(III 40f)148 A readier explanation for these Homeric loci is thatthey are a variation of Homerrsquos usual ABC pattern in which Zeussends a god (B) directly either to another god or more usually amortal (C)149 The extra step (D) is required in the DA because ofZeusrsquo absence from Olympos i e the poetrsquos decision to focus onthe separation of Zeus from the other gods150 and in Iliad 24 be-cause Achilleus is to be afforded the signal and individual honourof being informed of the godsrsquo will by his mother151 In otherwords the particular requirements of the Homeric situations sug-gest the addition of another figure to the ABC pattern I suggestthen that the lsquoparallelrsquo with Anzu is entirely coincidental giventhat there is an excellent reason within the conventions of Greekepic for Homer to have varied his usual practice in these threeplaces

Finally there seems little point in comparing Athenersquos rebuketo Ares (on the grounds that Q νF τοι αJτως οJατrsquo κουμεν στIl 15128) with the proverbial lsquoears to hearrsquo in the Hebrewprophets because (aside from the fact that the Bible postdatesHomer) there are ready and numerous Homeric parallels for acharacterrsquos bewildering failure to use a physical facility or oppor-tunity Consider Odysseusrsquo comment that Antinoos does not showthe sense which should go with his physical form (Od 17454 πποι οκ Oρα σο γrsquo π- εPδει κα- φρνες Qσαν) or Diomedesrsquo re-buke of Agamemnonrsquos unleaderly behaviour despite the grant ofhis authority from Zeus (Il 937ndash9 σο- δ δινδιχα δEκε Κρνου


patched to fetch other heroes but the narrative only follows Nestor as he summonsOdysseus (Ca) and then Diomedes (Cb) who are then sent on the same mission tosummon others (D)

148) Cf Dalley (as n 12) 218ndash19149) Cf Il 23ndash36 469ndash104 11185ndash210 (Zeus is similarly absent from

Olympos here but Iris is always assumed to be at his beck and call cf Kelly [asn 25] sect 180 322ndash4) 16666ndash83 17544ndash73 18166ndash202 19340ndash56 22167ndash8624143ndash88 24333ndash467 Od 176ndash320 521ndash148 HHDem 314ndash24 334ndash79

150) We should also consider the individual advantages of this choice Hereis depicted as initially compliant to Zeusrsquo wishes but her arrival on Olympos stillmanages to foment Ares to an almost suicidal act of rebellion

151) Cf Il 24110ndash11 also 59ndash61 66 71ndash3

πας γκυλομIτεω σκIπτρωι μν τοι δEκε τετιμ7σθαι περ-πντων λκν δrsquo οJ τοι δEκεν K τε κρτος στ- μγιστον)152

whilst to describe a failure of this sort as possession αJτως can beseen in Glaukosrsquo rebuke of Hektor (Il 17143 Q σrsquo αJτως κλοςσθλν 6χει φFξηλιν ντα) and Artemisrsquo scolding of Apollo forhis refusal to fight (Il 21474 νηπFτιε τ νυ τξον 6χεις νεμλιοναJτως)153 Crucially Theoklymenos deploys to the suitors pre-cisely the same motif as Athene did to Ares but to the oppositeconclusion linking his own possession of these faculties directlywith his good sense (Od 20365ndash8 εσ μοι eφθαλμο τε κα- οJατακα- πδες Oμφω κα- νος ν στIθεσσι τετυγμνος οδν εικIς τος 6ξειμι θFραζε πε- νοω κακν Jμμιν ρχμενον) Again theGreek context explains the origin of this motif and so arguesagainst recent derivation from the Near East or indeed any ob-servable trace of this process whatsoever

This litany of pedantry has gone on long enough particular-ly because Westrsquos (usual) refusal to make Burkertrsquos claims of a moredirect interference or influence prevents his general conclusionsfrom being totally undermined by the type of counterargument de-ployed here Indeed it is impossible to challenge the broader formof his basic thrust that early Greek poetry is suffused with motifsand themes to be found in many other texts and cultures from awide range of periods and places and that they are all witnesses toan interlocking nexus of traditions whose contents and dynamicsare largely irrecoverable

