THE LESBOU KTISIS: THE STORY OF PEISIDICE
Marieke Molenkamp
The name Peisidice did not sound familiar to the Alexandrian public. Achilles, however, was a household name. This combination of something old and famous and something obscure was exactly what the Hellenistic audience loved. Achilles and Peisidice play the leading parts in the surviv- ing 21 lines of a poem called the L°sbou Kt¤siw. These lines contain part of the story of Achilles’ siege of the Lesbian city of Methymna and the assistance he receives from the maiden Peisidice. They are listed as fr. 12 of Apollonius Rhodius in Powell’s Collectanea Alexandrina (1925: 7). I shall discuss several problems relating to this fragment. How does the narrative flow in the preserved fragment, which consists of two discon- tinuous excerpts? (This is less than clear: editors have transposed lines and proposed a lacuna in the first section.) How does the poet charac- terize Peisidice and Achilles? Which sources did he use? What can the fragment tell us about the poem as a whole? How does it fit into the genre of foundation poetry? Can we confidently attribute the L°sbou Kt¤siw to Apollonius?
L°sbou Kt¤siw The fragments of the L°sbou Kt¤siw have come down to us through the work of Parthenius of Nicaea, who summarizes the story of Peisidice’s love for Achilles in his ÉErvtikå PayÆmata:1 l°getai d¢ ka¤, ˜te ÉAxilleÁw pl°vn tåw prosexe›w tª ±pe¤rƒ nÆsouw §pÒryei, prossxe›n aÈtÚn L°sbƒ. ¶nya dØ kay' •kãsthn t«n pÒlevn aÈtÚn §piÒnta kera˝zein. …w d¢ ofl MÆyumnan ofikoËntew mãla krater«w énte›xon ka‹ §n pollª émhxan¤& ∑n diå tÚ mØ dÊnasyai •le›n tØn pÒlin, Peisid¤khn tinå Mhyumna¤an, toË basil°vw yugat°ra, yeasa- m°nhn épÚ toË te¤xouw tÚn ÉAxill°a §rasy∞nai aÈtoË ka‹ oÏtvw tØn trofÚn diapemcam°nhn Ípisxne›syai §gxeir¤sein aÈt“ tØn pÒlin, e‡ge m°lloi aÈtØn guna›ka ßjein. ı d¢ tÚ m¢n paraut¤ka kayvmologÆsato. §pe‹ m°ntoi §gkratØw
1. Parthenius 21 Lightfoot (1999: 346-8), Per‹ Peisid¤khw (schol. marg.). THE LESBOU KTISIS 77
It is also said that when Achilles was sailing round and sacking the islands adjoining the mainland he put in at Lesbos. There he went round each of the cities plundering them. When the inhabitants of Methymna fiercely resisted, and Achilles was quite baffled be- cause he was unable to take the city, a certain Methymnaean maiden called Peisidice, the king’s daughter, saw Achilles from the walls and fell in love with him. Using her nurse as an intermediary, she promised to hand over the city to him if he would make her his wife. For the time being he agreed. But when he got control of the city, he was disgusted at what she had done and urged his soldiers to stone the girl. The poet of the Foundation of Lesbos also mentions this calamity in the following lines: (tr. J.L. Lightfoot) Parthenius then cites two excerpts from the L°sbou Kt¤siw:2 ¶nya d¢ Phle˝dhw katå m¢n ktãne Lãmpeton ¥rv, §k d' ÑIketãona p°fnen, fiyaigen°ow LepetÊmnou ufl°a MhyÊmnhw te, ka‹ élkh°staton êllvn aÈtokas¤gnhton ÑElikãonow ¶ndoyi pãtrhw thl¤kon ÑUc¤pulon: < 5 > yalerØ d° min êase KÊpriw. ≤ går §p' Afiak¤d˙ koÊrhw fr°naw §pto¤hsen Peisid¤khw, ˜te tÒn ge metå promãxoisin ÉAxai«n xãrm˙ égallÒmenon yh°sketo, pollå d' §w ÍgrØn ±°ra xe›raw ¶teinen §eldom°nh filÒthtow. 10 e‰ta mikrÚn Ípobãw: d°kto m¢n aÈt¤ka laÚn ÉAxaiÛkÚn ¶ndoyi pãtrhw paryenikØ klh›daw Ípoxl¤ssasa pulãvn: ¶tlh d' oÂsin fid°syai §n Ùfyalmo›si tok∞aw xalk“ §lhlam°nouw ka‹ doÊlia desmå gunaik«n •lkom°nvn §p‹ n∞aw Íposxes¤˙w ÉAxil∞ow, 15 ˆfra nuÚw glauk∞w Y°tidow p°loi, ˆfra ofl e‰en penyero‹ Afiak¤dai, Fy¤˙ d' §n‹ d≈mata na¤oi éndrÚw érist∞ow pinutØ dãmar: oÈd' ˜g' ¶mellen tå =°jein, Ùlo“ d' §pagãssato patr¤dow o‡tƒ. ¶ny' ¥g' afinÒtaton gãmon e‡side Phle˝dao 20 ÉArge¤vn ÍpÚ xers‹ dusãmmorow, o· min ¶pefnon pansud¤˙ yaminªsin érãssontew liyãdessin. Then Peleus’ son killed Lampetus, the hero, he slew Hicetaon, son of autochthonous Lepetymnus and of Methymna, and also the most courageous of all, Helicaon’s brother, within his fatherland, Hypsipylus, so young (?) < 5 > fair Cypris blinded her (?). It was she who set the heart of a girl afire for Aeacus’ grandson, that of Peisidice, when she saw him exulting in battle among the Greek champions, and often she stretched her arms to the damp air, longing for his love. 10
