2021-4212-AJP – 25 APR 2021

1 and : 2 Remarks on Mythological Innovation in the 3 4 This paper analyses two exegetical strategies adopted by ancient scholars to 5 explain Euripides’ mythological innovations and variations with respect to 6 Homer through a selection of scholia. The first approach considers Euripi- 7 des a (mis-) reader of Homer. The dramatist regards an epic passage as the 8 reference text, but fails to understand its wording correctly: he, therefore, 9 reproduces uncritically the model, even though inspired by a genuine im- 10 pulse to emulate; this circumstance de facto equates the tragedian with a 11 sort of exegete and represents his deviation from the epic text as the locus of 12 an implicit (erroneous) interpretation. The second approach evaluates the 13 work of Euripides, comparing it with the Homeric poems, by means and in 14 the light of concepts of literary criticism. The tragedian creates a good or 15 bad product depending on whether his innovation achieves a certain poetic 16 result: an implausible or unrealistic description of a character is contested, 17 whereas a strategy to enhance the emotional impact of the dramatic moment 18 is recognised and perceived as a careful and conscious artistic operation, 19 hence possibly praised. 20 21 Keywords: Ancient Scholarship, Exegetical Activity, Greek Scholia, Liter- 22 ary Comparison, Literary Criticism. 23 24 25 Introduction 26 27 The poetic treatment of was a much debated topic in Hellenistic and 28 Roman scholarship1. In this discussion, Homer occupied a unique position: he 29 was the authority maintaining the traditional version of a legend and the fun- 30 damental poetic model of the subsequent literature2. Ancient critics paid specif- 31 ic attention to the divergence of a narrative from the common or widespread 32 account, and their attitudes towards this issue were various, depending on both 33 the characteristics of the texts analysed and the knowledge or interests of the 34 commentators themselves. Ancient exegetes‟ assessments of Euripides‟ inno- 35 vations provide a rich and varied sample of such phenomenon: different ap- 36 proaches reflect numerous critical trends, which produced multiple results. For 37 the sake of clarity these can be arranged in two categories, bearing in mind that

1Nünlist 2009: 257-264 provides an account of the major questions that ancient commentators addressed when dealing with mythological issues; see also Nünlist 2015: 738-739 s.v. Mythol- ogy. 2In a survey on the citations from Homer, , , , , Euripides and in the scholia to these authors, in those to Theocritus and Apollonius and in the Etymologicum Magnum, Montanari 1992: 78-84 shows that the citations from Homer noticeably outnumber all the others; only in the scholiastic corpus to Aristophanes the citations from the comic poet prevail. The commented author is normally the most quoted after Homer. With a different and complementary perspective, Scattolin 2007 analyses some scholia to Sophocles and Euripides where ancient scholars cited together with or instead of Homer au- thors who appear to be a better comparison.

1 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 well-defined demarcations are not always possible due to the nature of the 2 scholia, our main source on the subject. On the one hand, there are neutral an- 3 notations which, e.g., indicate the mythological variants between Homer and 4 Euripides as a simple matter of fact3, or attribute to the dramatist the use of a 5 model different from the Homeric poems4. On the other hand, there are more 6 articulate comments expressing or implying value judgments, which often 7 blame but at times, on the contrary, defend or even appreciate the mythological 8 alteration and thus the poetic invention introduced by Euripides, whose origin 9 and reason they attempt to recognise. To the latter class belong two interpreta- 10 tive methodologies distinguished in terms of theoretical assumptions, critical 11 tools and explanatory objectives: the first one considers the tragedian a (mis-) 12 reader and exegete of Homer; the second one evaluates his work by means and 13 in the light of concepts of literary criticism. This paper aims to examine these 14 two exegetical strategies in order to shed light on a specific aspect of how poet- 15 ic works were read and studied in Hellenistic and Roman epoch; the focus is on 16 the reasons and the interpretative perspectives of the ancient commentators. 17 This investigation is conducted on four scholia from Euripides‟ corpus - 18 the richest among the surviving scholiastic collections of the tragedians5 - 19 which exemplify the critical approaches under examination: three of them are 20 relative to the and one to the Rhesus6; the inclusion of two scholia 21 from the and one from the to relevant passages cited as reference 22 or comparison texts within the tragic annotations enriches and broadens the re- 23 search. It is worth remembering that the scholia are the result of the compila- 24 tion of material drawn from various sources, which preserve the work of Hel- 25 lenistic and Roman scholars in a fragmentary and scattered condition. In these 26 annotations, the expressions introducing citations and/or establishing compari- 27 son between authors are varied but often stereotyped, and their choice does not 28 seem to comply with a codified scheme; moreover, they are concise and con-

3E.g. Sch. Eur. Ph. 12: θαινῦζη δ‟ Ἰνθάζηελ κε: ἀζθαιίδεηαη ηὴλ ὀλνκαζίαλ η῅ο ἡξσίλεο, ἐπεὶ νἱ παιαηόηεξνη ἖πηθάζηελ <αὐηὴλ> θαινῦζη. θαὶ Ὅκεξνο “κεηέξα η᾽ Οἰδηπόδαν ἴδνλ, θαιὴλ ἖πηθάζηελ” (Od. 11, 271). 4E.g. Sch. Eur. Tr. 822: Λανκεδνόληηε παῖ: ηὸλ Γαλπκήδελ θαζ‟ Ὅκεξνλ (Il. 5, 265; 20, 231) Τξσὸο ὄληα παῖδα Λανκέδνληνο λῦλ εἴπελ ἀθνινπζήζαο ηῷ ηὴλ κηθξὰλ Ἰιηάδα πεπνηεθόηη (...) θεζὶ δὲ νὕησο (fr. 29 Bernabé = 6 Davies = 6 West) etc. 5An overview of the scholiastic corpus to Euripides, with indication of the main studies on it and its editions, is provided by Dickey 2007: 31-44 and 2015: 505-508; for further bibliog- raphy and an accurate catalogue describing the witnesses that transmit the scholia and scholarly material to Euripides see also Mastronarde 2010-in progress. 6The has been transmitted as part of the „Euripidean Selection‟, a reportoire of ten plays also comprising Hecuba, , Phoenissae, , , , , Tro- ades and Bacchae, all equipped with scholia except the last one, but it is generally assumed to be the work of a poet of the 4th c. BCE. Rhesus‟ hyp. (b) shows that the question of its attribu- tion had already been raised in antiquity; this is, however, the only surviving evidence of a de- bate on the issue in ancient times. It has been observed that conversely the scholia lean e silen- tio towards the attribution of the play to Euripides, revealing no doubts about its authenticity. What matters the more for the purposes of this paper is that ancient scholarship on Rhesus shows a patent affinity in content, form and methodology with the scholarship on Euripides‟ other , following the path during the Hellenistic and at least the beginning of the Imperial era; see Merro 2008: 9-61, esp. 24 ff.; Fries 2014: 22-55.

