Τhe Upper and Τhe Under World in Homeric and Archaic

Centre for odysseanCentre studiesfor odyssean studies KentΡΟ ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙακΩΝKentΡΟ ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙακΩΝ ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ Οσ Οσ π π Ε Ε

σμ Οσ σμ Οσ Ο Ο ϊκ ϊκ κΟ κΟ The UpperThe and Upper The and Under The World Under World ά ά Ο ΕπάνωΟ κ Επάνωάι Ο κάτω κάι κΟ Ο κσμάτωΟσ κΟσμΟσ ρχ ρχ ά ά

άτω άτω Ο Ο

in homericin h andomeric archaic and a erchaicpic epic κ κ στΟ ΟμηρικστΟΟ Ο κμηρικάι τΟΟ ά κρχάάι ϊκτΟΟ ά ΕρχπΟσάϊκΟ ΕπΟσ

ι τ ι τ Ο Ο ά ά ι ι κ κ

Proceedings Proceedings ά ά Από τα ΠρακτικάΑπό τα Πρακτικά of the 13th Internationalof the 13th Symposium International on Symposiumthe Odyssey on the Odyssey Ο Ο του ΙΓ΄ Διεθνούςτου Συνεδρίου ΙΓ΄ Διεθνούς για τηνΣυνεδρίου Οδύσσεια για την Οδύσσεια Ithaca, August Ithaca,25-29, 2017August 25-29, 2017 Ιθάκη, 25-29 ΑυγούστουΙθάκη, 25-29 2017 Αυγούστου 2017 μηρικ μηρικ Ο Ο

Ο Ο στ στ Editors Editors κ Επάνω Ο κ Επάνω Ο Επιστημονική επιμέλειαΕπιστημονική επιμέλεια μeneLaos ChristoPouLosμeneLaos ChristoPouLos μΕΝΕλαΟΣ χΡΙΣτΟΠΟΥμΕΝΕλαλΟΣΟΣ χΡΙΣτΟΠΟΥλΟΣ μaChi Paϊzi-aPostoLoPouLouμaChi Paϊzi-aPostoLoPouLou • • μαχη Παϊζη-αΠΟμΣταχηΟλΟΠΟΥ Παϊζη-λΟΥαΠΟΣτΟλΟΠΟΥλΟΥ pic pic e e rchaic rchaic rchaic

he Under World Under he World Under he ... κατ᾽ ἀσφοδελὸν λειμῶνα... (κατ᾽Ὀδ. λἀσφοδελὸν 539) λειμῶνα (Ὀδ. λ 539)

issn 1105-3135 issn 1105-3135 isBn 978-960-354-510-1 isBn 978-960-354-510-1

ithaCa 2020 ithaCa 2020 a and omeric a and omeric ΙΘακη 2020 ΙΘακη 2020 h h The Upper and T and Upper The T and Upper The in in Centre for odysseanCentre studiesfor odyssean studies KentΡΟ ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙακΩΝKentΡΟ ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙακΩΝ ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ Οσ Οσ π π Ε Ε

άτω άτω Ο Ο in homericin h andomeric archaic and a erchaicpic epic κ κ στΟ ΟμηρικστΟΟ Ο κμηρικάι τΟΟ ά κρχάάι ϊκτΟΟ ά ΕρχπΟσάϊκΟ ΕπΟσ

ι τ ι τ Ο Ο ά ά ι ι κ κ

he Under World Under he World Under he ... κατ᾽ ἀσφοδελὸν λειμῶνα... (κατ᾽Ὀδ. λἀσφοδελὸν 539) λειμῶνα (Ὀδ. λ 539)

issn 1105-3135 issn 1105-3135 isBn 978-960-354-510-1 isBn 978-960-354-510-1

ithaCa 2020 ithaCa 2020 a and omeric a and omeric ΙΘακη 2020 ΙΘακη 2020 h h The Upper and T and Upper The T and Upper The in in Centre for odyssean studies

The Upper and the Under World in Homeric and Archaic Epic

Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on the Odyssey Ithaca, August 25-29, 2017

Editors μENELaos christoPouLos μachi Paϊzi-aPostoLoPouLou

ithaCa 2020 KentΡΟ ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙακΩΝ ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ

Ο Επάνω και ο Κάτω Κόσμος στο ομηρικό και το αρχαϊκό έπος

Από τα Πρακτικά του ΙΓ΄ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου για την Οδύσσεια Ιθάκη, 25-29 Αυγούστου 2017

Επιστημονική επιμέλεια μΕνΕλαοΣ χρΙΣτοπουλοΣ μαχη παϊζη-αποΣτολοπουλου

ΙΘΑΚΗ 2020

ΠΕΡΙΕΧΟΜΕΝΑ / CONTENTS

NAOKO YAMAGATA, Thetis: the Goddess Between Four Worlds 11 ATHENA KAVOULAKI, Searching One’s way In Extremis: Confluent Routes and Odyssean Otherworldly Transitions 31 Ezio Pellizer, Le char de l’arc en ciel. Changements dans l’espace et voyages fantastiques chez Homère 77 Françoise Létoublon, How to Talk About Death? 91

Constantin Antypas, Sailing to the Land of the Dead: A Passage Towards Abstraction? 117 Ariadni Gartziou-Tatti, The “Οrphic” Voyage of the Suitors’ Souls and the Role of Hermes in the Second Nekyia (Odyssey 24. 1-204) 129 Menelaos Christopoulos, Patroclus and Elpenor: Dead and Unburied 163 JONATHAN BURGESS, Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor 175 Giuseppe Zanetto, Always a Mother: Antikleia and her Son 199 Alexandra Zervou, Inter-narrativity and Game of Reception(s) in the Odyssean Nekyia 213 Athanassia Zografou, Relocating Nekyia: Textual Manipulation and Necromantic Ritual in the Roman World (Κεστός 18, 228-231 AD) 243 LAURA SLATKIN – NANCY FELSON, Exchanges in the Underworld: Odyssey 11 and 24 263 Olga Levaniouk, The Waters of the Underworld and Ino in the Odyssey 279

9 Efimia Karakantza, More Dead Than Alive; Odysseus’ Near Death, and the Re-Constitution of his Identity in the Land of the Phaeacians 315 Anton Bierl, The Phaeacians’ Last Transfer from the Under World to the Upper Word: Petrification and Crystallization between Anthropology, Narratology and Metapoetics (Odyssey 13.125-187) 333 DOUGLAS FRAME, From Scheria to Ithaca 369 MALCOLM DAVIES, From Night to Night: Apollo, Artemis and Hermes in Homer 383 JENNY STRAUSS CLAY, A Stroll Through Hesiod’s Tartarus 393 Avgi Anna Maggel, Odysseus’ Fragile Journey Through Time: An Epic Approach from Homer to Michael Longley 413

10 JONATHAN BURGESS

Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor

pon their return to the island of Circe in Book 12, Odysseus and his Ucompanions bury Elpenor by the sea and mark his tomb with his oar. The tumulus is problematic in several ways. Normally a heroic sema (lit- erally, “sign”) is designed to signal the kleos of a great hero. But Elpenor seems more comic than heroic. Odysseus describes him as young, cow- ardly, and stupid (10.552-553), and both Odysseus and Elpenor attribute his fatal fall from Circe’s roof to drunkenness (10.555, 11.610). We might sense a mock-heroic tone arising when the shade of Elpenor requests an oar-topped burial mound. This paper will resist that impulse by taking seriously Elpenor’s poetic, cultic, spatial, and colonial roles. Elpenor’s phraseology reminds us of other heroic tombs, especially Achilles’. Compare Elpenor’s request, Odysseus’ description of Elpenor’s sema, and Agamemnon’s description of Achilles’:

ἀλλά με κακκῆαι σὺν τεύχεσιν, ἅσσα μοι ἔστι, σῆμά τέ μοι χεῦαι πολιῆς ἐπὶ θινὶ θαλάσσης, ἀνδρὸς δυστήνοιο καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πυθέσθαι. ταῦτά τέ μοι τελέσαι πῆξαί τ’ ἐπὶ τύμβῳ ἐρετμόν, τῷ καὶ ζωὸς ἔρεσσον ἐὼν μετ’ ἐμοῖς ἑτάροισιν. (Od. 11.74-78)

But burn me up completely, with the gear, as much as belongs to me, and heap up a sema by the shore of the grey sea, for men of the future to learn of an unfortunate man. Accomplish these things for me and fix on the tomb an oar, with which I rowed when alive among my companions.

175 JONATHAN BURGESS

φιτροὺς δ’ αἶψα ταμόντες, ὅθ’ ἀκροτάτη πρόεχ’ ἀκτή, θάπτομεν ἀχνύμενοι θαλερὸν κατὰ δάκρυ χέοντες. αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ νεκρός τ’ ἐκάη καὶ τεύχεα νεκροῦ, τύμβον χεύαντες καὶ ἐπὶ στήλην ἐρύσαντες πήξαμεν ἀκροτάτῳ τύμβῳ εὐῆρες ἐρετμόν. (Od. 12.11-15) And at once cutting wood, where a very high promontory jutted forth, we made funeral rites, pouring down tears. But when the corpse and gear had been burnt, we heaped up a tomb, dragged up a stele, and fixed a well-fitted oar on the top of the tomb.

ἀμφ’ αὐτοῖσι δ’ ἔπειτα μέγαν καὶ ἀμύμονα τύμβον χεύαμεν Ἀργείων ἱερὸς στρατὸς αἰχμητάων ἀκτῇ ἔπι προὐχούσῃ, ἐπὶ πλατεῖ Ἑλλησπόντῳ, ὥς κεν τηλεφανὴς ἐκ ποντόφιν ἀνδράσιν εἴη τοῖς οἳ νῦν γεγάασι καὶ οἳ μετόπισθεν ἔσονται. (Od. 24.80-84) And then about [the bones] we, the holy army of the Argive spearmen, heaped up a big, faultless tomb on a jutting promontory, by the wide Hellespont, so that it would be far-seen from the sea for men who exist now and who will hereafter.

Both tombs are designed for men of the future to notice, especially sailors passing by on the sea.1 Yet there are reasons to take Elpenor seriously even beyond the profound issues of burial and the afterlife (Elpenor warns Odysseus that his unburied body would become a θεῶν μήνιμα, cause of divine wrath; 11.73). Elpenor belongs to the typology of the “Palinurus figure,” a minor character who dies in the course of a heroic voyage. The figure can serve as a doublet of the heroic protagonist, and his death may be seen as a sacrifice for the heroic undertaking. And his sepuchral sema

1. See PEARCE 1983 for the motif of tombs by the sea, including the tomb of Dolops (Apollonius Argonautica 1.585-8) and Beowulf ’s tomb by the sea for seafarers to see (Beow- ulf 2802-2808).

176 Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor has several significal functions: landmark in dangerous waters, epicenter of cult worship, and marker of territory in foreign lands. Elpenor’s burial mound fails as a sign of heroic fame because Elpenor lacks heroic status. Without that, Elpenor cannot reasonably expect his burial sema to trigger memory of him. The oar, a sema at the top of the sema, might signify his non-heroic occupation, but it does not indicate El- penor specifically, and as wood it will not last long anyway.2 Orally trans- mitted fame would be needed to enable the mound’s referentiality. It is hard to imagine local memory of the oarsman being preserved by Aeaea’s few occupants, Circe and her handmaids. Passing sailors, should there be any at the edges of the world, would not be able identify the burial mound of someone lacking a pan-Hellenic reputation.3 The futility of Elpenor’s burial mound is an extreme example of the fragile semiotics of Homeric semata. The Iliad contains many examples of sema failure: a mound’s inhabitant may be forgotten, the tomb may be abused or misused, its markings may suffer decay. Even so, Homeric heroes remain hopeful that burial semata will preserve their fame. Much effort is expended on construction of the burial mounds of Achilles and Hector in the Iliad, and in the Odyssey heroic death memorialized by a tomb is seen as infinitely preferable to drowning at sea. Despite our inclination to find Elpenor’s burial humorous, Odysseus and his men under- take his request seriously, and it should be profitable for us to do so as well.

Taking Elpenor seriously

There are multiple reasons to take Elpenor seriously. Analysts have criti- cized the death and burial of Elpenor as a redactor’s facile means to stitch

2. SOURVINOU-INWOOD 1995, 116. For sepulchral indication of vocation, cf. the trumpet and oar placed on the burial mound of Misenus (Aen. 6.233), and the axes placed on top of a tomb in an epigram attributed to Perses of Thebes (AP 7.445). For gravestone vocational iconography, see GRAY 2006. 3. See PURVES 2010, 84 on the “anonymous” nature of Elpenor’s tumulus. BURGESS 2012, 277-279, 286: Homeric Aeaea conceivably could be visited on occasion.

177 JONATHAN BURGESS

Book 11 in between Books 10 and 12, but Unitarians admire the sophis- ticated intratextual interweaving of Odysseus’ report of Elpenor’s death at the end of Book 10 (551-560), the appearance of the shade of Elpenor in Book 11 (51-80), and the burial of Elpenor at the beginning of Book 12 (8-15). The issue of Elpenor’s lack of burial is of metaphysical and cosmographical import. Burial and funeral rites allow transition between the upper and lower worlds (cf. the request for burial by the shade of Patroclus; Iliad 23.69-92). From a theological perspective, Elpenor’s request for burial is certainly not comic material. In literary terms, the detail and pathos of Elpenor’s death reminds one of the mini-biographies provided in the Iliad as the death of minor figures.4 Such minor characters are usually thought to be the product of Homeric invention, and it may be that Elpenor is non-traditional as well. But he seems to serve the major literary function of being a kind of doublet of Odysseus.5 Comparable is the Neonalyst argument that Patroclus is a doublet of Achilles.6 The extravagant funeral games and burial rites after his death seem excessive, since Patroclus is not a major figure. His funeral thus seem to foreshadow the funeral of Achil- les. We might well wonder, then, if the inappropriate tumulus of Elpenor also symbolizes something about the burial of Odysseus. The “inland journey” predicted by Tiresias offers some clues. Shortly after the appearance of the shade of Elpenor, Tiresias foresees the need of Odysseus to journey inland, apparently to propitiate Poseidon (11.121- 131). The inland journey features another oar, the one that Odysseus is to carry inland until it is mistaken for a winnowing shovel. Tiresias mandates that Odysseus is to fix the oar into the ground, just as Elpenor asks for his oar to be fixed on top of his tumulus. This might be coincidental, or it might be reflexive repetition produced by oral composition.7 But there is

4. GRIFFIN 1980, 140-143; DINTER 2005, 153-156. 5. Cf. FINLEY 1978, 71, 115-116; LOSSAU 1980, 110-112; FRANCIS 1983, 78-79, 103-106. 6. See BURGESS 2009, 72-97; at BURGESS 2001, 71-74 I rejected the argument that Patro- clus was a Homeric invention. 7. See HAINSWORTH 1976.