Yet caution is required even in this lsquosoftrsquo version of contem-porary orientalism Many of the parallels are simply not closeenough to warrant the term many others can be explained as in-dependent generations of similar motifs and the remainder arguefor a very indirect form of influence in which the antiquity of anyputative inheritance has allowed the motif to be thoroughly assim-ilated to its Hellenic context This last point of course actuallyhelps to demonstrate the interrelatedness of these Mediterraneanand West Asiatic traditions so I am far from asserting that there is


152) Cf also e g Il 344ndash5 6521ndash3 (both on Parisrsquo inability to live up tohis natural gifts and position as leader of the Trojans) Od 8165ndash77 esp 176ndash7 Dςκα- σο- εGδος μν ριπρεπς οδ κεν Oλλως οδ θες τεFξειε νον δ rsquo πο -φ λις σσι (~ Il 15129b νος δ rsquo πλωλε κα- αδς)

153) Cf Il 17143 21474

no relationship to be discovered But I am not convinced that vastlists of parallels are actually that useful or illuminating withoutsome methodological consideration or categorisation of those fea-tures and the dynamics which produced them It is perhaps unfairto criticise West for not doing everything for us and the East Facewill remain an indispensible reference work for every Homeristbut his own preferences in the exercise are clear from the conclud-ing sentences of his book

The testy critic may complain that there are too many lsquomight havesrsquoand not enough indisputable lsquomust havesrsquo But mathematically rigor-ous demonstrations cannot be expected in these matters It is a ques-tion of defining and weighing possibilities and probabilities Each read-er must judge case by case which of the various situations suggestedas | favourable for transmission are merely remotely conceivable hy-potheses and which are to be admitted as historically likely to havearisen I hope to have shown that some at least fall into the latter cat-egory In the f ina l r eckon ing however the a rgument forpervas ive Wes t As i a t i c in f luence on ea r ly Greek poe t rydoes not s t and or f a l l w i th exp lana t ions o f how i t c ameabout A corpse suffices to prove a death even if the inquest is in-conclusive154 [my emphasis]

This testy critic wonders whether the analogy cannot be put to bet-ter use two corpses may bear an essential and important similar ityto one another but their deaths may well be completely unrelatedInquests remain important

5 Conclusion

In the course of this article we have encountered both lsquohardrsquoand lsquosoftrsquo forms of orientalism applied to the relationship betweenthe DA and the traditions of the ancient Near East The formerprincipally followed by Burkert seeks to use the Near Easterntexts in much the same way that e g Neoanalysts use the frag-ments of the epic cycle focusing on apparent problems or individ-ualities in the DA as evidence of the poetrsquos (or at the most a verynear ancestorrsquos) dependence on external sources The latter exem-plified in this case above all by the catalogues of West compilesoverwhelming lists of parallels from a vast range of texts in order


154) West (as n 3) 629ndash30

to show that the Homeric tradition was one of a range of interre-lated poetic traditions which flourished in Greece and the ancientNear East from the early Bronze Age into the post-classical peri-od On the arguments presented in this article Burkertrsquos strategy isindefensible while Westrsquos conclusion is so general as to render itextremely probable

Nonetheless there are several reasons to approach both de-ployments of Near Eastern material with caution Firstly whatlooks like a parallel need not be one at all as with the case of cos-mogonic Okeanos155 In order to avoid such misidentifications inthe future each feature therefore needs to be located properlywithin i t s own trad i t ion If the feature can be situated withinthe Greek context and I submit that there is nothing in the DAwhich cannot there arises in every case the possibility that the parallel is fortuitous and can be explained as well or even better byreference to the dynamics of that context as e g with the divinelot Hypnosrsquo Hephaistian stool or the divine ABCD pattern156 In-deed even when a plausible case for adaptation can be advancedthe contextualisation of the feature will suggest that any such mo-ment or process was of such antiquity that it explains very littleabout the form or function of the motif in the Homeric setting ase g with the dressing scene or the catalogue of Zeusrsquo lovers (andperhaps the divine lot)157

In short this review of the orientalist arguments on this por-tion of the poem suggests that there is no reason to believe that theDA is a foreign element within the Iliad or that it requires or evenasks for the invocation of non-Greek material in order to makesense of its narrative The communis opinio on this passage istherefore mistaken and the DA should no longer be described sim-ply as lsquoan oriental episodersquo It is certainly no more lsquoorientalrsquo andno less Homeric than any other section of the Iliad or indeed ear-ly Greek epic poetry in general