2 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 densed even when inform on the purpose of the citations7. The scholia does not 2 explicitly state the method and literary notions adopted by ancient scholars, be- 3 cause they collect material which ultimately goes back to commentaries on 4 single texts and not to theoretical treaties: therefore, concepts and abstract prin- 5 ciples must be deduced from their actual application8. 6 7 8 The Murder of with an Axe 9 10 In the exodus of the Hecuba, Polymestor predicts that will 11 kill Agamemnon with an axe9. 12 13 Eur. Hec. 1277, 1279 Battezzato 14 θηελεῖ ληλ ἡ ηνῦδ᾽ ἄινρνο, νἰθνπξὸο πηθξά (sc. ἡ Κιπηαηκλήζηξα). 15 θαὐηόλ γε ηνῦηνλ (sc. Ἀγακέκλνλα), πέιεθπλ ἐμάξαζ᾽ ἄλσ. 16 17 A scholion argues that the λεώηεξνη, among whom Euripides is obviously 18 included, added the detail of the weapon because of a misreading of the verse 19 in which states that ambushed Agamemnon at a banquet 20 and slew him as an ox at a manger. According to the interpretamentum, the 21 comparison means that the Atreides was murdered when he should have been 22 resting after his labours, an implicit to the exploits of the war and the 23 return from , but later authors did not understand the symbolic meaning of 24 the image and represented it as real with the addition of the axe. Hence, they 25 reproduced uncritically the model, even though inspired by a genuine impulse 26 to emulate, distancing themselves from it due to incorrect exegesis, which 27 might be otherwise defined as the consequence of a too literal interpretation10.

7Tosi 1988: 59-86 emphasises the importance of recognising the link between the cited and commented texts, in order to understand reason, meaning and purpose of the citations; Tosi 2013 analyses some examples where this operation is complicated by a possible corruption in the connection between the interpretamentum and the commented text, or by the ambiguous explanation provided by ancient scholars on controversial passages. For an analysis of the cita- tions by Hellenistic and Roman scholars and an attempt to classify them see Montanari 2016: esp. 73-74. In particular on poetic citations in tragic scholia, within contexts and for purposes of literary criticism, see Grisolia 1992. 8For an overview of the most important features of the scholia see Wilson 2007: esp. 50-68. On the main stylistic and formal conventions and some recurrent topics in this kind of material see Nünlist 2009: 8-14. For a definition of „scholion‟ and „scholiastic corpora‟, a history of the ar- rangement and development of such collections, as well as a critical discussion of the modern debate on this issue see Montana 2011, with bibliography. 9The detail of the axe recurs in both Eur. El. 160, 279, 1160 and Tr. 361-362. 10Aristarchus often regarded the Iliad and the Odyssey as a reservoir of information and a source of inspiration for later authors, who could also develop stories and details starting from the epic text (e.g. Sch. Ariston. Il. 9, 575a1; Sch. Ariston. Il. 24, 527-528a; Sch. Ariston. Il. 24, 735a). The scholar of Samothrace also detected examples of wrong interpretations or pseudo- literal reworikings of Homer: e.g. Sch. Il. Ariston. 22, 351b: νὐδ᾽ εἴ θέλ ζ᾽ αὐηὸλ <ρξπζῷ ἐξύζαζζαη ἀλώγνη>: ὅηη ὑπεξβνιηθῶο ιέγεη. ὁ δὲ Αἰζρύινο ἐπ᾿ ἀιεζείαο ἀληίζηαζκνλ ρξπζὸλ πεπνίεθε πξὸο ηὸ Ἕθηνξνο ζῶκα ἐλ Φξμίλ (TrGF 3: 364-370); cf. Sch. Ariston. Il. 8, 70a; Sch. Ariston. Il. 22, 210a1. On the relationship between Homer and the λεώηεξνη in the use of the

3 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 Sch. Eur. Hec. 1279 Schwartz11 2 νἱ λεώηεξνη κὴ λνήζαληεο ηὸ παξ᾿ Ὁκήξῳ “δεηπλίζζαο, ὥο ηίο ηε 3 θαηέθηαλε βνῦλ ἐπὶ θάηλῃ” (Od. 4, 535 = 11, 411) ἀληὶ ηνῦ· ὃλ ἔδεη κεηὰ ηνὺο 4 πόλνπο ἀπνιαύζεσο ηπρεῖλ, ηνῦηνλ ὡο βνῦλ ἀπέθηεηλελ ἡ Κιπηαηκλήζηξα, 5 πξνζέζεθαλ ὅηη θαὶ πειέθεη ἀλῃξέζε. δηὸ ζεκεησηένλ ἐληαῦζα ηὸ “θαὐηόλ 6 ηνῦηνλ πέιεθπλ ἐμάξαζ᾽ ἄλσ” (Eur. Hec. 1279) : - MAB 7 Not understanding that the verse in Homer: “after inviting him to a ban- 8 quet, as one kills an ox at the manger” is instead of: “Clytemnestra slew as an 9 ox this man who was to get pleasure after his labours”, the younger authors 10 added that he was killed with an axe. Therefore, it is necessary here to mark 11 with a critical sign the verse: “this man as well, lifting high the axe”. 12 The murder of Agamemnon is mentioned several times in the Odyssey, 13 with a fluidity of conception and elaboration that is justified in the light of the 14 different contexts and perspectives12. The relevant verse recurs two times with- 15 in the poem: in the section dedicated to the account of ‟ shipwreck in 16 , when narrates Agamemnon‟s return from , his emotion at 17 the arrival in homeland and the execution of the ambush by Aegisthus and 18 twenty henchmen (4, 512-537)13; and in the dialogue between Atreides‟ 19 and in the , when the dead recounts the violent massacre 20 carried out against him and his companions by Aegisthus with Clytemnestra‟s 21 complicity and support (11, 404-434)14. The woman, cunning and terrible, here 22 meditates on the of the husband and kills with her own hand 23 brandishing a sword (11, 424: θαζγάλῳ). 24 The Homeric δεηπλίζζαο is referred to Aegisthus, whereas the scholion 25 makes Clytemnestra the subject of the homicide; this discrepancy can be ex- 26 plained by taking into account various factors. First of all, the degree of partic- 27 ipation of the woman in the murder is variable already in the epic poem: she is 28 either absent, or an accomplice, or a conspirator and responsible for the crime; 29 the idea that she was the architect of the deceit was afterwards fortunate, as the 30 paradigmatic example of Aeschylus‟ demonstrate. Secondly, the ex- 31 pression ζὺλ νὐινκέλῃ ἀιόρῳ in Od. 11, 410 might have influenced the an- 32 cient commentator: Aegisthus is the nominative in the phrase, but Clytemnestra

myth according to the perspective of Aristarchus see Schironi 2018: 661-686, with bibliog- raphy. The notion that a misinterpretation of the Homeric text resulted in a specific detail of a later work is widely attested in the exegetical scholia to the Iliad: e.g. Sch. Il. ex. 4, 59b: πξεζβπηάηελ (sc. Ἥξελ): ηηκησηάηελ λῦλ. πιαλεζεῖο δὲ ἐληπεῦζελ Ἡζίνδνο λεώηεξόλ θεζη ηὸλ Γία (cf. Th. 454-457); cf. Sch. ex. Il. 5, 880; Sch. ex. Il. 18, 38. 11On this scholion see Roemer 1906: 32-34; Elsperger 1907-1910: 125-126; Nünlist 2009: 259. 12 Od. 1, 28-43; 3, 193-198, 232-235, 253-312; 4, 90-92, 512-537; 11, 404-434, 439, 452-453; 24, 95-97, 191-202. 13 Sch. Od. 4, 535 e2 grasps Agamemnon‟s desire for rest after his labours, and therefore states that the image of the ox at the manger must be read figuratively; see Pontani 2010: 330 app. ad loc. From another perspective, Sch. Porph.? Od. 535e2 aims to justify the behaviour of the he- ro and to remove any doubt about his possible weakness for not realising the trap: the reference to the banquet does not mean that he was drunk, and the comparison with the ox does not des- ignate him as an arrogant but a brave man. On the link between these annotations and the tragic scholion see Pontani 2005: 101. 14On these two passages see respectively West 1981: 359-361 and Heubeck 1983: 291-293.