178 Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor much potential for intratextual semiotics between Elpenor’s burial and the “inland journey,” as has been most extensively explored by Gregory Nagy. By connecting the dots between the oars of Elpenor and Odysseus, Nagy suggests that Odysseus’ inland journey implicitly references the burial of Odysseus himself.8 My conclusions will vary in detail, but I am similarly optimistic about the complexity of Homeric poetics, including its inextri- cably synthesized duality of allusion and suppression. “Problems” in Ho- mer are often indicative of the alteration of pre-/para-Homeric myth—or of contextual real-world phenomena.

“Palinurus figures”

Elpenor represents a typological character, that of the “Palinurus figure.” The phrase refers, of course, to the helmsman of Aeneas who falls overboard to his death at the end of Book 5 of the Aeneid and reappears in Book 6 as a shade before Aeneas in the underworld, where the Sibyl predicts the erection of his tomb at Capo Palinuro.9 The “Palinurus figure” exists in other forms in the Aeneid, for example Misenus.10 Misenus dies during the voyage, appears as a shade in the underworld before Aeneas, and is buried by Aeneas at Capo Miseno. In the Aeneid, such characters spatially orga- nize the localization of Aeneas’ journey in Italy, which itself is intertwined with localization of Odysseus’ journey.11 They also play a role in the Aene- id’s extensive intertextual relation with the Odyssey. Palinurus and Misenus are reminiscent of Elpenor, but there is another Homeric model for them: Phrontis, the helmsman of Menelaus whom Nestor reports went overboard to his death by Cape Sunion (Od. 4.278-285). Menelaus’ voyage was de-

8. NAGY 1990, 212-214; cf. NAGY 2013, Hour 11. 9. For Palinurus as a doublet of Aeneas, see NICOLL 1988, 460-465. 10. Aen. 6.149ff., 184, 212-235. 11. For example, Strabo 1.2.18, 5.4.6 identifies Misenus (and Baius) as companions of Odysseus when identifying their Italian toponyms, and Odysseus as well as Aeneas was thought to have entered the underworld near Cumae (see BURGESS 2016). On localization of Odysseus’ journey, see my website “Wake of Odysseus,” .

179 JONATHAN BURGESS layed so that the Greeks could bury him at the cape, just as the voyages of Odysseus and Aeneas were delayed by the need to bury a companion.12 The “Palinurus figure” is thus a minor character on a heroic voyage, often a helmsman or rower, who dies during the voyage and is buried at eponymous cape. As Menelaos Christopoulos has demonstrated most thoroughly, helmsmen like Phrontis play an important narrative role in Homeric epic.13 Specific examples in both the Odyssey and Aeneid may be poetic inventions, but the repetitive features of their typology suggest that the figure in general is traditional.14 Besides providing moments of concise yet detailed pathos at their death, the “Palinurus figure” serves the literary functions of intratextual doubling and intertextual reception. And as a long-practicing Neoanalyst, I am tempted to see Elpenor’s variation from the norms of “Palinurus” typology as meaningful. There are extra-textual, real-word contexts of the “Palinurus figures.” Their narratives provide an etiology for landmarks and cultic activity. Notable is the cult for Phrontis at Cape Sunion, where a late 8th-century plaque was found that plausibly represents Phrontis as helmsman of a boat. If so, this is one of the earliest mythological representations in Greek iconography, one that arguably predates the Odyssey.15 The name of a “Palinurus figure,” especially when eponymously linked to a landmark, often signals nautical anxiety. Cape Misenum would seemingly mean “Cape Hateful.” Palinurus might mean “Mr. Headwind,” or perhaps “Mr. Help- ing Wind.”16 The apotropaic optimism of sailors sailing past places known

12. On the Homeric-Virgilian literary intertextuality on such figures, cf. BRENK 1984; LOSSAU 1980; ROHDICH 1985; ECKER 1990, 26-30. NICOLL 1988, 461-462 references Odysseus washed overboard at Od. 5.291ff., 12.407ff. in connection to Palinurus; in a sense, Odys- seus is also a “Palinurus” figure. Cf. Tiphys, helmsman of the Argo (Apollonius, Argonauti- ca1.105-108, 2.854-857, with KOUKOUZIKA 2016, 141-142). 13. CHRISTOPOULOS 2009. 14. LORD 1960, 168-169. 15. BURGESS 2001, 37-38, with bibliography on the cult at 205 n. 109, to which add CUR- RIE 2005, 53-54. Pausanias 10.23.2-3: Phrontis is the only name from the Odyssey in the departure of the Greeks painted on the lesche of the Cnidians at Delphi by Polygnotus. 16. Cf. McKAY 1967, 3; LOSSAU 1980, 113; AMBROSE 1980; BRENK 1984, 777-780. Martial

180 Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor for dangerous winds, currents, and rocks can be discerned in the name Phrontis, son of Onetor, “Mr. Heedful, son of Helper,” considered the best helmsman in rough wind (ὃς ἐκαίνυτο φῦλ’ ἀνθρώπων νῆα κυβερνῆσαι, ὁπότε σπέρχοιεν ἄελλαι, 3.282-283).17 Elpenor would seem to be “Mr. Hopeful,” or “man of hope.” Critics mock Elpenor for his false hopes of fame,18 but a “Palinurus figure” typically provides hope to his voyaging companions for a safe voyage. Steersmen and rowers do this through nautical skill. Those that die and are buried in the course of voyage can serve as benevolent cult figures for sailors passing by their tomb. Their very death would seem to be a beneficial sacrifice that ensures the safety of the other sailors, both within their narrative and in the real world.19 Palinurus’ death is explicitly sacrificial (unum pro multis dabitur caput, Aen. 5.815).20 Homer’s Elpenor is not explicitly sacrificial, but there certainly is something suggestive about the character’s death. Just as Elpenor’s oar correlates to Odysseus’ oar, both planted firmly in the ground, Elpe- nor’s fall from Circe’s roof correlates to Odysseus’ descent to the Under- world, where the two meet.21 Arguably, the “sacrifice” of Elpenor ensures

3.78 provides a more comical etymological interpretation. For historical shipwrecks at Capo Palinuro, see McKAY 1967, 5; BRENK 1984, 788-791. Cf. the Argonauts beaching against wind near the tomb of Dolops at a seaside promontory (Apollonius Argonautica 585-588; ἀνέμοιο παλιμπνοίῃσιν, 586). 17. See CHRISTOPOULOS 2009, 58-59. Arguably “Phrontis” and “Elpenor” are analogic in meaning; cf. Pindar P. 10.62, fr. 6b.g, the latter of which collocates ἐλπίς with φροντίς (for which SLATER 1969 gives the secondary meaning “object of one’s thought, hope”). Rel- evant to my concerns is the simile of a god providing a favorable wind to expectant sailors (ναύτῃσιν ἐελδομένοισι, Il. 7.4). 18. Cf. FRANCIS 1983, 78; KANAVOU 2015, 127-128. 19. CHRISTOPOULOS 2009, 59-62 points out that the death of the skillful helmsman Phrontis protreptically “allows” the subsequent wandering of Menelaus. 20. Cf. BRENK 1984; NICOLL 1988. 21. Homeric punning (ψύχεος ἱμείρων, 10.555; ψυχή δ’ Αἰδός δε κατῆλθεν, 10.560) indicates the catabatic connotation. Odysseus seems to sail horizontally to the Underworld, but Odysseus specifics it as a catabasis (χρειώ με κατήγαγεν εἰς Ἀΐδαο 11.164, κατέβην δόμον Ἄϊδος εἴσω, 23.252), as does the shade of Achilles (κατελθέμεν, 11.475). See further BURGESS 2016.

