Early Greek Indexicality Markers of Allusion in Archaic Greek Poetry Thomas James Nelson Trinity College University of Cambridge September 2018 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Abstract Early Greek Indexicality: Markers of Allusion in Archaic Greek Poetry Thomas J. Nelson | Trinity College | PhD | September 2018 This thesis is concerned with early Greek literary history and the nature of archaic Greek allusion. It examines how our earliest Greek poets self-consciously marked and signalled their interactions with other texts and traditions, often in a deeply antagonistic fashion. In recent years, scholars have explored how Roman poets signposted references to their predecessors through a range of relational metaphors, representing their allusions as acts of recollection, echo and theft. Yet although these readings have proved a popular and rewarding interpretative approach, such allusive phenomena are often assumed to be the preserve of the scholarly, literate and bookish climates of the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. In this study, by contrast, I highlight how these very same devices can already be detected in Archaic Greek Poetry, from Homer to Pindar, challenging any simple dichotomy between the orality of Archaic Greece and the literacy of Hellenistic Rome. After an introduction in which I lay out the objectives of my study and address the methodological difficulties of discussing allusion and intertextuality in early Greek poetry, the majority of the thesis is divided into three main sections, each of which addresses a different ‘index’ (marker/pointer) of allusion in archaic Greek epic and lyric. The first addresses what Latinists call the ‘Alexandrian footnote’: vague references to hearsay and anonymous tradition which frequently conceal specific nods to precise literary predecessors. The second focuses on poetic memory, exploring how characters’ reminiscences of events from their fictional pasts coincide with recollections of earlier literary texts and traditions. The final chapter turns to time and temporality, to explore how Greek poets both evoke and pointedly replay episodes of the literary past or future beyond their immediate narrative. Together, these three case studies demonstrate that the indexing and signposting of allusions was nothing new by the time of the Hellenistic age. What are sometimes considered distinctively learned flourishes of self-consciousness were in fact, I contend, an integral part of the literary tradition from the very start, a key feature of the grammar of allusion with which ancient audiences were already intuitively familiar. iii For my grandparents: Colin, Linda, Margaret and Derek, in memoriam Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the help, patience and encouragement of many individuals and institutions. These two pages do little to repay their support. The research was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Golden Web Foundation and the Cambridge Faculty of Classics; I am extremely indebted to all three for their financial backing. The Faculty, alongside Trinity College, also provided travel bursaries which allowed me to attend a number of international conferences, at home and abroad. For specific grants, I am grateful to both the Classical Association and the Venice International University: the former funded a very productive and enriching two-week stay at the Fondation Hardt in Geneva in August 2017 and the latter supported my participation in the Advanced Seminar in the Humanities at VIU in March 2018. For the provision of books and other material, I owe a great deal to the excellent resources and staff of the Faculty of Classics and University Libraries in Cambridge, as well as the Bodleian and Sackler Libraries in Oxford and the Institute of Classical Studies in London. Many colleagues and mentors have offered feedback, advice and inspiration along the way. Foremost among them is my supervisor, Richard Hunter, who has spent a great deal of time reading drafts and discussing my ideas. I am extremely grateful to him for his guiding hand and his remarkably prompt feedback throughout. Tim Whitmarsh, my secondary supervisor, has offered sound and valuable advice at many stages; his sharp questions have invariably helped me clarify my thinking. My thesis examiners, Renaud Gagné and Felix Budelmann, were also extremely rigorous and generous