Phrixus and Demodice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR Additional services for The Classical Review: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here Phrixus and Demodice A. C. Pearson The Classical Review / Volume 23 / Issue 08 / December 1909, pp 255 - 257 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00004170, Published online: 27 October 2009 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00004170 How to cite this article: A. C. Pearson (1909). Phrixus and Demodice. The Classical Review, 23, pp 255-257 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00004170 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 193.61.135.80 on 16 Apr 2015 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 255 packs (sardnae). With these encumbrances soldiers are full of stomach for a fight, it is they could not go into action. By the single not wise to send them into action with the word expeditas Caesar gives us to understand least possible delay while their blood is up. that the packs were laid aside and collected It is to me inconceivable that either Lucan (cf. B.G. i. 24, § 3). To deposit 22,000 or Appian should have simply invented the packs, besides those of the auxiliaries, in an absurd order which they attributed to Caesar, orderly manner was not the work of a but quite intelligible that they should have moment. While it was going on the avail- misunderstood the rational order which I able hands would have had plenty of time have no doubt that he really gave, and the to enlarge the exits in the manner which object of which Lucan states with perfect Stoffel describes. Mr. Perrin indeed {op. cit. clearness. Indeed it is not incredible that p. 326) argues that 'there was nothing for Lucan understood the nature of the order, Caesar to gain by breaking a passage out of though, as a poet, he expressed it with his camp;' but I would ask whether'there rhetorical exaggeration. was not time to gain, and whether, when T. RICE HOLMES. PHRIXUS AND DEMODICE. A NOTE ON PINDAR, Pyth. iv. 162 f. had in his mind was that given by Apollo- T$ TTOT' IK ITOVTOV ) eK T£ /XTfrpvias aOiiav fiekktov. dorus (1. 80) and followed apparently by Euripides in his Phrixus. It may be as IT appears to me that this passage, so far well briefly to recapitulate the facts. Athamas from having been adequately explained, has had two children by Nephele, Phrixus and not received from editors the attention which Helle. Subsequently he married Ino, who it deserves; the reason is, I suppose, that bore to him Learchus and Melicertes. Ino they have not sufficiently borne in mind the was jealous of the children of Nephele, and details of the story to which it refers. plotted to destroy them. She persuaded the The translation 'whereby of old he was women to roast the wheat,which they contrived delivered from the deep and from the im- to accomplish without the knowledge of their pious weapons of his stepmother' (E. Myers) husbands; and when the roasted seeds did is so simple that it fails to awaken suspicion : not come up in the following season, Athamas •.*! none of the moderns except Dissen, so far sent to Delphi to enquire how the dearth as I know, has thought it worth while to might be stayed. Ino then persuaded the enquire with what weapons Phrixus was messengers to declare that the oracle had attacked by his stepmother. And Dissen's enjoined the sacrifice of Phrixus in order to explanation ('id agenti nouerca ut telis revive the fruitfulness of the soil. Athamas, periret') is entirely unsupported by tradition. yielding to the pressure of his starving people, Mezger thinks it enough to say that Ino was led Phrixus to the altar; but at the critical the name of the stepmother, and Gilder- moment Nephele intervened to rescue her sleeve speaks of the 'common form of the children, having received from Hermes the familiar legend.' Similarly Christ:—' de ram with the golden fleece, which, soaring Phrixo insidias nouercae fugiente et in dorso in the air with Phrixus and Helle on its arietis per mare uehente omnia nota.' back, carried them far away across the sea. Like most of the famous stories of the The summary will serve to show how ill- heroic age, the tale of Athamas and his suited is the language of Pindar to describe children appears in many shapes; but I such a situation. Contrast the allusions of presume that the version which Gildersleeve Apollonius Rhodius to the same incident: 256 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 3. 