2. Apparatus: 1 Lãmpeton Gale: lãmpedon P | ¥rv: ÖIrou Gale || 2 §k: kåd Gale || 5 lacunam stat. Knaack; thl¤kon ÑUc¤pulon susp. || 7-8 koÊrhw … Peisid¤khw Heyne: -r˙w … -k˙ P || 9 yh°sketo Gale: yu°- P || 11 m¢n Heyne: mån P || 16 e‰en Legrand: ∑en P || 17 §n‹ (¶ni) Meineke: §n P. 78 MARIEKE MOLENKAMP
And then a little later on: Immediately the maiden received the Greek host within her fatherland, after secretly removing the bolts of the gates, and she endured to see with her own eyes her parents struck by the bronze, and the slavery chains of the women, dragged to the ships, because of Achilles’ promises, 15 that she would be grey-eyed Thetis’ daughter-in-law, the Aeacids her family-in-law, that she would reside in Phthia as the greatest hero’s prudent wife (though he was not to do this), and she rejoiced at her fatherland’s disastrous fate; Then a very painful marriage with Peleus’ son befell her, 20 the poor wretch, by the hands of the Greeks, who killed her with might and main, striking her with a torrent of stones.
The Narrative In broad outline the story of Peisidice and Achilles is clear. Achilles needs the help of Peisidice to capture Methymna; she gives him this help and asks as a reward to become his wife, but in the end she is stoned at Achilles’ command by his companions. There are however some incon- sistencies in our text. I should like to suggest that most of these problems are solved when a ring composition is assumed. First of all there are some difficulties with the order of events. If we take the fragment to be a linear narrative, some problems arise. One of these is the battle scene in the beginning of the fragment, where we find the unique expression ¶ndoyi pãtrhw in line 4. In Homer we find Il. 18.287 ∑ oÎ pv kekÒrhsye §elm°noi ¶ndoyi pÊrgvn. Since this is the only occur- rence of ¶ndoyi + genitive in Homer, it is plausible that the author of the L°sbou Kt¤siw, who even repeats ¶ndoyi pãtrhw in line 11, is alluding to this passage, in which Hector is not very pleased with Polydamas’ propo- sition to retreat within the city walls instead of camping out on the plain. If the slaughtering of the heroes takes place at the beginning of the battle, why then would Achilles need the help of Peisidice to gain victory, when he is obviously in a strong position already? As it is suggested that the inhabitants of Methymna are being killed within the city – pãtrh could be interpreted wider as Lesbos, but the recurrence of the expression later on and its Homeric allusion point to an interpretation of the word as ‘city’ –, we might assume their position was rather weak. The lines must thus refer to the last stage of the battle: with the help of Peisidice Achilles has en- tered the city and he is now killing the enemy on its own territory. So, the fragment begins with the end of the story, followed by an ana- lepsis to the starting point, after which the poet resumes his narrative about the battle and its consequences.3 After line 10 Parthenius omits an 3. Instead of reading the fragment as a ring composition, Kayser (apud Westerman 1843: THE LESBOU KTISIS 79 unknown number of lines. In these Peisidice probably offered her help to Achilles and obtained from him the promise that he would make her his wife and take her home to Phthia. Since Parthenius’ summaries usually faithfully reproduce the poems he cites, it is probable that the mediation of the nurse formed also part of the L°sbou Kt¤siw.4 Even if we assume analepsis, another problem, that of yalerØ d° min êase KÊpriw in line 6, remains unsolved. Grammatically min should refer to Achilles (1) or Hypsipylus (5), but both interpretations make little sense. Apparently we should think of Peisidice, but since she has not been mentioned yet, this is technically impossible. But it is definitely the girl whom the goddess deceives by making her fall in love with Achilles. Achilles himself is not harmed at all. Quite the contrary, he is the one who benefits most from Aphrodite’s actions. Several solutions have been suggested to solve the problem, none of which I believe is entirely satisfactory. Knaack (1900: 708) suspected a lacuna in the text between ÑUc¤pulon and yalerÆ. In the missing part Peisidice could have been mentioned shortly before, although the follow- ing lines speak against this assumption. Also, the lacuna is not essential for