181 JONATHAN BURGESS

Odysseus’ safe passage to Hades and back, or even his return home.22 El- penor and his burial mound, it is true, harmonize with the typology of the “Palinurus figure” rather inexactly—he falls off a roof, not a ship, he is not the eponym of Aeaea, and the Homeric Aeaea is not a real-world location. If Elpenor is a “Palinurus figure,” why is he not fully utilized as such? Are there real-world contexts to which the Odyssey alludes/suppresses? Is Elpe- nor a pre-Homeric or non-Homeric figure whose function is downplayed by Homer, or downgraded into a comic figure? Further exploration of the functions of a “Palinurus figure” will be necessary to address such ques- tions.

Colonial Elpenor

Greek colonization of the western Mediterranean that was contempora- neous with the composition of the Odyssey is a potential context for the nostos of Odyseus.23 As Malkin has demonstrated, the nostoi that followed the Trojan War, which eventually included the journey of Aeneas, served to map the Greek mythological past onto the historical world of Greek expansion.24 Already in Hesiod’s Theogony sons of Circe and Odysseus, Agrius and Latinus, are said to rule over Etruscans among the “holy islands.” The passage has been suspected of being an interpolation, but it is at least sixth-century, and it may well organically belong to the Theog- ony.25 I take it as a hazy mainland Greek perception of Greek activity in the West from the early Archaic Age. Eventually for natives, as well as Greeks, non-Greek lands became integrated into the Greek ethnocentric conception of the Heroic past. In this context, capes serve as markers of territory.26 Their eponymity inscribed the Greek heroic past onto the pres-

22. LORD 1960, 168; SEGAL 1962, 41, 43; DOVA 2012, 3-11. 23. See BURGESS 2014a, 2015, with bibliography. 24. MALKIN 1998; see also Danek 2015, 375-376. 25. MALKIN 1998, 180-191. 26. Pseudo-Scylax 8-9 specifies Monte Circeo as the boundary between Latinia and Campania.

182 Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor ent, and often onto an originally non-Greek past. “Palinurus figures” may seem like minor characters of fluid and late local legend, but their spatial and colonial significance is quite profound. The linkage of landmarks in the western Mediterranean with mythological travellers, whatever the date of individual etiological narratives, involves the imposition of Greek culture on non-Greek lands. Once he is recognized as a type of “Palinurus figure” that includes colonial implications, Elpenor does not seem trivial or comic. His funeral mound may be puzzling in the context of the Odyssey, but it would make perfect sense as an etiological explanation of a real-world seaside landmark.27 The most obvious candidate is a different Aeaea, the one localized at Monte Circeo between Rome and Naples, where the end of the sixth century a Roman colony named after Circe, Circeii, was established.28 Monte Circeo, Capo Miseno, and Capo Palinuro lie in sequence along the western Italian coastline.29 Farther south is the rocky outcrop at Scil- la, where Scylla was localized.30 Near Monte Circeo is the promontory of Gaeta where Aeneas buried a different type “Palinurus figure,” his nurse Caeta (Aeneid 7.1-4).31 And the list of legendary “Palinurus figures” along the west coast of Italy could be extended further.32 For sailors, these capes

27. WILAMOWITZ 1884, 145, 167; MERKELBACH 1969, 204; WEST 2011, 296 with n. 50, 2014, 215, with n. 115; opposed at HEUBECK 1989, 73-74. As is apparent below, I do not favor a Black Sea localization of Elpenor’s tomb (I reject the theory of Odyssean borrowing from pre-Homeric Argonautic myth at BURGESS 2017b, 113-114). 28. Livy 1.56, Dionysius of Halicarnassus 4.63; see DE ROSSI 1973. 29. See McKAY 1967. 30. Pausanias (2.34.7) reports that the body of the Scylla who was the treacherous daughter of Nisus washed ashore here and was unburied—a Palinurus type of fate (I thank Jody Cundy for this reference). 31. See KEITH 2000, 47-48: “Her death on and burial in Italian soil at this juncture sym- bolically confirm the successful return of the Trojans to their ancient homeland in Italy, and this symbolism underwrites her corporeal assimilation into the physical features of the ter- rain of primeval Latium” (48). SKEMPIS 2014 well describes the epic’s employment of Caieta and Circe in spatial and colonial terms. 32. Other Palinurus figures: Baius, companion of Odysseus, or Baia, nurse or mother of a companion of Aeneas (Lycophron Alex. 694, Strabo 5.4.6, Serv. ad Aen. 3.444, 6.107, 9.710;

183 JONATHAN BURGESS by the sea are landmarks for direction, or signs of potential hazards.33 For the mythologically inclined, they were easy to imagine as the burial sites of minor figure from the heroic past. The localization of the journey of Odysseus that became popular in antiquity is not present in Homer’s Odyssey. In my opinion, Homer’s journey of Odysseus, located in unknown lands and often at the edges of the earth, is the original and traditional version of Odysseus’ nostos.34 The Odyssey’s cosmographical Aeaea, situated in the east near the rising of the sun, as is suitable for Circe, daughter of the sun, is certainly incompatible with an Aeaea localized at Monte Circeo. But the poet of the Odyssey would have been aware of Greek colonization in the Italian world. By this I do not mean specific knowledge of topography, but rather vague second-hand in- formation—something like the hazy, semi-mythical conception of Italy in Hesiod. Aspects of Monte Circeo by some process of displacement, allusion, or suppression may have ended up in the Homeric Odyssey. As a “Palinurus figure” who dies mid-journey, the oarsman Elpenor would fit very well into the mythologized coastline of western Italy. And as it happens, Theophrastus reports that locals pointed out a tomb of Elpe- nor to visitors at Monte Circeo:

τὸ δὲ Κιρκαῖον καλούμενον εῖναι μὲν ἄκραν ὑψηλήν, δασεῖαν δὲ σφόδρα καὶ ἔχειν δρῦν καὶ δάφνην πολλὴν καὶ μυρρίνους. λέγειν δὲ τοὺς ἐγχωρίους ὡς ἐνταῦθα ἡ Κίρκη κατῴκει καὶ δεικνύναι τὸν τοῦ Ἐλπήνορος τάφον, ἐξ οὗ φύονται μυρρίναι καθάπερ αἱ στεφανώτιδες...

see CAMERON 2004, 332); the “hero of Temesa,” a companion of Odysseus killed by natives without burial, with resulting cult (Pausanias 6.6-11; see NICHOLSON 2013), identified by Strabo (6.1.5) as Polites (Od. 10.224ff.). Analogous are the Sirens, who were localized at the Galli Islands near Capo di Sorrento (Strabo 1.2.12-13, 5.4.8, 6.1.1, 6; cf. Virgil Aen. 5.864) and whose bodies washed up on the shores near Naples, with resulting cult (Lycophron, Alex.717–38). 33. See PEARCE 1983, 111-112, referencing the voyage of the Argo. 34. BURGESS 2017b.