4 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 plays an active role in the action as well. Thirdly, Euripides ascribes the mur- 2 der to the woman: it is, therefore, not illogical to suppose that the ancient exe- 3 gete cited the Homeric verse making Clytemnestra its subject under the influ- 4 ence of the tragic text. 5 Sch. Od. 11, 410 observes that Homer does not know the version of the 6 homicide accomplished by means of a clothing, which serves to entrap the vic- 7 tim, and the axe: having the text of the Odyssey as its focus, it records the char- 8 acteristics of the epic description by subtracting the innovations added by later 9 poets. This neutral remark counters the reasoning of the tragic scholion, which 10 considers the expansion of the traditional representation as the result of an er- 11 roneous exegesis15. 12 13 Sch. Od. 11, 410 Dindorf 14 ζὺλ νὐινκέλῃ ἀιόρῳ] ὅηη ηῆ ἐπηβνπιῆ θἀθείλε ζπλέγλσ. ηὸλ γὰξ ρηηῶλα θαὶ 15 ηὸλ πέιεθπλ Ὅκεξνο νὐθ νἶδελ. Q 16 With my accursed wife] because she is also complicit in the conspiracy. Homer 17 does not known the clothing and the axe. 18 19 20 Hecuba Spares Odysseus’ Life 21 22 In the first episode of the Hecuba, the begs Odysseus to spare 23 the life of her daughter , who has been chosen as a victim to be sacri- 24 ficed on ‟ tomb. The woman tries to persuade the Greek commander 25 by recalling an episode of the final stages of the war when she saved him. 26 Odysseus had entered Ilium in disguise as a beggar and disfigured by wounds 27 that should have made him unidentifiable; nevertheless he was recognised by 28 , who denounced his identity to Hecuba: the queen accepted Odysseus‟ 29 supplication and let him leave the city unharmed. 30 31 Eur. Hec. 239-241 Battezzato 32 νἶζζ᾽ ἡλίθ᾽ ἦιζεο Ἰιίνπ θαηάζθνπνο 33 δπζριαηλίᾳ η᾽ ἄκνξθνο ὀκκάησλ η᾽ ἄπν 34 θόλνπ ζηαιαγκνὶ ζὴλ θαηέζηαδνλ γέλπλ; 35 Helen retrospectively narrates this exploit at the royal palace in in 36 Od. 4, 240-26416. In this account Odysseus also wears rags, pretends to be 37 wounded and is recognised by the woman, but she does not betray him, hoping

15Sch. Soph. El. 442-446, commenting on the horrible mutilation which Clytemnestra carried out on Agamemnon‟s corpse, states that each author is free to shape the components of the myth as he whishes, provided that he preserves the essential core of the narrative and creates a text which is coherent from a literary point of view; the innovation from the Homeric model prompts here the critic to emphasise the concept of poetic licence: (...) νὐ δεῖ δὲ δηαθσλίαλ δνθεῖλ εἶλαη πξὸο ηὸλ Ὅκεξνλ ἐπεί θεζηλ ἐθεῖλνο· “δεηπλίζζαο, ὥο ηίο ηε θαηέθηαλε βνῦλ ἐπὶ θάηλῃ” (Od. 4, 535 = 11, 411). ἤξθεη γὰξ ηὰ ὅια ζπκθσλεῖλ ηῷ πξάγκαηη· ηὰ γὰξ θαηὰ κέξνο ἐμνπζίαλ ἔρεη ἕθαζηνο ὡο βνύιεηαη πξαγκαηεύζεζζαη, εἰ κὴ ηὸ πᾶλ βιάπηῃ η῅ο ὑπνζέζεσο. Cf. Sch. Pind. O. 4, 31b2. 16On this passage see West 1981: 340-343.

5 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 for the victory of the Acheans: the hero easily carries out a massacre of Trojans 2 and returns to the ships; Hecuba remains unaware of the raid and is not even 3 mentioned17. The centrality of Helen in the story is supposed to be a creation of 4 the poet of the Odyssey: this episode is useful both to celebrate Odysseus‟ typi- 5 cal abilities and, above all, to clarify from the point of view of the woman that 6 she regretted the adultery before the sack of Ilium. Euripides introduced the 7 novelty that Hecuba had once spared the enemy so that she can in turn ask the 8 Greek commander to save Polyxena18. 9 A scholion criticises this invention as implausible, and not corresponding 10 to the Homeric version or conceived in his manner. The dramatist reworks a 11 traditional episode, of which Homer is implicitly identified as the authoritative 12 guarantor, producing something unconvincing: Hecuba would have had no rea- 13 son to remain silent if she had seen an enemy wandering in the Trojan camp, 14 while Helen did so with verisimilitude. The statement within the scholion “re- 15 gretting the amorous folly sent by ” indicates that Helen repented 16 her behaviour and planned to return to the ; this sentence echoes a line 17 from the account of the heroine in the Odyssey, which further reveals the com- 18 parative nature of the commentary. 19 Sch. Eur. Hec. 241 Schwartz19 20 ἀπίζαλνλ ηὸ πιάζκα θαὶ νὐρ Ὁκεξηθόλ· νὐ γὰξ ἄλ ἐζίγεζελ ἗θάβε πνιέκηνλ 21 ζεαζακέλε θαηνπηεύνληα ηὰ θαηὰ ηνὺο Τξῶαο πξάγκαηα. ἡ δὲ ἗ιέλε εἰθόησο· 22 ἄηελ γὰξ κεηέζηελελ Ἀθξνδίηεο (cf. Od. 4, 261) : – M 23 This invention is implausible and not Homeric20: Hecuba would not have 24 kept silent if she had seen an enemy spying upon the Trojans circumstances. 25 Helen, instead, (sc. did so) with verisimilitude: because she regretted the folly 26 sent by Aphrodites.

17Odysseus‟ incursion into Ilium figured in the . Procl. Chrest. 206 (cf. Apollod. Epit. 5, 13) (= Arg. 1 Bernabé = Davies, pp. 52-53 = Arg. West) placed it between the con- struction of the wooden horse and the theft of the Palladion. In the Little Iliad, Odysseus dis- figured himself (Procl. l.c.) or was wounded by at his own request (Sch. Lycophr. 780 = fr. 7 Bernabé = 8 Davies = 8 West); see also fr. 6 Bernabé = 7 Davies incert. loc. intra Ep. Cycl. = 9 West; fr. 10 West. The episode is evoked, as an anachronistic prolepsis, also in [Eur.] Rh. 498-507, 710-719. This version is similar to the Homeric one, from which it differs only on few points: it eliminates the egocentric perspective of Helen‟s account; it omits the meeting between Helen and Odysseus, probably as irrelevant; it does not refer to any wounding on the part of the hero, whereas elaborates on his disguise as a beggar; it insists on the idea that Odys- seus presents himself to the enemies as a traitor who is at loggerheads with the Atreides; see Fries 2014: 307-311, 385-389. 18See Matthiessen 2008: 286-287; Battezzato 2018: 109, who also notes that Eur. Hec. 240 is “an adaptation of Od. 4.245, where Odysseus … wears ζπεῖξα θάθ᾽(α)”. 19On this scholion see Roemer 1906: 71; Elsperger 1907-1910: 48; Papadopoulou 1998: 213- 214 and 1999: 207-209; Nünlist 2009: 260 n. 11. 20In the scholiastic corpus to Euripides the noun πιάζκα recurs in Sch. Eur. An. 734 to defend the tragedian against the charge of including in his work an anachronistic reference to a histori- cal event of his own time: ἣ πξὸ ηνῦ κὲλ ἦλ θίιε: ἔληνί θαζηλ <ηὸλ πνηεηὴλ> παξὰ ηνὺο ρξόλνπο αἰλίηηεζζαη ηὰ Πεινπνλλεζηαθά. νὐθ ἀλαγθαῖνλ δὲ θαηαζπθνθαληεῖλ ηὸλ Δὐξηπίδελ, ἀιιὰ θάζθεηλ πιάζκαηη θερξ῅ζζαη. On the meaning of πιάζκα in tragic scholia see Papado- poulou 1999.