the analepsis, which can begin with ≤ gãr, ktl. Perhaps min refers to Hypsipylus after all, in which case êase must be either corrupt or have a meaning other than ‘blinded’. Lightfoot simply omits min in her translation (‘Fair Cypris, though, had injury in store’). I should like to conclude this section, in which I have argued that ana- lepsis is the key to a better understanding of the text, with a suggestion of a more speculative nature. In the first line I have translated the word ¶nya as ‘then’. However, since we know nothing about the context, the trans- lation ‘there’ would in theory also be possible. In that case we might think of ¶nya as referring to some specific (and in Hellenistic times well-known) location in the city, which the author mentions and which induces him to tell this story.5 In this way the story of Achilles and Peisidice perfectly fits into Hellenistic aetiological poetry.6
173) suggested transferring the first lines to the end of the fragment to make the narrative more plausible. However, this transfer causes more problems than it solves. After the ston- ing of Peisidice the slaying of the heroes comes too late and, most important, the men from Methymna must have been killed before the Greeks could drag the women to the ships. 4. Lightfoot (1999: 502). 5. This place might be the tomb of the hero Lampetus, cf. St. Byz. s.v. Lamp°teion: s∞ma §n L°sbƒ épÚ Lamp°tou toË ÖIrou. 6. There may be a parallel for mentioning such places in the story of the lion, discussed below. The lion secured the safety of Lesbos and was said to be buried somewhere on the island. Another example is Call. fr. 90, on the scapegoat of Abdera (¶ny', ÖAbdhr', o nËn, […] farmakÚn égine›, cf. Dieg. II.30-40). As in the fragment of the L°sbou Kt¤siw, here too ¶nya may refer to a known spot. 80 MARIEKE MOLENKAMP
The Characters Let us now look more closely at the fragment’s main characters, Peisidice and Achilles. Motivation is a key notion in the understanding of both. What are Peisidice’s motives for helping Achilles? Why does Achilles break his promise to Peisidice? The figure of Peisidice is a rather complex one. The secondary focaliza- tion in the second section is essential: we see Achilles’ promises through Peisidice’s eyes. Because of these promises Peisidice endures to see her parents and her fellow citizens suffer terribly (13-5). The placing of Ípo- sxes¤˙w ÉAxil∞ow (14) increases the tension. It is hard to imagine some- one standing passively in such circumstances. The poet does not picture Peisidice as a very lovable princess but rather as a selfish girl. She does not seem to care at all for her family and native city, but is merely think- ing about her own future. We can see some parallels between the story of Peisidice in the L°sbou Kt¤siw and that of Medea in the Argonautica.7 Both princesses betray their countries for a stranger, after they have fallen in love with him at first sight and have negotiated with him. We are better informed of Medea’s feelings than those of Peisidice’s, but both suffer from their infatuation (A.R. 3.616-823; LK 9-10 pollå d' §w ÍgrØn | ±°ra xe›raw ¶teinen §el- dom°nh filÒthtow). Whereas Medea never expresses her ambition – she, too, probably hopes that Jason will marry her and does, in fact, become his wife in the end –, Peisidice has from the beginning the ambition to be- come Achilles’ wife and actually demands to be rewarded for her betrayal with a marriage. As Lightfoot observes (1999: 499), Achilles seems to be stronger and more independent than Jason, since he eventually rejects the traitress instead of committing himself. Lines 15-9 describe Achilles’ promises to Peisidice – or rather Peisi- dice’s perception of these promises – followed by an anticlimax when it turns out that Peisidice is stoned instead of becoming Achilles’ wife. The importance of line 15 can be illustrated by the fact that only here Achilles is referred to by his actual name. Elsewhere the poet uses different terms (1 Phle˝dhw, 7 Afiak¤d˙, 18 éndrÚw érist∞ow, 20 Phle¤dao).8 The use of his personal name seems to make his promise more personal and there- fore more probable, especially in the eyes of Peisidice, because it reflects her focalization: she does not see him as the Greek hero, but as the man Achilles, who has made her a promise.