Such a conclusion might lead the reader to infer that in theopinion of the author there is no utility in invoking or even study-


155) Cf above pp 274ndash280156) Cf above (in order) pp 262ff 294f 299f157) Cf above (in order) pp 294 289f 262ff If the reader remains uncon-

vinced by the alternative explanations offered for the other features discussedabove this last qualification would still apply for the contextualisation of the fea-ture should at least have shown how meaningful it is in a Greek setting

ing the ancient Near East in an Homeric context On the contrarythere is an important purpose to comparative studies in that theycan illuminate the entirety of the poetic nexus within which theGreek epic tradition developed But we cannot use our very partialpicture of the Near Eastern traditions as an excuse for an exercisein direct ndash or even indirect ndash lsquoQuellenforschungrsquo

For all the criticisms advanced in this article it is a lastingachievement of orientalism to have shown that the Greeks were notautochthonous that many of the patterns themes and aspirationswhich strike us so powerfully about early Greek culture were partof a broader current of civilisation in the Mediterranean basinwhose roots stretch back well into the Bronze Age We can nolonger treat Hellenic culture in a vacuum but we should not forthat reason throw out every appliance hitherto at our disposal Ifbecause of our new respect for the Near Eastern traditions we donot treat the Greek texts with the respect they deserve then we runthe risk of oversimplifying them both

Warwick Berlin Adr i an Ke l ly


once struck critics as difficult or faulty could now according to thistheory be explained by reference to the fact that these motifs wereshared with or derived from the traditions of the ancient NearEast These studies have proven so successful that a recent com-panion to the Homeric poems can describe the DA straightfor-wardly as lsquoan Oriental episodersquo4 while Richard Jankorsquos excellentvolume in the Cambridge Iliad commentary constantly invokesNear Eastern material to assist the readerrsquos interpretations of thenarrative5

This article proposes to argue the opposite case but not by of-fering a radically new interpretation of the DA for it is already thebeneficiary of several extremely useful treatments6 Instead I shallproceed by subjecting to detailed scrutiny the arguments behindthe consensus view of an lsquoorientalrsquo DA I hasten to add that the pur-pose of this project is not to deny the utility of the Near Easternmaterial the lasting value of which has been established by WalterBurkert and Martin West above all but to incline the balance backtowards the Greek side of the equation7

Before engaging with the individual treatments and their ar-guments it might be helpful to offer a brief characterisation of theorientalising methods we shall encounter The first relatively un-controversial step is the identification of parallels though this isnot without its perils given that similarities can be overplayed Ofcourse in order to suggest Greek textual or cultural dependence onthe ancient Near East it is not enough simply to point out similar-ities8 To rule out the possibility that the parallel is the result of co-incidence or an independent use of the same material orientalistsdeploy two tools (1) the argument by isolation and (2) the argu-ment by association The first of these seeks to separate the featurefrom its Greek context showing that it is unusual defective or


4) S Morris Homer and the Near East in I Morris and B B Powell (eds)A New Companion to Homer (Leiden 1997) 599ndash623 602 cf also Faraone (as n 3)202 ldquoan episode which betrays several hallmarks of direct Near Eastern influencerdquo

5) Cf e g Janko (as n 2) ad Il 14200ndash7 181ndash2 ad 15183ndash97 2476) Cf e g the works cited above n 2 It is of course to be hoped that some

new insights on the DA will be offered during the course of the article but that con-clusion is the readerrsquos

7) For much the same purpose cf e g G W Most Hesiodrsquos myth of thefive (or three or four) races PCPhS 43 (1997) 104ndash27 J Haubold Greek epic aNear Eastern genre PCPhS 48 (2002) 1ndash19

8) Cf however below pp 292f 301f for the attitude of West (as n 3)












































































































































































































































































































































153) Cf Il 17143 21474




5 Conclusion


























































































































































































































































































































































153) Cf Il 17143 21474




5 Conclusion


















5 Conclusion















the babylonian captivity of homer: the case … · the babylonian captivity of homer: the case of...

Documents