191 o 8f Kai TTOT' dfivfiova &pi£ov CS the medium through which their hearts are firjT pvirj s <j>evyovT<i 8 o A o v Trarpos T£ moved. Hence the significance of Aesch. OvqXds, 2. 1181 a>s /"€!' yap irarkp' ifibv Ag. 427 f. d/i/jiaT(i)v &' kv d\r)vlai's tippet iraxr VTre£tipvro <f>6v o 10 firjTpvtrjs. The 'A(f>po8iTa, which has been illustrated by Em- scholiast was sensible of the difficulty, for pedocles, fr. 86 e£ &v Ofx/xar eirrf^ev dreipta 81' at the end of his note—which will presently 'A<\>po&iTq. Hesych. 3, p. 203 d/u/xarttos TTOOOS require a more particular notice—he says: (Soph. fr. 733)' 81b. TO IK TOV bpav a.X.UTKt<r6ai To 8e ddeiav /3eXe(ov dXXrjyoptKtoS dvTi TOV epwri. ' (K TOV yap to~opav •yiveTtu dvOp<oiroi$ j3ovX(v/idTiov rj Xoyiav r) npa^itav. But his epav.' Xenophon Ephes. i. 3 oAots Kal method of exegesis will hardly find favour dvaireTTTafiivois TOIS 6<f>8a\.[LoTs TO 'A/3poKOfiov at the present time. After all this, it is K<£AA.OS tlo-piov 8e\op.evr). The flashing eye curious to find that the clue to the true is a love-charm which, like lightning, sets on solution has all the time been lying unnoticed fire everything with which it comes into in the scholia, although the words are quoted contact: Soph. fr. 433 TOiav IIcAo^ ivyya by Christ and referred to by others. «amo#7) drjpa.T'qplav I/XOTOS, do-TpaTrqv TIV' ofxyArmv, yap Sia TTJV fi/qjpviav lpao~8eio-av avrov Kal €\tf 27 OdXirtTai p.ev avTus {^OTTTJI 8' ifie. eirefiovXtvdr] &m <f>vytlv. ravrrjv 8t 6 fiiv With this may be compared Pind. fr. 123 HivSapos (V v/xvois ArjfioSiKrjv cjujtriv, 'Iiririas Sch. Tcls Se Qeo£evov a/CTivas irpbs oo-cruiv fiap- 8k Yopyunriv, ^Lo<f>oi<\rjs 8e kv 'AOdfiavn fiapvfaicras SpaKtls os pvq TTOOU) KV/UUVCTCU, i£ N«j>e\r]v, &epeKi'>8r)s Qefiurrto K.T.X. This dBd/Mavros fj o-i8dpov Kt^aAKevTai K.T. A.,Heliod. introduces us to ari entirely different story, 8. 5 fieydX.r)V «s TrciOib KeKTijTai irpbs avSpas of a type which is already familiar from the Ivyya TO. yvvaiKtla Kal crvvoiKa legends of Hippolytus and Bellerophon. A Achill. Tat. 1. 4 KaTao-Tpd-n-Tu [ixn> variant according to which Demodice was 6'f>6aX/ji.ovs Tb! Trpoo-<£wu). Similarly Aesch. the wife of Cretheus, the brother of Athamas, Prom. 933, Soph. Ant. 795; and see espe- is given by Hygin. poet. astr. ii. 20 Crethea cially Plut. quaest. conv. v. 7. 2, p. 681 B.C., a autem habuisse Demodicen uxorem, quam alii passage too long to quote. Most commonly, Biadicen dixerunt. Hanc autem Phrixi, • however, the shaft of light which kindles Athamantis ftlii, corpore inductam in amorem desire is conceived as a weapon which inflicts incidisse: neque ab eo, ut sibi copiam faceret, a wound upon the victim : Aesch. Prom. 676 impetrare potuisse: itaque necessario coactam Zeiis ydp Ifiepov yS i X e 1 -rrpoq <rov TedaXTTTai, criminari eum ad Crethea coepisse, quod diceret,Suppl. 1003 Kal Trapdiviav ^XiSaiaiv (Vjx6p(j>oi<s ab eo vim sibi paene adlatam, et horum similia mulierum consuetudine dixisse. Quo facto Ipepov viKtifievos, Ag. 741 Crethea, ut uxoris amantem et regem decebat, /xaXdaKov ofiuaTiav f$ k X o s, 8rj^i$vp.ov epioros permotum ut de eo supplicium sumeret per- avdos, Soph. fr. 161 6p.p:dT<av ajro A 6 y \ a s suasisse. Nubem autem infervenisse et ereptum crjo-iv, Aesch. fr. 242 /SAe/i/taTcov pen-ei y8 0 A17 Phrixum etc. The coincidence of name (the text is corrupt, but this much seems confirms the statement of the scholiast that certain), Xenophon Ephes. 1. 9 <j>iXovo-a 8' this is the story to which Pindar alludes, and avTov jobs 6<f>0aXp.ovs, <5, <f>r]O'i, TTOXXOLKK p.e there is no reason why we should seek to XvTrrjo-avTei ip.ei'S, S TO irpwTov ivdevTes TQ kp.y discredit the evidence. It is true that K 6 v T p o v *pvxV- The notion of the love- Ribbeck (Rom. Trag. p. 526) treats the charm is combined with that of the arrow in story of Demodice as a later invention, un- Lycophr. 309 (Troilus and Achilles) aypwv mistakably copied from the Hippolytus-myth; SpaKovTa Trvp<$)6p<j> fjaXiov ivyyi T 6 £ to v. The but the assumption is purely arbitrary. figure of the love-wound is elaborated by It becomes pertinent to enquire whether, Achill. Tat. 1. 4 icaAAos yap o^irtpov from .this point of view, we can discover the /SeXovs Kal 81a. TW 6<(>0aXpMV eis T^V appositeness of the expression dOitav (ieXdiov.KaTappei. 6cf>daXfibs yap 6Sos ep Now, it is a commonplace of Greek poetry The wound is often described as a sting: that the power of Love resides in the eyes, Soph.