6 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 The notion of verisimilitude is associated to a component in the construc- 2 tion of the plot and to a demand for consistency in the behaviour of the charac- 3 ters, with respect to the features with which they are portrayed: this is a matter 4 of internal credibility, i.e., a request for textual coherence. This recalls Aristo- 5 tle‟s notions of literary work: the poetic represents what could and 6 would happen either probably or necessarly21; as regards the characters in par- 7 ticular, these must be appropriate and consistent: in drawing them, as in the ar- 8 rangement of the incidents, it should always be seek what is inevitable or prob- 9 able, so as to make it inevitable or probable that such and such a person should 10 say or do such and such a thing22. 11 12 13 ’s Camouflage and Four-footed Walk 14 15 In Il. 10 Dolon, preparing to carry out a night raid on the Achaean camp, 16 equips himself with a bow and a , and wears a grey wolf skin and a mar- 17 ten cap. 18 19 Il. 10, 333-336 West 20 αὐηίθα δ᾽ ἀκθ᾽ ὤκνηζηλ ἐβάιιεην θακπύια ηόμα, 21 ἕζζαην δ᾽ ἔθηνζζελ ῥηλὸλ πνιηνῖν ιύθνην, 22 θξαηὶ δ᾽ ἐπὶ θηηδέελ θπλέελ, ἕιε δ᾽ ὀμὺλ ἄθνληα. 23 β῅ δ᾽ ἰέλαη πξνηὶ λ῅αο ἀπὸ ζηξαηνῦ· (...)23. 24 25 The author of the Rhesus describes Dolon wearing a wolf skin and a hel- 26 met made from its skull: going beyond the epic model, he images that the hero 27 will move on all fours and imitate the gait of the animal24.

21Arist. Poet. 1451a 36-38 (cf. b 8-10) (with Gallavotti 1974: 144-145): (…) νὐ ηὸ ηὰ γελόκελα ιέγεηλ, ηνῦην πνηεηνῦ ἔξγνλ ἐζηίλ, ἀιι᾽ νἷα ἂλ γέλνηην θαὶ ηὰ δπλαηὰ θαηὰ ηὸ εἰθὸο ἢ ηὸ ἀλαγθαῖνλ. Cf. Arist. Poet. 1460a 26-27, 1461b 11-12, which state that what is convincing though impossible should be preferred to what is possible and unconvincing. See Nünlist 2015: 742-743 s.v. Plausibility (or Probability). 22Arist. Poet. 1454a 33-36: ρξὴ δὲ θαὶ ἐλ ηνῖο ἤζεζηλ ὁκνίσο, ὥζπεξ θαὶ ἐλ ηῆ ηῶλ πξαγκάησλ ζπζηάζεη, ἀεὶ δεηεῖλ ἢ ηὸ ἀλαγθαῖνλ ἢ ηὸ εἰθόο, ὥζηε ηὸλ ηνηνῦηνλ ηὰ ηνηαῦηα ιέγεηλ ἢ πξάηηεηλ ἢ ἀλαγθαῖνλ ἢ εἰθόο, θαὶ ηνῦην κεηὰ ηνῦην γίλεζζαη ἢ ἀλαγθαῖνλ ἢ εἰθόο. Cf. Arist. Poet. 1454a 26-28 (with Gallavotti 1974: 153-154). See Nünlist 2015: 712 s.v. Appropriate- ness (or Propriety), 716-717 s.v. Characterisation, 721-722 s.v. Consistency. 23See also Il. 10, 458-459. Hainsworth 1993: 188 defines this episode “a truncated arming and departure scene”. In the arming scenes of the Iliad the standard order of the weapons is: 1) greaves, 2) corslet, 3) sword, 4) shield, 5) helmet, 6) spear; see Kirk 1985: 313-314. Dolon takes no greaves, neither corslet, nor sword or shield. 24The scene adheres to the pattern of the Homeric description, but focuses on the wolf helmet and skin, suggesting the association between Dolon and the animal; the usual weapons would spoil his stratagem. The chorus provides a lyric repetition of the four-footed walk: ηεηξάπνπλ / κῖκνλ ἔρσλ ἐπηγαίνπ / ζεξόο; (255-257). There are attic vase-paintings of the early fifth century BCE which portray Dolon thus fully attired, and one even crawling on all fours (, CA 1802 [circa 480-460 BCE], LIMC III.1 s.v. Dolon B 2 (p. 661), III.2 (p. 525)). Hence, this was not a invention on our poet‟s part. Dolon‟s mimicry seems to be a genuine early variant of the myth, whose relationship with Il. 10 is difficult to define; Rhesus happens to be the only

7 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 [Eur.] Rh. 208-215 Fries 2 ιύθεηνλ ἀκθὶ λῶη᾽ ἐλάςνκαη δνξὰλ 3 θαὶ ράζκα ζεξὸο ἀκθ᾽ ἐκῷ ζήζσ θάξᾳ, 4 βάζηλ ηε ρεξζὶ πξνζζίαλ θαζαξκόζαο 5 θαὶ θῶια θώινηο ηεηξάπνπλ κηκήζνκαη 6 ιύθνπ θέιεπζνλ πνιεκίνηο δπζεύξεηνλ, 7 ηάθξνηο πειάδσλ θαὶ λεῶλ πξνβιήκαζηλ. 8 ὅηαλ δ᾽ ἔξεκνλ ρῶξνλ ἐκβαίλσ πνδί, 9 δίβακνο εἶκη· ηῆδε ζύγθεηηαη δόινο. 10 11 A scholion finds it not credible that Dolon walks on his hands and on his 12 feet like a wolf, and adds that Homer does not represent him clothed in its skin 13 to suggest an assimilation of the hero with the animal. The terms of the rela- 14 tionship between the epic and tragic texts are not explicit, but this association 15 implies either a generic comparison or a derivation of the latter from the for- 16 mer. 17 18 Sch. [Eur.] Rh. 210 Merro25 19 βάζηλ ηε ρεξζί: ἀπίζαλνλ ηεηξαπνδίδεηλ αὐηὸλ ὡο ηνὺο ιύθνπο· νὐδὲ γὰξ 20 Ὅκεξνο δηὰ ηνῦην ηὴλ ιπθ῅λ αὐηῷ πεξηηίζεζηλ. V 21 [Fitting its anterior] feet to my hands: it is not credible that he walks on all 22 fours like the wolves; and Homer puts the wolf skin on him not for that reason. 23 24 The scholion disapproves the representation of the camouflage because the 25 crawling on all fours turns out not to be credible - absolutely or in the literary 26 fiction, or perhaps as regards in particular the stage performance26. If the an- 27 cient commentator actually considers the Iliad to be here the model of the Rhe- 28 sus, then he criticises the poet for artificially elaborating a detail of the epic de- 29 scription which Homer exploited in a different and, implicitly, appropriate 30 manner: this deviation would thus be conceived as the consequence of an over- 31 interpretation of the Iliadic passage, whose reception is also contested as defec- 32 tive from a literary point of view. 33

extant poetic source of this version. It is uncertain whether Dolon acted out the movements while describing his disguise and walking; two surviving cases of dramatic entry on all fours are the terrified at Aesch. Eum. 34-38 and the blinded Polymestor at Eur. Hec. 1056- 1059: with the latter the Rhesus shows verbal echos. See Bond 1996: 259-260; Fries 2014: 191-197, 200, 213. 25On this scholion see Merro 2008: 175. 26Cf. Arist. Poet. 1460a 11-18: the marvellous, which causes pleasure, should be portrayed in , but epic affords greater scope for the inexplicable, that is the chief element in what is marvellous, because we do not actually see the persons of the story. Beyond a certain point the marvellous becomes incredible and, therefore, loses its effect; in particular the inexplicable risks being ridiculous in .