184 Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor

Kirkeion, as it is called, is said to be a steep cape, much-wooded, with oak, a lot of bay, and myrtle. The locals say that Circe lived there, and they point out the tomb of Elpenor, from which grow myrtles used for garlands…35

Theophrastus is focused on botany, but the passage reveals not only the conventional localization of the cape as Circe’s abode (Monte Circeo was originally an island, Theophrastus adds), but also native pride in the mythological status of their land, to the point of showing off, in a touristic manner, the grave of Elpenor. Our first inclination is to assume that this detail results from reception of the Homeric burial of Elpenor. But Ampo- lo traces Etruscan knowledge of Elpenor to the 7th century, contemporary to a plausible dating of the Odyssey’s composition.36 It may be that Elpe- nor, though seemingly a minor Homeric character invented for narratological reasons, had some degree of prominence in the real world outside of Homer as a “Palinurus figure”, just as Phrontis did at Sunion. However that may be, there is the larger issue of the burial of Odysseus. Here the possibility of Elpenor being a kind of doublet for Odysseus is relevant. As noted above, the oars of Elpenor and Odysseus in Odyssey 11 correlate intriguingly, and some argue that the combination of Elpenor’s death and Odysseus’ inland journey together serve to suggest Odysseus’ burial. There is no evidence that Odysseus was ever thought to be buried at Ithaca.37 Various legends situated his death in western Greece or in Italy, where he travelled after his return to Ithaca and sometimes died.38 In the Telegony Telegonus takes the body of Odysseus along with Telemachus

35. Theophrastus Hist. Plant. 5.8.3; see also Pseudo-Scylax 8, Pliny NH 15.119. Strab. 5.3.6 refers to worship of Athena and Circe there. 36. AMPOLO 1994, 274, on the basis of the linguistic nature of the Etruscan name for Elpenor, Velparun (i.e., its preserved digamma); see TOUCHEFEU 1986 for Etruscan iconography featuring Elpenor/Velparun. 37. “In fact, no tradition identifies any tomb of Odysseus in Ithaca” (MALKIN 1998, 107- 108, with general discussion of Odysseus’ cult on Ithaca at 94-119, on which see also WA- TERHOUSE 1996; MORGAN 2007; BUCHHOLTZ 2009; BURGESS 2017a, 36-37). 38. Cf. PHILLIPS 1953; WISEMAN 1995, 49-50; MALKIN 1998, 178-209.

185 JONATHAN BURGESS and Penelope to Aeaea. Why, we are not told by Proclus, but according to Hyginus (127) a tomb is built for Odysseus by the sea, much like the one for Elpenor in Homer (minus the oar). What was inappropriate for Elpe- nor, a heroic tumulus, would, of course, be fitting for Odysseus. There is no report of the burial or cult of Odysseus at Monte Circeo. But a century ago Hartmann supposed that the apparent burial of Odys- seus at Aeaea in the Telegony may reflect hero cult for Odysseus in Italy.39 He did not specify what cult, and the evidence linking the post-return Od- ysseus with Italy is late and contradictory. Burial of Odysseus with cult at Cortona is specified at Lycophron (Alex. 805-806, with scholia), and in Etruria generally by the lemma to Aristotelian Peplos 12.40 Etruria is where Hesiod thought the sons of Odysseus and Circe ruled, with a hazy conception of the colonial Italian world that the Odyssey and the Telegony may have shared.41 The Archaic Age was surely a time when second- and third-hand reports of the western world reached the Greek world, and these reports may have sounded as wondrous as tales of heroes travelling to the edge of the earth. It easy to imagine Odyssean myth wandering back and forth between the seemingly rigid polarities of the mythological imag- inaire and the real-world of western Greek colonization. If the Homeric burial of Elpenor does reflect an Italian burial of Od- ysseus, the question remains why. There has been much productive work on connections between Homeric and non-Homeric material over the last few decades, notably from those using a mix of neoanalysis and oralist studies. Whereas older Neoanalysts had argued for creative Homeric re- formulation of source material, others have seen, in various ways, some-

39. HARTMANN 1917, 53. 40. GUTZWILLER 2010 argues cogently that epitaphs in the Peplos stem from the Classical Age. Cf. Peplos 25 on the tomb of Meges of Dulichium, who died at sea. In the Catalogue of Ships, Meges is said to lead forty ships from the region of the Ionian Islands (Il. 2.625-630); see BURGESS 2017a, 29. 41. See MALKIN 1998, 156-209. According to one legend, Odysseus was exiled to Italy after the death of the suitors (Aristotle fr. 43 Rose = Plut. Quaest. Graec. 14; cf Apollodorus Epit. 7.40).

186 Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor thing more intertextually meaningful at play. The potential significance of Elpenor’s tomb is hard to calibrate, but I would suggest that Homer’s employment of it at least acknowledges that Odysseus was buried apart from Ithaca, despite the centripetal geography of the Odyssey. Homeric Aeaea would thus have multiple layers in the Odyssey. At the narrative level, it is at the eastern edge of the earth, as in longstanding tradition. But deeper in the text is an Aeaea that exists in the western Greek colonial world. The Homeric burial of Elpenor involves both temporal and spatial distances. It references the Palinurus-typology of heroic and real-world sailing routes in the distant West. And it foreshadows the eventu- al burial of Odysseus, in some allusive/agonistic fashion, away from home, and perhaps in Italy. The non-Homeric Elpenor and Odysseus would then by their very burial somatically transform the colonial space of the western Mediterranean into a primordially Greek place.42

Epitaphic Elpenor

Heroic tumuli in Troyland also mark space as mythographical place.43 On the evidence of the Iliad, by Homer’s time heroic myth had been mapped onto many mounds. It is in this context that Hector imagines in Book 7 of the Iliad (84-90) a hypothetical tomb by the Hellespont of the Greek who will duel him.44 The phraseology is reminiscent of descriptions of Elpe- nor’s and Achilles’ tombs:

τὸν δὲ νέκυν ἐπὶ νῆας ἐϋσσέλμους ἀποδώσω, ὄφρά ἑ ταρχύσωσι κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί, σῆμά τέ οἱ χεύωσιν ἐπὶ πλατεῖ Ἑλλησπόντῳ.

42. CF. MALKIN 1998; SKEMPIS 2014. 43. See ROSE 2016 for a recent archaeological survey of the Troad tumuli, and MINCHIN 2016 for an overview of the cultural signficance of Troad tombs. For a nuanced discussion of the significance of real/notional objects in the Iliad, see BASSI 2016, Chapter 2. 44. McKAY 1967, 10 sees this passage as inspiration for Virgil’s tombs of Palinurus, Misenus, and Caieta.

187 JONATHAN BURGESS

καί ποτέ τις εἴπῃσι καὶ ὀψιγόνων ἀνθρώπων νηῒ πολυκλήϊδι πλέων ἐπὶ οἴνοπα πόντον: ἀνδρὸς μὲν τόδε σῆμα πάλαι κατατεθνηῶτος, ὅν ποτ’ ἀριστεύοντα κατέκτανε φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ. ὥς ποτέ τις ἐρέει: τὸ δ’ ἐμὸν κλέος οὔ ποτ’ ὀλεῖται. And I will return the corpse to the well-benched ships, so the long-haired Achaeans give him burial rites, and heap up a sema by the wide Helles- pont. And at some time someone even of later born men will say, while sailing upon a ship of many row-locks on the wine-dark sea: “This is the sema of a man who died long ago, a champion whom shining Hector slew once upon a time.”