readers, helping me see where I can take this project in the future. For my formative years in Oxford, I am particularly indebted to Bill Allan, Gregory Hutchinson, Adrian Kelly, Jane Lightfoot and Alan Woolley, all of whom helped shape my approach to Classical literature. And in Cambridge and Oxford more generally, I have benefited from discussion with many other individuals, including Bruno Currie, Ingo vii viii Acknowledgements Gildenhard, Stephen Heyworth (whose Latin lectures first got me thinking about markers of allusion), Neil Hopkinson (my college adviser), Daniel Jolowicz, Henry Spelman and Chris Whitton. In addition to offering enriching discussion, many colleagues have also kindly shared unpublished work: Péter Agócs, Anne Harreau (née Clerc), Sophus Helle, Stephen Heyworth, Regina Höschele, Richard Hunter, Adrian Kelly, Rebecca Lämmle, Jason Nethercut, Évelyne Prioux, Henry Spelman, Laura Swift and Philip Hardie (who lent me his copy of Séverine Clément-Tarantino’s 2006 thesis). The graduate community in the Faculty of Classics has made the whole process far more enjoyable and supportive. The weekly graduate tea and graduate interdisciplinary seminar have been highlights of each week. Like the Homeric narrator, I cannot name every individual who has played a role, but my peers in the A Caucus deserve a special mention: Emma Greensmith, Talitha Kearey, Valeria Pace, Henry Tang, and especially Rebecca Lees, a constant support and presence in the common room and on the dance floor. Max Leventhal has also shaped my thinking considerably, with his enthusiastic encouragement and concern for the bigger picture. Beyond the Classical World, I am particularly grateful to the members of the Cambridge University Dancesport Team and XS Latin Cambridge for their camaraderie and support over many years. Again, many must go unnamed, but I owe a great deal especially to David Mallabone, an inspirational teacher and friend. Vicki Marsh and her team at HeadStart Clinics have also played a major role in keeping my body and mind going in the right direction throughout. My most heartfelt thanks of all go to my family. My parents Mark and Jacky have been incredibly supportive throughout my studies, as has my brother Matthew. Caitlin has been unstinting in her love and encouragement. And all four of my grandparents have supported and inspired me in more ways than they are aware: it is to them that this thesis is dedicated. Preface This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text The dissertation is 80,000 words. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. ix Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgements vii Preface ix Contents xi Conventions and Abbreviations xiii I. INTRODUCTION I.1. Indexicality and Allusion 3 I.1.1: Allusion: Greece versus Rome 3 I.1.2: Indexicality: Marking Allusion 5 I.1.3: The Path Ahead 16 I.2. Frameworks for Intertextuality in Early Greek Poetry 21 I.2.1: Mythological Intertextuality 26 I.2.2: Reconstructing Lost Traditions 35 I.2.3: From Myth to Text 42 II. THE PRE-ALEXANDRIAN FOOTNOTE II.1. Introduction 57 II.2. Epic Fama 59 II.2.1: The Authority of Tradition 62 II.2.2: Contesting Tradition 67 II.2.3: The Poet’s Voice 76 II.2.4: The Epic Archive 82 II.3. Lyric Fama 89 II.3.1: Traditions and Texts 90 II.3.2: Suppression and Contestation 99 II.3.3: The Poetics of Supplementation 106 II.3.4: Lyric Innovation: Faux Footnoting? 115 II.4. Conclusions 121 xi xii Contents III. POETIC MEMORY III.1. Introduction 127 III.2. Epic Recall 131 III.2.1: Intertextual Memories 134 III.2.2: Intratextual Memories 141 III.2.3: Selective Recall 145 III.2.4: Proleptic Knowledge 153 III.2.5: Mapping Epic Memory 157 III.3. Lyric Recall 161 III.3.1: Meagre Memories 163 III.3.2: Mythical Recall 165 III.3.3: Audience Knowledge 174 III.4. Conclusions 183 IV. TIME FOR ALLUSION IV.1. Introduction 187 IV.2. Epic Temporalities 191 IV.2.1: Pointers to the Past 192 IV.2.2: Poetic Déjà Vu 198 IV.2.3: Epic Epigonality 201 IV.3. Lyric Temporalities 209 IV.3.1: Once Upon a Time 209 IV.3.2: Poetic Predecessors 214 IV.3.3: Iterative Poetics 224 IV.4. Conclusions 235 V. EPILOGUE 239 V.1: Allusion: Greece and Rome 240 V.2: A Broader Perspective 243 Bibliography 249 Conventions and Abbreviations Translations Where provided, translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. In most cases, ancient names have been Latinised. Formatting Within