8 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 The Children of Hecuba 2 3 In Il. 24 reaches Achilles‟ tent to the corpse of . He 4 addresses a plea based on the association between himself and , two old 5 fathers without the protection of any son. The comparison, however, does not 6 produce an equation, but shows that Priam is more unfortunate: he has lost all 7 his sons during the war and is now forced to beg the enemy who killed the best 8 defender of Ilium; on the contrary, Peleus still rejoices knowing that his only 9 heir is still alive, and hopes for his return. The king explains that of his fifty 10 children nineteen were born from a single womb, i.e. Hecuba, and the rest from 11 other women in the house. 12 13 Il. 24, 493-497 West 14 αὐηὰξ ἐγὼ παλάπνηκνο, ἐπεὶ ηέθνλ πἷαο ἀξίζηνπο 15 Τξνίῃ ἐλ εὐξείῃ, ηῶλ δ᾽ νὔ ηηλά θεκη ιειεῖθζαη. 16 πεληήθνληά κνη ἦζαλ, ὅη᾽ ἤιπζνλ πἷεο Ἀραηῶλ· 17 ἐλλεαθαίδεθα κέλ κνη ἰ῅ο ἐθ λεδύνο ἦζαλ, 18 ηνὺο δ᾽ ἄιινπο κνη ἔηηθηνλ ἐλὶ κεγάξνηζη γπλαῖθεο. 19 20 In Il. 6, 243-250 Homer states that inside the Trojan palace there were fifty 21 nuptial chambers of the sons of the king and, on the opposite side in a court- 22 yard on the upper floor, twelve of his daughters27. A total of twenty-two chil- 23 dren of Priam are mentioned within the poem: five are born from Hecuba, two 24 from and one from Kastianeira, while the mother of the others remains 25 unknown28. The number and identity of the children of Priam and their mothers 26 were variable in antiquity, which therefore became a matter of debate29: e.g. 27 Apollodorus (3, 12, 5) reported fifty children, and according to his catalogue 28 Hecuba gave birth to fourteen, of whom ten sons and four daughters; Simoni- 29 des (559 Campbell = 272 Poltera = 559 PMG) and Theocritus (15, 139) at- 30 tributed specifically to the queen twenty children. The number fifty recurs in 31 both Euripides‟ Trojan Women and Hecuba: in the first tragedy Priam is indi- 32 cated as the father of the children30; in the second Hecuba, while mourning the 33 imminent sacrifice of Polyxena and her own fate, the loss in a way that 34 makes her appear to be mother of them all, i.e., not specifying whether Priam 35 fathered children with other women31. 36

27See Kirk 1990: 192-194. 28Besides Hector and Paris, the other sons of Hecuba are Antiphos (Il. 11, 101-104), Deiphobos (Il. 22, 233-234), and Polites (Il. 13, 533-534). The sons of Laothoe are Lukaon and Poludoros (Il. 21, 84-96); the son of Kastianeira is Gorguthion (Il. 8, 302-305); cf. Richardson 1993: 325- 326. 29On the number of Priam‟s children in ancient sources see Fowler 2013: 527-528. 30Eur. Tr. 135-136: ηὸλ πεληήθνλη᾽ ἀξνη῅ξα ηέθλσλ / Πξίακνλ. 31Cf. Eur. Hec. 361: ηὴλ Ἕθηνξόο ηε ρἁηέξσλ πνιιῶλ θάζηλ (sc. Πνιπμέλελ); 620-621: ὦ πιεῖζη᾽ ἔρσλ θάιιηζηά η᾽, εὐηεθλώηαηε / Πξίακε, γεξαηά ζ᾽ ἥδ᾽ ἐγὼ κήηεξ ηέθλσλ (sc. ἗θάβε); 821: νἱ κὲλ γὰξ ὄληεο παῖδεο νὐθέη᾽ εἰζί κνη (sc. ἗θάβῃ); see Battezzato 2018: 123, 129, 155, 182.

9 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 Eur. Hec. 419-421 Battezzato 2 Δθ.: νἴκνη· ηί δξάζσ; πνῖ ηειεπηήζσ βίνλ; 3 Πν.: δνύιε ζαλνῦκαη, παηξὸο νὖζ᾽ ἐιεπζέξνπ. 4 Δθ.: ἡκεῖο δὲ πεληήθνληά γ᾽ ἄκκνξνη ηέθλσλ. 5 6 Since this affirmation creates a supposed divergence from Homer, a 7 scholion resorts to different solutions to solve the problem. 8 Sch. Eur. Hec. 421 Schwartz32 9 10 αὔμνπζα ηὸ πάζνο θεζί· ῑζ γὰξ κόλνπο παῖδαο ἐγέλλεζελ. Ὅκεξνο· 11 “ἐλλεαθαίδεθα κέλ κνη ἰ῅ο ἐθ λεδύνο ἦζαλ” (Il. 24, 496). ἢ ὅηη 12 ζπκπεξηιακβάλεη ηνὺο λόζνπο δηὰ ηὴλ δηάζεζηλ ηνῦ ἀλδξόο. ζύιιεςηο δὲ 13 ιέγεηαη ὁ ηξόπνο· νὐδὲ γὰξ αὐηὴ ἐγέλλεζελ, ὁ δὲ Πξίακνο ἐμ ἄιισλ γπλαηθῶλ : 14 – M 15 16 She says this to increase the suffering: for she gave birth to nineteen chil- 17 dren only. Homer: “nineteen were born to me from the self-same womb”. Or 18 because she includes the illegitimate ones due to her disposition towards her 19 husband33. The trope is called syllepsis: she did not beget them, but Priam from 20 other women. 21 The scholion considers the Homeric version as the correct one. In the first 22 section it reports, via a phraseology which assumes the point of view of the 23 heroine, that Hecuba says to have fifty children to increase the suffering: the 24 ancient commentator acknowledges the novelty introduced by Euripides but, 25 instead of expressing a negative assessment, illustrates it as a strategy to en- 26 hance the emotional impact of the scene; this device is perceived as a careful 27 and conscious artistic operation, which therefore deserves to be investigated34. 28 According to the explanation, Euripides represents Hecuba as claiming to have 29 a greater number of children in the dramaturgical fiction: hence, the deviation 30 from the model is only apparent, because it is the consequence of an artificial 31 statement of a character on the stage; this seems to exclude that in the perspec- 32 tive of the ancient exegete the dramatist intended to take an objective position 33 on the number of Hecuba‟s children. This scenario depicts a relationship be- 34 tween Homer and Euripides where the mythological alteration aims to a specif- 35 ic poetic effect. In the second section, the interpretamentum alternatively sug-