This passage has been considered epitaphic since antiquity, along with other Homeric passages.45 Scodel has cogently argued that Homeric epic is self-consciously and agonistically aware of real-world sepulchral epitaphs.46 The topic involves complex issues concerning the date, context, and reception of Homeric poetry, which I cannot adequately discuss here. But I would agree that the passage acknowledges epitaphs, though avoid- ing the projection of monumental epigram back into the Heroic Age. Hec- tor’s epitaphic speech also suggests the uncertain nature of tomb kleos.47

45. Cf. SCODEL 1992; DINTER 2005, 153-156; ELMER 2005; DI NINO 2009, 50-54; CLAY 2016; PETROVIC 2016. For the epitaphic nature of “Palinurus figures” in the Aeneid, see Dinter 2005, 157-160. 46. SCODEL 1992. WOOD 1824, 153-154 is an early representative of the more common assumption that Homeric epic precedes the existence of sepulchral epigram. 47. Cf. NAGY 1990, 202-222; FORD 1992, 143-146; SOURVINOU-INWOOD 1995, 108-139; GREITHLEIN 2008; GARCIA 2013, ch. 4; SCHNAPP-GOURBEILLON 2016. Examples: Il. 2.811-814 (humans call a mound ‘Bateia’, but the gods the sema of Myrine); 4.174-181 (Agamemon imagines that Menelaus will rot in Trojan soil, then that a Trojan will jump on his tomb, mocking Agamemnon); 21.317-327 (Skamandros mockingly threatens to bury Achilles under a “sema” of mud and rubble, where nobody will recover his body); 23.326-332 (Nestor supposes a wooden shaft may have been a sema of a forgotten man of the past). Tombs often serve mundane functions: 2.604, 815 (troops marshal by tombs); 2.792-293 (watch kept on a tomb); 10.415-416 (meeting by a tomb); 11.369-172 (Paris leans on the stele of a tomb while shooting an arrow). In the Odyssey death without funeral or tomb and ensuing kleos

188 Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor

From Hector’s perspective, his kleos will hijack the intended function of his victim’s sema. As with Elpenor’s tomb, his victim’s tomb will fail to preserve the memory of the buried person. The failure of the hypothetical tomb to memorialize Hector’s victim is not simply a matter of sepulchral semiotics.48 Hector’s statement is nec- essarily vague because the duel has not yet happened and the Greek opponent has not yet been chosen. But the oddity of Hector’s words stems largely from his tendency towards grandiosity. When Hector refers to passing sailors recognizing the tomb as that of Hector’s victim, his assumption is that his fame will be more than epichoric. Potential interac- tion between the tumulus and local tradition is not really relevant in this scenario.49 The hypothetical tomb appears to sailors at a distance, and so they know of its significance without the benefit of epichoral informa- tion at the gravesite.50 Hector’s confidence that the tomb will represent his fame, not the victim’s, assumes that the Trojans will successfully drive the Greeks away. Though Hector can state that Troy will fall one day (Il. 6.447-449), he soon afterwards readily entertains a more optimistic vision of Astyanax as a grown warrior (6.476-481). By the end of Book 8 he is confident that the Trojans will kill the Greeks and burn their ships, and he will remain assured of this until Achilles returns to battle. Just as Hector imagines that Trojan victory will erase his victim’s kleos, Polydamas hopes that the defeated Greeks will become “forgotten” (νωνύμνους) far from home (Il. 12.69-71).51 Hector looks forward to a time after the defeat of the Greeks when his Greek opponent is νώνυμνος far from home and his own kleos spreads throughout the world.

is often regretted (1.161-162; 236-243; 5.308-312; 14.133-136, 367-371; 24.30-33, 290-296), notably, for my argument, death at sea (1.161-2; 5.312, 14.135-136, 24.289-96); cenotaphs can be erected in the absence of a corpse (1.289-292, 2.220-223, 4.584). 48. SVENBRO 1988 is seminal on this topic (on Hector’s hypothetical tumulus: 16, 53). See BAKKER 2016 for a corrective response. 49. See McGOWAN 2016 for tumuli and ritual. 50. BRUSS 1995, 34. 51. Cf. Il. 13.227, 14.70, Od. 1.222, 13.239.

189 JONATHAN BURGESS

As it happens, Hector’s vision will not come true. He does not defeat Ajax in the duel, and the Trojans do not drive the Greeks into the sea. After Achilles kills Hector, a much different tomb will become associated with Achilles, the sema constructed at the end of the Iliad (24.801). Many have looked for this mound in the real world of the Troad.52 Homeric poetry may favor epic conveyance of kleos over heroic tombs, but people have been fascinated with the Troad tumuli from antiquity to this day.53 Yet the Homeric sense of the fragility of tumulus-manifested kleos is vindicated by the uncertainty of the localization of tombs, even with the famous tomb of Achilles and Patroclus.54 The tomb of Hector’s hypothetical victim only exists in Homeric epic, not in the real world.55 The same might be said of Elpenor’s tomb. But Elpenor is not some hypothetical character; he is a “Palinurus figure.” The typology of this persona—non-heroic vocation, death on a sea voyage, burial at a landmark—may remind one of epigrams for real people in the post-Heroic age.56 In a sense, Elpenor’s oar stuck on top of the tomb is the most epitaphic thing to be found in Homeric epic, a textless epigram that signals the concise biographical details of epigram.57 But the “Palinurus

52. For ancient localizaton of the tomb of Hector, cf. Lycophron Alex.1208ff., Strabo 13.1.29; Lucian Deor. Conc. 12, Dio Chrysostom 11.179, Lucan Phars. 974-977. For ancient epigrams on Hector, sometimes in reference to his tomb, see HARDER 2007, 415-416. For modern localization of the tomb, see COOK 1973, 39, 77, 132-13. 53. For example, LUCE 1988. 54. See BURGESS 2005, 2009, 111-131. I think I rightly emphasized the potential fluidity of the localization of Achilles’ tomb. See NAGY 2010, section II.7 for a thesis that links the variant Sigeion and Beshic locations of Achilles’ tomb to agonistic Aeolic and Ionic appro- priation of Trojan myth/spatiality. 55. But the hypothetical victim has been ingeniously linked with Protesilaus (FINKEL- BERG 2002) and Patroclus (CLAY 2016, 195). 56. The seaside sema is analogous to roadside epitaphs (SOURVINOU-INWOOD 1995, 179- 180), and death at sea and burial by the sea are topoi in epigram: BRENK 1984, 780 n. 11, 796-801; DINTER 2005, 158; DI NINO 2009; GUTZWILLER 2010, 233-234; BRUSS 2005, 88-117; KOUKOUZIKA 2016, 148. 57. FRANCIS 1983, 104 describes Odysseus’ report of Elpenor’s death at 10.552-553 a “sailor’s epitaph;” SCODEL 1992, 65-67 describes Elpenor’s request at 11.75-76 as “epitaphic.”