32On this scholion see Roemer 1906: 39-40; Elsperger 1907-1910: 100-101; Grisolia 1992: 56; Papadopoulou 1998: 206-207. 33The expected construction of δηάζεζηο in the meaning of „(good) disposition toward someone‟ is with πξόο and accusative - the only example in Euripides‟ scholiastic corpus is in Sch. Hec. 886; cf. for this Papadopoulou 1998: 207. In Eur. An. 222-227, Andromache states that she nursed the children that Hector fathered with other women, so as to show him no bit- terness. 34The opposite of deliberate deviation is invention without reason or improvisation: cf. Sch. Eur. Hec. 3: (…) πνιιάθηο δὲ ὁ Δὐξηπίδεο αὐηνζρεδηάδεη ἐλ ηαῖο γελεαινγίαηο, ὡο θαὶ ἑαπηῷ ἐλίνηε ἐλαληία ιέγεηλ. Extemporaneous creation is perceived as an extreme and unsuccessful form of alteration of the standard narrative: from a literary point of view, it implies lack of rea- son, neglect in composition, in manipulation and in exposition of the material, hence risk of incoherence.

10 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 gests that the queen includes among her children those born from other women. 2 Finally, it refers to the syllepsis, a rhetorical figure whereby an expres- 3 sion/predicate semantically belonging to one subject is attributed to two or 4 more: here Hecuba would equate herself with her husband in respect to the 5 number of the children he overall generated; this number would thus appear 6 exaggerated, but not invented. It should be taken into account that Euripides 7 makes Hecuba express herself with the majestis plural ἡκεῖο: the ancient critic 8 might have thought that it was indeed a plural, and for this reason talked about 9 the syllepsis; Polyxena‟s reference to her father at the end of the preceding 10 verse might have favoured this interpretation35. Whereas the solution appealing 11 to the amplification of the suffering concerns the emotional effect, the explana- 12 tion by means of the syllepsis pertains to the rhetorical mechanism through 13 which such an amplification takes place. 14 The scholia to Il. 24 relative to Priam‟s plea bring out concepts of literary 15 criticism worthy of comparison. Sch. ex. Il. 24, 490 observes that the contrast 16 between the condition of Priam and the one of Peleus increases the pity, be- 17 cause, while the first lost fifty sons, the second has only one but still alive. 18 Similarly to the tragic scholion, an association is established between the detail 19 of the deceased sons and the poetic capacity to produce a more intense feeling 20 on the part of or towards the person who suffered the loss: this effect is 21 achieved in the Hecuba by the exceptionality of the number in absolute terms, 22 and in the Iliad by both this feature and the contrast that it produces between 23 the circumstances of the characters. 24 25 Sch. ex. Il. 24, 490 Erbse 26 ζέζελ δώνληνο: εὔμεζε ηὸλ ἔιενλ, εἴγε ὁ κὲλ ηὸλ ἕλα ἔρεη, ὁ δὲ ηῶλ πεληήθνληα 27 ἀθῄξεηαη. b(BCE3E4) Τ 28 [While he hears of] you as yet alive: he (sc. the poet) increased the piety: if at 29 least the one (i.e. Peleus) has one (sc. son), the other (i.e. Priam), on the contra- 30 ry, has been deprived of fifty. 31 32 Sch. ex. Il. 24, 496b points out that it is credible that a woman gives birth 33 to nineteen children36, whereas it would not be credible if she had fifty, as Bac- 34 chylides‟ Theanus. Homer‟s clarification on the number of Hecuba‟s children 35 is thus conceived as a realistic feature of the description, because it could be 36 plausible also outside the literary fiction. 37

35For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that Diggle 1982: 315-318; 1984: 358, fol- lowed by Kovacs 1995: 434-437, transposed verses 415-416 between 420 and 421. The se- quence 420-421, transmitted by the manuscripts, has latterly been restored by Matthiessen 2008: 140, 307-308 and Battezzato 2018: 45, 129; cf. the review of Diggle 1984 by Mastro- narde 1988: 157. 36The scholia to the Iliad recognise πηζαλόηεο as an aspect of Homer‟s style in general, which is especially shown in the way the poet gives realistic and circumstantial details of places or characters; see Richardson 1980: 278; cf. Nünlist 2015: 735-736 s.v. Mimêsis, 741 s.v. Persua- siveness (pithanotês), 747-748 s.v. Realism, Lifelike.

11 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 Sch. ex. Il. 24, 496b Erbse 2 ἐλλεαθαίδεθα: πηζαλὸλ κίαλ ηεθεῖλ ἐλλεαθαίδεθα, νὐρ ὡο Βαθρπιίδεο (sc. dith. 3 15) πεληήθνληα η῅ο Θεαλνῦο ὑπνγξάθεη παῖδαο. T 4 Nineteen: it is credible that a single woman bore nineteen children, not as Bac- 5 chilides who indicates fifty children of Theanus37. 6 7 The ability to generate emotions is a topic in ancient reflections on litera- 8 ture38. The scholia to Homer and Euripides appeal to different notions in rela- 9 tion to the variety of context and content of the passages analysed. In the Iliad, 10 the number of children is a substantial component of Priam‟s plea: the antithe- 11 sis between his unfortunate condition and the one of Peleus is perceived as a 12 strategy to enhance the pity39. Ancient scholars often praised Homer‟s capacity 13 to portray intense emotions, inducing affection and sympathy towards the char- 14 acters, and to create vivid and powerful scenes: the link between him and trag- 15 edy is particularly evident when feelings charctersitic of this genre are 16 evoked40, according to ‟s definition of tragedy as a work which pro- 17 duces, through pity and fear, the of this kind of sufferings41. In the 18 Hecuba, the information on the number of children gains relevance in relation 19 to the misfortune of the queen: the deviation from the model is conceived as a 20 means of increasing her suffering, which has an impact on the dramatic mo- 21 ment; πάζνο is one of the distinctive qualities of tragedy and the ability to 22 arouse it was often highlighted by ancient critics42. The recognition of this lit- 23 erary purpose may conceal an appreciation of the artistic device on the part of