190 Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor figure,” though minor in epic narrative, is extraordinary in its spatial and colonial implications. Elpenor’s real-world tomb at Monte Circeo thus provides an intriguing real-world context for the Homeric tomb of Elpe- nor. The Italian landmark has no place in the narrative of the Odyssey, but the epic may have found it impossible to ignore completely. That would explain much that we find odd about the Homeric tomb of Elpenor. For example, at Odyssey 12.14 it is specified that a stele is placed on the tumulus of Elpenor, in addition to the oar. Why the redundancy of two markers, both oar and stele?58 One might simply view the reference to the stele as formulaically automatic, as some explain the heroic phraseology of Elpenor’s tomb. But there are few Homeric references to a sepulchral stele. Besides this passage, it occurs only at Iliad 11.371 (tomb of Ilos), 16.457=675 (proposed burial of Sarpedon), and 17.434 (unspecified dead person in a simile). The stele in Homer is not directly associated with inscription, but its addition to the exotic and cultic burial of Sarpedon (16.457=675) seems especially significant.59 I suggest that the extraneous stele on Elpenor’s exotic and potentially cultic tumulus results from some vague awareness of an inscription on some actual tomb. As with many issues, much depends on the date of the Homeric poems, which I would most simply date the fluid composition and performance traditions of the Iliad and Odyssey to the Archaic Period. If pressed, I would favor the mid- to late-seventh century BCE. This is later than the assumed date of Homer by many who have supposed that Homeric passages display knowledge of written epitaphs. What inscription would be referenced by the Homeric Elpenor, then, and what tomb? Here we find ourselves sailing uneasily in bad weather through dangerous waters along an unknown and exotic coast of specu-

58. I do not agree with HEUBECK 1989, 117, followed by GARCIA 2013, 145, that the oar is the stele; see SOURVINOU-IINWOOD 1995, 128. Arguably Elpenor’s oar anticipates vocational gravestone iconography (on which, see GRAY 2006). 59. Cf. NAGY 1990, 122-142, 2012, 63, 66-69; CURRIE 2005, 50-52 on the cultic aspects of the burial of Sarpedon.

191 JONATHAN BURGESS lation. Perhaps the Homeric tomb of Elpenor exhibits knowledge of an inscription at a tumulus for some “Palinurus figure.” Perhaps such an inscription already existed at Monte Circeo at the time of the composition of the Odyssey. Perhaps it even marked a tomb of Odysseus there. There is no evidence of this in the ancient material, but it is only by happenstance that we know of Elpenor’s tomb at Monte Circeo and of Odysseus’ various burial places. Yet there is no need to press the matter. As a “Palinurus figure” Elpenor exists only within the traditional kleos of his heroic leader. A real-world tomb of Elpenor would really preserve the memory of his leader, the hero who carried out its construction.60 It is surely the fame of Odysseus that inspired the locals of Monte Circeo to point out the tomb of Elpenor, just as it was the fame of Odysseus that attracted visitors to come and gaze upon the tomb (unless, like Theophrastus, they were rather more interested in local botany). I hope to have shown that Elpenor in many ways is a semiotic, in all senses of the word, as well as a narratological doublet of Odysseus.

Conclusion

Both Elpenor and Hector imagine tombs by the sea that will attract the attention of passing sailors. Both tombs will fail to preserve the fame of the person buried in them. So Hector imagines concerning his victim’s tomb, and so we assume about Elpenor’s tomb. Elpenor’s oar cannot signal any- thing more than his vocation, and it is odd for Elpenor to imagine sailors passing by Aeaea. But his vision is appropriate for an Aeaea localized at Monte Circeo, and Theophrastus indicates that Italian locals pointed out a funeral mound of Elpenor there. Elpenor’s hope for semiotic kleos, though impossible and risible in Homer, was actualized in the real world of the western Greek colonial world. We might most readily ascribe this to re-

60. Cf. BAKKER 2016, 205-206 on cases of sepulchral epigram which do not name the dead; the monument’s creator then receives kleos, or, in other examples, often shares it with the dead.

192 Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor ception of Homeric epic, and surely to a large degree it was. But Elpenor’s tomb may have functioned as a “Palinurus figure” tomb already by the time of the Odyssey. Elpenor is an insignificant figure in narrative terms, but his tomb could serve spatial and colonial functions quite independent- ly of Homeric poetry. It is this non-Homeric existence of Elpenor’s sema that explains much that we find odd about its Homeric manifestation.61

JONATHAN BURGESS University of Toronto

61. I am thankful to the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada for research funding, and to the University of Toronto for an Affiliated Fellowship at the American Academy in Rome in May 2016.

193 JONATHAN BURGESS

Bibliography

AMBROSE, Z. P., 1980. The Etymology and Geneology of Palinurus, AJP 101, 449- 57. AMPOLO, C., 1994. La ricezione dei miti greci nel Lazio: L’esempio di Elpenore ed Ulisse al Circeo. La Parola del Passato 277, 268-279. BAKKER, E., 2016. Archaic Epigram and the Seal of Theognis, in E. Sistakou, A. Rengakos (eds.) Dialect, Diction, and Style in Greek Literary and Inscribed Epi- gram (Berlin), 195-214. BASSI, K., 2016. Traces of the Past. Ann Arbor. BRENK, F. E., 1984. Unum pro multis caput: Myth, History, and Symbolic Imagery in Vergil’s Palinurus Incident, Latomus 43, 776-801. BRUSS, J. S., 2005. Hidden Presences. Leuven. BUCHHOLZ, H.-G., 2009. Some remarks concerning the Heroon of Odysseus at Ithaca, in D. Daniilidou (ed.) ΔΩΡΟΝ. Τιμητικός Τομος για τον Καθηγητή Σπύρο Ιακωβίδη (Athens), 127-142. BURGESS, J. S., 2001. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore. —, 2005. The Tumuli of Achilles, Classics@ vol. 3. —, 2009. The Death and Afterlife of Achilles. Baltimore. —, 2014a. “If Peopled and Cultured”: Bartram’s Travels and the Odyssey, in G. R. Ricci (ed.) Travel, Discovery and Transformation (London), 19-43. —, 2014b. The Death of Odysseus in the Odyssey and the Telegony, in G. Scafoglio, E. Lelle (eds.) Studies on the Greek Epic Cycle, 2 vols., Philologia Antiqua 7-8 (2014): 1.113-124. —, 2015. Travelling to Ithaca, in G. Totten, J. Dubino, M. Cabañas, V. Salles-Reese (eds.) Politics, Mobility, and Identity in Travel Writing (London), 143- 154. —, 2016. Localization of the Odyssey’s Underworld, CEA 53, 15-37.2 —, 2017a. Land and Sea in the Odyssey and the Telegony, in A. Bierl, M. Chris- topoulos, A. Papachrysostomou (eds.) Time and Space in Ancient Myth, Reli- gion and Culture (Berlin). —, 2017b. The Apologos of Odysseus: Tradition and Conspiracy Theories, in C. Tsagalis, A. Markantonatos (eds.) The Winnowing Oar (Berlin). CAMERON, A., 2004. Greek Mythography in the Roman World. Oxford. CHRISTOPOULOS, M., 2009. Odyssean kybernetai: All Skillful, All Dead. Observa- tions on the Helmsman’s Role in the Odyssey, in E. Karamalengou, E. Makrygi- anni (eds.) Ἀντιφίλησις (Stuttgart), 57-66.