37The ode narrates the embassy of Menelaus and Odysseus to Troy to demand a diplomatic re- turn of Helen and her possessions. In the chronology of the myth this episode belonged to the events of the Cypria (Arg. Bernabé = Davies, p. 32 = Arg. West); it was known to the poet of the Iliad (3, 203-224; 11, 138-142). Theanus, priestess of and wife of , is men- tioned at the beginning of the text, which is unfortunately mutilated by some verses: here it should have referred to the fifty sons of the woman. Dithyrambic chorus consisted of fifty singers, and it is possible that the children of Antenor and Theanus formed the chorus here; if this were the case, this fact would explain their number; cf. Maehler 2004: 157 ff. 38Nünlist 2015: 723-724 s.v. Emotions. 39The scholia to the Iliad admire the grandeur and the elevation of certain Homeric passages: the notion of αὔμεζηο plays a relevant role here and can apply to a large variety of poetic de- vices; see Richardson 1980: 275-276. 40Richardson 1980: 274-275; cf. 270-271. The scholia to the Iliad make numerous and varied references to the tragic genre while analysing the Homeric poem: on this exegetical approach see Pagani 2018. 41 Arist. Poet. 1449b 24-28 (with Gallavotti 1974: 136-139): ἔζηηλ νὖλ ηξαγῳδία κίκεζηο πξάμεσο ζπνπδαίαο θαὶ ηειείαο, κέγεζνο ἐρνύζεο, ἡδπζκέλῳ ιόγῳ ρσξὶο ἑθάζηῳ ηῶλ εἰδῶλ ἐλ ηνῖο κνξίνηο, δξώλησλ θαὶ νὐ δη᾽ ἀπαγγειίαο, δη᾽ ἐιένπ θαὶ θόβνπ πεξαίλνπζα ηὴλ ηῶλ ηνηνύησλ παζεκάησλ θάζαξζηλ. 42Garzya 1989: 3-4 and Grisolia 1992: 55-56 comment on a selection of tragic scholia dealing with πάζνο; for a collection of scholia on πάζνο in tragedy see Trendelenburg 1867: 123-128. The noun πάζνο means first „that which happens (to a person or thing)‟, then an unpleasant ex- perience, viewed either subjectively as an emotion or objectively as a misfortune. Arist. Poet. 1452b 9-13 defines it as one of the three elements of a tragic plot: δύν κὲλ νὖλ ηνῦ κύζνπ κέξε ηαῦη᾽ ἐζηὶ πεξηπέηεηα θαὶ ἀλαγλώξηζηο, ηξίηνλ δὲ πάζνο. ηνύησλ δὲ πεξηπέηεηα κὲλ θαὶ ἀλαγλώξηζηο εἴξεηαη, πάζνο δέ ἐζηη πξᾶμηο θζαξηηθὴ ἢ ὀδπλεξά, νἷνλ νἵ ηε ἐλ ηῷ θαλεξῷ ζάλαηνη θαὶ αἱ πεξησδπλίαη θαὶ ηξώζεηο θαὶ ὅζα ηνηαῦηα.

12 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 the ancient commentator, who does actually not find any risk of poetic failure 2 or improbability in the use of a high number. 3 4 5 Conclusion 6 7 Ancient scholars adopted different critical approaches to elucidate Euripi- 8 des‟ mythological innovations and variations with repect to Homer. Sch. Eur. 9 Hec. 1279 depicts Euripides as a reader of Homer: the dramatist regards the ep- 10 ic text as a model and aims to emulate it, but fails to understand its wording 11 correctly and reproduces it uncritically. The ancient commentator de facto 12 equates the tragedian with a sort of exegete43, and ascribes to him a lack of un- 13 derstanding of which his own text is the result and testimony: Euripides‟ work 14 is thus conceived as the locus of an implicit literary exegesis, where the devia- 15 tion from the model is the consequence of an erroneous interpretation. The oth- 16 er examples bring out concepts of literary criticism and use them as criteria for 17 evaluating the texts: mythological innovations cause poetic effects which make 18 the literary product bad or good. Sch. Eur. Hec. 241 and Sch. [Eur.] Rh. 210 19 criticise the dramatist for creating something not credible: the notion of verisi- 20 militude applies in the first case to a request of internal consistency in the be- 21 haviour of a character, who is supposed to be represented according to defined 22 features; it corresponds in the second case to a demand for plausibility in the 23 movements and gestures of a character, whose description is expected to be 24 convincing, that is, avoiding any excess of the inexplicable or the marvellous. 25 Sch. [Eur.] Rh. 210 might imply that the literary failure also results from the 26 misinterpretation or over-elaboration of a Homeric detail: this calls for reflec- 27 tion on the fact that the two interpretative methodologies under investigation 28 were not necessarly opposing but potentially coexisting, and their boundaries 29 should not be regarded as always distinct but blurred. Sch. Eur. Hec. 421 rec- 30 ognises the novelty introduced by Euripides as a strategy to enhance the suffer- 31 ing of a character and the emotional impact of the scene; it also offers a possi- 32 ble explanation of the rhetorical mechanism used to achieve this effect. The 33 ancient exegete is interested in the dramatic of the author: he perceives the

43The tendency to equate the commented author with an exegete seems to openly occur when the scholia describe the reception of an earlier work by later authors with verbs like ἀθνύσ or ἐθδέρνκαη, which refer to the activities of textual criticism and interpretation of the ancient scholars; this meaning on occasion applies also to ἀλαγηγλώζθσ, which otherwise refers to the generic act of reading. This phenomenon is clearly attested in the relationship between Homer and Hesiod: see Gennari Santori 2018; Schironi 2018: 695-703; Vergados 2020: 289-316; e.g. Sch. Ariston. Il. 2, 527-531: ηηλὲο ηῶλ λεσηέξσλ (cf. Hes. fr. 235, 1) ἀλέγλσζαλ (with scholarly meaning); Sch. Ariston. Il. 12, 22a: ἀλέγλσ Ἡζίνδνο (without scholarly meaning); Sch. Ariston. Il. 14, 119a: θαὶ ὁ Ἡζίνδνο (fr. 228 M.-W.) δὲ νὕησο ἀθήθνελ; Sch. Hrd. Il. 16, 548a: θαὶ Ἡζίνδνο (Sc. 7) νὕησο ἐμεδέμαην. In accordance with this perspective, ancient scholars some- times explained a lesson of supposed Homeric derivation or imitation by arguing that the commented author came across a certain lesson of the epic text: this author would have had at his disposal a copy of the poems transmitting the variant he adopted or held as a reference: e.g. Sch. Hrd. Od. 4, 1 j (see Rengakos 1993: 29); Sch. Pind. O. 7, 42b (see Phillips 2016: 183- 185).

13 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 innovation as a deliberate and meditated operation and, therefore, possibly 2 praises it. The adjective ἀπίζαλνο, the adverb εἰθόησο, and the noun πάζνο, 3 here associated with the concept of the αὔμεζηο, are recurring terms in ancient 4 literary criticism. In particular, the urge to search for credibility and verisimili- 5 tude as essential components to the creation of the poetic work finally reflects 6 an Aristotelian conception of , finding correspondence in the catego- 7 ries enucleated by the philosopher within his Poetics44. 8 9 10 References 11 12 Battezzato L (2018) Euripides. Hecuba. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13 Bond RS (1996) Homeric Echoes in Rhesus. AJPh 117(2): 255-273. 14 Dickey E (2007) Scholarship. A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Un- 15 derstanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from 16 their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford, New York: Oxford University 17 Press. 18 Dickey E (2015) The Sources of our Knowledge of Ancient Scholarship. In F Mon- 19 tanari, S Matthaios, A Rengakos (eds), 459-514. Brill’s Companion to Ancient 20 Greek Scholarship. Leiden, Boston: Brill. 21 Diggle J (1982) Notes on the Hecuba of Euripides. GRBS 23(4): 315-323. 22 Diggle J (1984) Euripidis fabulae. Tomus I. Insunt , Alcestis, Medea, Heracli- 23 dae, Hippolytus, Andromacha, Hecuba. Oxonii: e Typographeo Clarendoniano. 24 Dindorf W (1855) Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam. Oxonii: e Typographeo 25 Academico. 26 Elsperger W (1907-1910) Reste und Spuren antiker Kritik gegen Euripides gesammelt 27 aus den Euripidesscholien. Philologus Supplementband 11 (1): 1-176. 28 Erbse H (1969-1988) Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia vetera). I-VII. Bero- 29 lini: apud Walter De Gruyter et Socios. 30 Fowler RL (2013) Early Greek Mythography. II. Commentary. Oxford: Oxford Uni- 31 versity Press. 32 Fries A (2014) Pseudo-Euripides. Rhesus. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 33 Gallavotti C (1974) Aristotele. Dell’arte poetica. Milano: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla / 34 Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. 35 Garzya A (1989) Éléments de critique littéraire dans les scholies anciennes à la tra- 36 gédie. Vichiana N.S. 18: 3-11. 37 Gennari Santori C (2018) Esiodo interprete di Omero: alcuni esempi di esegesi antica. 38 SemRom n.s. 7: 153-174.