194 Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor

CLARK, R. J., 1977. Misenus and the Cumaean Landfall: Originality in Vergil’s Use of Topography and Tradition, TAPA 107, 63-71. CLAY, J. S., 2016. Homer’s Epigraph: Iliad 7.87-96, Philologus 160, 185-196. COOK, J. M., 1973. The Troad. An Archaeological and Topographical Study. Oxford. CURRIE, B., 2005. Pindar and the Cult of Heroes. Oxford. DANEK, G., 1998. Epos und Zitat: Studien zur Quellen der Odyssee. Vienna. —, 2015. Nostoi, in M. Fantuzzi, C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and Its Ancient Reception (Cambridge), 355–379. DE ROSSI, G. M., 1973. Il Circeo. Rome. DI NINO, M. M., 2009. Lost at Sea: Pythermus as an Anti-Odysseus?, AJP 130, 47- 65. DINTER, M., 2005. Epic and Epigram: Minor Heroes in Virgil, CQ 55, 153-169. DOVA, S., 2012. Greek Heroes in and out of Hades. Lanham, MD. ECKER, U., 1990. Grabmal und Epigram. Stuttgart. ELMER, D. F., 2005. Helen Epigrammatopoios, Classical Antiquity 24, 1-39. FINKELBERG, M., 2002. The Sources of Iliad 7, Colby Quarterly 38, 151-161. FINLEY, J. H., 1978. Homer’s Odyssey. Cambridge, MA. FORD, A., 1992. Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca, NY. FRANCIS, E. D., 1983. Virtue, Folly, and Greek Etymology, in C. A. Rubino, C. W. Shelmerdine (eds.) Approaches to Homer (Austin), 74-121. GARCIA, L. F., 2013. Homeric Durability. Cambridge, MA. GRAY, C. L., 2006. The Bearded Rustic of Roman Attica, in R. M. Rosen, I. Sluiter (eds.) City, Countryside, and the Spatial Organization of Value in Classical An- tiquity (Leiden), 349-367. GREITHLEIN, J., 2008. Memory and Material Objects in the Iliad and the Odyssey, JHS 128, 27-51. GRIFFIN, J., 1980. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford. GUTZWILLER, K., 2010. Heroic Epitaphs of the Classical Age: The Aristotelian Pep- los and Beyond, in A. Petrovic, I. Petrovic, M. Baumbach (eds.) Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram (Cambridge). HAINSWORTH, J. B., 1976. Phrase-clusters in Homer, in A. Morpurgo Davies, W. Meid (eds.) Studies in Greek, Italic and Indo-European Linguistics (Innsbruck) 83-86. HARDER, A., 2007. Epigram and the Heritage of Epic, in P. Bing, J. S. Bruss (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram (Leiden), 409-428. HARTMANN, A., 1917. Untersuchungen über die Sagen vom Tod des Odysseus. Mu- nich. HENRY, O., and U. Kelp (eds.), 2016. Tumulus as Sema. Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millenium BC (Berlin).

195 WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORF,

JONATHAN BURGESS

HEUBECK, A., 1989. Books IX-XII, in A. Heubeck (ed.) A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1988–1992), II, 3–146. KANAVOU, N., 2015. The Names of Homeric Heroes. Berlin KEITH, A. M., 2000. Engendering Rome (Cambridge). KOUKOUZIKA, D., 2016. Epigrams in Epic? The Case of Apollonius Rhodius, in E. Sistakou, A. Rengakos (eds.) Dialect, Diction, and Style in Greek Literary and Inscribed Epigram (Berlin), 139-149. LORD, A. B., 1960. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, MA. LOSSAU, M., 1980. Elpenor und Palinurus, WS 93, 102-24. LUCE, J.V., 1998. Celebrating Homer’s Landscapes: Troy and Ithaca revisited. New Haven. McGOWAN, E., 2016. Tumulus and Memory. The Tumulus as a Locus for Ritual Action in the Greek Imagination, in Henry and Kelp 2016, 163-179. MALKIN, I., 1998. The Returns of Odysseus. Berkeley. McKAY, A. G., 1967. Aeneas’ Landfalls in Hesperia, Greece & Rome 14, 3-11. MERKELBACH, R., 1969. Untersuchungen zur Odyssee. 2nd ed..Munich. MINCHIN, E., 2016. Heritage in the Landscape: The ‘Heroic Tumuli’ in the Troad Region, in J. McInerney, I. Sluiter (eds.) Valuing Landscape in Classical Antiqui- ty (Leiden), 255-275. MORGAN, C., 2007. From Odysseus to Augustus. Ithaka from the Early Iron Age to Roman Times, Pallas 73, 71-86. NAGY, G., 1990. Greek Mythology and Poetics. Ithaca, NY. —, 2010. Homer the Preclassic. Berkeley. —, 2012. Signs of Hero Cult in Homeric Poetry, in F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, C. Tsagalis (eds.) Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry (Berlin), 27-72. —, 2013. The Ancient Greek Hero in 24 Hours. Cambridge, MA. NICHOLSON, N., 2013. Cultural Studies, Oral Tradition, and the Promise of Inter- textuality, AJP 134, 9-21. NICOLL, W. S. M., 1988. The Sacrifice of Palinurus, CQ 38, 459-472. PEARCE, T. E. V., 1983. The Tomb by the Sea: the History of a Motif, Latomus 41, 110-115. PETROVIC, A., 2016. Archaic Funerary Epigram and Homer’s Imagined Epitymbia, in A. Efstathiou, I. Karamanou (eds.) Homeric Receptions Across Generic and Cultural Contexts (Berlin), 45-58. PHILLIPS, E. D., 1953. Odysseus in Italy, JHS 73, 53-67. PURVES, A., 2010. Space and Time in Ancient Greek Narrative. Cambridge. REINHARDT, K., 1996. The Adventures in the Odyssey, in S. L. Schein (ed.) Reading the Odyssey (Princeton), 63-132.

196 Taking Elpenor Seriously: The Tomb of Elpenor

ROHDICH, H., 1985. Elpenor, Antike und Abendland 31,108-115. ROSE, C. B., and R. KöRPE, 2016. The Tumuli of Troy and the Troad, in Henry and Kelp, 373–386. SCHNAPP-GOURBEILLON, A., 2016. Tumuli, Sema and Greek Oral Tradition, in Henry and Kelp, 205-217. SCODEL, R., 1992. Inscription, Absence and Memory. Epic and Early Epitaph, SIFC 10, 57-76. SEGAL, C. P., 1962. The Phaeacians and the Symbolism of Odysseus’ Return, Arion 1, 17-64. SKEMPIS, M., 2014. Phenomenology of Space, Place Names and Colonization in the “Caieta-Crice” Sequence of Aeneid 7, in M. Skempis, I. Ziogas (eds.), Geogra- phy, Topography, Landscape: Configurations of Space in Greek and Roman Epic (Berlin), 291-324. SLATER, W. J., 1969. Lexicon to Pindar. Berlin. SOURVINOU-INWOOD, C., 1995. ‘Reading’ Greek Death. Oxford. SVENBRO, J., 1988. Phrasikleia. Ithaca, NY. TOUCHEFEU, O., 1996. Elpenor, LIMC 3.1, 721-722. WATERHOUSE, H., 1996. From Ithaca to the Odyssey, ABSA 91, 301–317. WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORF, U. von, 1884. Homerische Untersuchungen. Berlin. WEST, M. L., 2011. Hellenica. Vol. 1. Oxford. —, 2013.The Epic Cycle. Oxford. —, 2014. The Making of the Odyssey. Oxford. WISEMAN, T.P., 1995. Remus: A Roman Myth. Cambridge. WOOD, R., 1824. An Essay on the Original Genius and Writings of Homer. London.

197