44The central role played by Peripatetic inspirations and methods in the birth and development of Hellenistic philology is now a well recognised feature, see e.g. Montana 2017 and 2020: 148-154, with bibliography and critical discussion of the topic. It is worth remembering that the very idea of a contiguity between Homer and the dramatic genres reached a detailed and systematic elaboration, and a concrete application in terms of analysis and research, with Aris- totle. On the one hand, according to the philosopher epic and tragedy shared the same forms, as well as most of their constituent elements (Poet. 1459b 7-12), and Homer was the first to indi- cate the structures of both tragedy (Iliad and Odyssey) and () (Poet. 1448b 34 - 1449a 2); on the other hand, the practice of comparing epic and tragedy underpins the Poetics itself, whose closure is dedicated precisely to a comparison between these two genres, to the advantage of the latter (Poet. 1461b 26 - 1462b 15); cf. Pagani 2018: 67-69.

14 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 Grisolia R (1992) Critica letteraria e citazioni poetiche negli Scholia Vetera ai tragici 2 greci. In A. De Vivo, L. Spina (cur.), 43-58.ʻCome dice il poeta…ʼ Percorsi greci 3 e latini di parole poetiche. Napoli: Loffredo Editore. 4 Hainsworth B (1993) The Iliad: A Commentary. General Editor G. S. Kirk. Volume 5 III: books 9-12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6 Heubeck A (1983) Omero. Odissea. Introduzione, testo e commento a cura di A. Heu- 7 beck. Traduzione di G. A. Privitera. Volume III (Libri IX-XII). Milano: Fonda- 8 zione Lorenzo Valla / Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. 9 Kirk GS (1985) The Iliad: A Commentary. General Editor G. S. Kirk. Volume I: books 10 1-4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11 Kirk GS (1990) The Iliad: A Commentary. General Editor G. S. Kirk. Volume II: 12 books 5-8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13 Kovacs D (1995) Euripides. Children of . Hippolytus. Andromache. Hecuba. 14 Cambridge MA, : Harvard University Press. 15 Maehler H (2004) . A Selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 16 Mastronarde DJ (1988) Review of Diggle 1984. CPh 83(2): 151-160. 17 Mastronarde DJ (2010-in progress) Euripides Scholia (https://euripidesscholia.org/). 18 Matthiessen K (2008) Euripides. Hekabe. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. 19 Merro G (2008) Gli scoli al Reso euripideo. : Dipartimento di Scienze 20 dell‟Antichità - Università degli Studi di Messina. 21 Montana F (2011) The Making of Greek Scholiastic Corpora. In F Montanari, L Pa- 22 gani (eds), 105-161. From Scholars to Scholia. Chapters in the History of Ancient 23 Greek Scholarship. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. 24 Montana F (2017) Dal Liceo al Museo, ultima frontiera. RFIC 145(2): 443-473. 25 Montana F (2020) Hellenistic Scholarship. In F Montanari (ed), 132-259. History of 26 Ancient Greek Scholarship. From the Beginnings to the End of the Byzantine Age. 27 Leiden, Boston: Brill. 28 Montanari F (1992) Scoliografia e teatro greco: qualche appunto. In L de Finis (cur), 29 73-87. Dal teatro greco al teatro rinascimentale: momenti e linee di evoluzione. 30 Trento: Associazione Italiana di Cultura Classica. 31 Montanari F (2016) Remarks on the citations of authors and works in ancient scholar- 32 ship. TiC 8(1): 73-82. 33 N nlist R (2009) The Ancient Critic at Work. Terms and Concepts of Literary Criti- 34 cism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 35 N nlist R (2015) Poetics and Literary Criticism in the Framework of Ancient Greek 36 Scholarship. In F Montanari, S Matthaios, A Rengakos (eds), 706-755. Brill’s 37 Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. Leiden, Boston: Brill. 38 Pagani L (2018) Interpretazioni di Omero in chiave tragica negli scolii all‟Iliade. In F 39 Conti Bizzarro (cur), 67-95. ΛΕΞΙΚΟΝ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΣΙΚΗ΢. Studi di lessicografia e 40 grammatica greca. Napoli: Satura Editrice. 41 Papadopoulou T (1998) Tradition and Invention in the Greek Tragic Scholia: Some 42 Examples of Terminology. SIFC 16(2): 202-232. 43 Papadopoulou T (1999) Literary Theory and Terminology in the Greek Tragic Scho- 44 lia: the Case of ΠΛΑ΢ΜΑ. BICS 43: 203-210. 45 Phillips T (2016) Pindar’s Library. Performance and Material Texts. Oxford, 46 New York: . 47 Pontani F (2005) Sguardi su Ulisse. La tradizione esegetica greca all’Odissea. Roma: 48 Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. 49 Pontani F (2010) Scholia Graeca in Odysseam. II. Scholia ad Libros γ - δ. Roma: 50 Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.

15 2021-4212-AJP – 24 APR 2021

1 Rengakos A (1993) Der Homertext und die Hellenistischen Dichter. Stuttgart: Franz 2 Steiner Verlag. 3 Richardson NJ (1980) Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A 4 Sketch. CQ 30(2): 265-287. 5 Richardson N (1993) The Iliad: A Commentary. General Editor GS Kirk. Volume VI: 6 books 21-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7 Roemer A (1906) Zur Würdigung und Kritik der Tragikerscholien. Philologus 65: 24- 8 90. 9 Scattolin P (2007) Sui meccanismi delle citazioni negli scolî antichi a Sofocle ed Eu- 10 ripide. In R Pretagostini, E Dettori (cur), La cultura letteraria ellenistica. Persis- 11 tenza, innovazione, trasmissione. Atti del Convegno COFIN 2003, Università di 12 Roma “Tor Vergata”, 19-21 settembre 2005, 233-245. Quaderni di Seminari 13 Romani di cultura greca. 10. Roma: Edizioni Quasar. 14 Schironi F (2018) The Best of the Grammarians. Aristarchus of Samothrace on the Ili- 15 ad. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 16 Schwartz E (1887-1891) Scholia in Euripidem. I-II. Berolini: Typis et Impensis G. 17 Reimer. 18 Tosi R (1988) Studi sulla tradizione indiretta dei classici greci. Bologna: CLUEB. 19 Tosi R (2013) The history of corpora scholiastica: a series of unfortunate events. TiC 20 6(1): 15-23. 21 Trendelenburg A (1867) Grammaticorum Graecorum de arte tragica iudiciorum re- 22 liquiae. Bonnae: apud A. Marcum. 23 Vergados A (2020) Hesiod’s Verbal Craft. Studies in Hesiod’s Conception of Lan- 24 guage and its Ancient Reception. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 25 West ML (1998-2000) Homeri Ilias. I-II. Monachii, Lipsiae: in Aedibus K. G. Saur. 26 West S (1981) Omero. Odissea. Introduzione generale di A Heubeck e S. West. Testo 27 e commento a cura di S. West, Traduzione di G. A. Privitera. Volume I (Libri I- 28 IV). Milano: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla / Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. 29 Wilson NG (2007) Scholiasts and commentators. GRBS 47(1): 39-70.