7. Lightfoot (1999: 499). 8. The choice of the name is not only determined by metre, but also by the connotations the different patronymics have, cf. Shive (1987). THE LESBOU KTISIS 81
On closer reading though, this is not exactly the case. According to the girl the promise consists of four items: (1) Thetis becoming her mother- in-law, (2) the Aeacids becoming her in-laws, (3) the Phthian palace be- coming her home and 4) receiving the ‘greatest man’ as her husband. The list forms a climax and Peisidice is obviously thinking in terms of upward mobility: it is an honour to have a famous family-in-law and her living in the Phthian palace means material improvement (though her life in Meth- ymna will have been comfortable too), but most important is her marriage to Achilles, the great hero, the best husband a girl can wish for. In a chiastic construction the poet juxtaposes the best character traits of both man and woman (18 éndrÚw érist∞ow pinutØ dãmar). Evidently Peisidice wants to marry Achilles because of his status, in order to improve her own, to which the other aspects of this marriage will also contribute. At least, this is what the narrator seems to suggest by focusing so much on the ex- ternals of the marriage instead of genuine feelings of love for Achilles. The princess who falls in love as a result of teixoskop¤a and betrays her city to the enemy commander forms a well-known motif. Numerous Greek and Roman examples of such a story exist.9 The topic was popular with the Hellenistic poets, but goes back to a much earlier period. The secondary elements and the names of the characters may be different, but the main theme remains the same in all these myths: the girl betrays her city to the besieger for reasons of love or greed. The story usually ends with the girl’s death. The image of a cruel but at the same time noble nature of Achilles is the one Peisidice seems to envisage. Both Peisidice and Achilles seem to act mainly out of self-interest. The adjectives afinÒtaton (20) and dusãm- morow (21) may reflect the narrator’s view on the events, but do not make Peisidice very agreeable. Achilles on the other hand is perhaps not as cruel as he seems to be. Why does he break his promise to Peisidice? By emphasizing this ques- tion, we can understand much better an action which would otherwise seem unjustifiably cruel. The lapidation of Peisidice seems to be mostly the result of his indignation at the girl’s betrayal, as Parthenius mentions (nemesÆsaw §p‹ t“ drasy°nti). For such a crime against the community, lapidation was a possible punishment.10 Peisidice’s stoical reaction to the horrible scene, her lack of repentance and grief are very much unlike the behaviour expected of a girl in such a situation.11
9. Cf., for example, Tarpeia, Komaitho, Skylla, and Nanis. For further discussion of these stories, see Krappe (1929: 249) and Schmid (1947: 142). 10. Fehling (1974: 63). 11. Contrast the behaviour of Briseis in Il. 19.291-9. 82 MARIEKE MOLENKAMP
The Story As in the case of the (other) ktisis fragments of Apollonius, in the L°sbou Kt¤siw too we may wonder what the connection is between the story of Achilles and Peisidice and the colonization of Lesbos. The little we know about Apollonius’ foundation poetry suggests that the actual foundation of a city was used only as a stepping stone to aetiological myth, but of course there has to be some relation between the city’s foundation and the story which the poet narrates.12 The story of Achilles and Peisidice seems to be put together from a number of different tales: we find information in, and similarities with, the work of Diodorus Siculus, the Iliad, a Homer scholium, P.Oxy. 3711, and some other sources. Some of the fragment’s main characters provide useful information. We know that in other sources Methymna, in our fragment the wife of Lepetymnus, is the daughter of Macar. This Macar or Macareus was known as the first settler of Lesbos. Compare Diodorus Siculus 5.81.3-6: metå d¢ taËta MakareÁw efiw aÈtØn (sc. L°sbon) éfikÒmenow, ka‹ tÚ kãllow t∞w x≈raw katanoÆsaw, kat–khsen aÈtÆn. (…) ka‹ tÚ m¢n pr«ton tØn L°sbon kat–khse, metå d¢ taËta (…) tåw sÊnegguw nÆsouw katektçto, ka‹ diem°rize tØn x≈ran ¶rhmon oÔsan. katå d¢ toÊtouw toÁw xrÒnouw L°sbow ı Lap¤you toË AfiÒlou toË ÑIppÒtou katã ti puyÒ- xrhston met' ofikhtÒrvn pleÊsaw efiw tØn proeirhm°nhn n∞son, ka‹ gÆmaw tØn yugat°ra toË Makar°vw MÆyumnan, koinª kat–khse, genÒmenow d' §pifanØw énØr tÆn te n∞son L°sbon »nÒmasen éf' •autoË ka‹ toÁw laoÁw Lesb¤ouw proshgÒreuse. And after these events Macareus came to the island, and, recognizing the beauty of the land, he made his home in it. (…) Now at first Macareus made his home in Lesbos, but later (…) he won for himself the neighbouring islands and portioned the land, which was uninhabited. And it was during this time that Lesbos, son of Lapithos son of Aiolos son of Hippotas, in obedience to an oracle of Pytho, sailed with colonists to the island we are discussing, and, marrying Methymna, the daughter of Macareus, he made his home there with her; and when he became a man of renown, he named the island Lesbos after himself and called the folk Lesbians. (tr. C.H. Oldfather) Here Methymna is not married to Lepetymnus, but to Lesbos, who gave his name to the island. That Methymna is the daughter of Macar is also confirmed elsewhere.13 The story is thus closely connected with the foun- dation of Lesbos. Achilles’ conquest of Lesbos is thought to have taken place shortly after the colonization.14 It probably goes back to two passages
12. For example, the Naukrãtevw Kt¤siw tells the story of the Samian nymph Ocyrhoe; this choice of subject can be understood if one knows that the first settlers of the Egyptian Naucratis came from Miletus and Samos. 13. Cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. MÆyumna (pÒliw §n L°sbƒ tª nÆsƒ, épÚ MhyÊmnhw t∞w Mãka- row yugatrÚw ka‹ gunaikÚw LepetÊmnou); Herodian. 31.256.31-2 Lentz. 14. Schmid (1947: 85-6). THE LESBOU KTISIS 83 in the Iliad which mention both Macar and the island of Lesbos. Compare Il. 9.128-30 (Agamemnon speaking): d≈sv d' •ptå guna›kaw émÊmona ¶rga fidu¤aw Lesb¤daw, ìw ˜te L°sbon §#ktim°nhn ßlen aÈtÚw §jelÒmhn, a„ kãllei §n¤kvn fËla gunaik«n And I will give seven women skilled in excellent work, women of Lesbos, whom when he himself took well-built Lesbos I chose for myself, and who in beauty surpass all women folk. and Il. 24.543-4 (Achilles to Priam): ka‹ s¢ g°ron tÚ pr‹n m¢n ékoÊomen ˆlbion e‰nai: ˜sson L°sbow ênv Mãkarow ßdow §ntÚw §°rgei (ktl.) And we hear that you, old man, were prosperous in earlier times; all the land from Lesbos, the seat of Macar, to the south (they say you ruled.) The Lesbian tradition, based on these passages from the Iliad, may have been linked with local prehistory by the Aeolian Greeks in order to strengthen their own origins in relation to the original non-Greek inhabi- tants of the island, like king Macar and his family.15 Achilles then formed the necessary link. Another Lesbian foundation myth is preserved in P.Oxy. 3711 fr. 1. This text describes how Macar brought to Lesbos a lion that possessed magical powers; the animal guaranteed the safety of the island and was buried there.16 This story recalls Herodotus’ account of the fall of Sardis (1.84), where a talismanic lion had been carried along the city walls to make them impregnable; yet Hyroiades managed to climb them at the one spot which the Sardians had neglected because it seemed unscalable al- ready. Lightfoot (1999: 497) suggests that the lion mentioned in P.Oxy. 3711 played the same role in a Lesbian story about Achilles’ siege, and this setup would indeed plausibly explain why Achilles, not the least among the Greeks, did not succeed in capturing the city. Interestingly, the motif of the ‘weak spot’ in a more general sense also figures in several thematically related stories. The girl Komaitho, after falling in love with the enemy commander Amphitryon, pulls out her father’s talismanic gol- den hair, thereby causing his death and the fall of the city (Apollod. 2.4.7). The tale of Skylla follows the same scheme (Apollod. 3.15.8). In this light the story of the L°sbou Kt¤siw appears as a rationalizating innovation upon a theme. The lovestruck Peisidice who opens the gates does not expose the magical weak spot of the impregnable city, but rather is that weak spot herself. Moreover, unlike the lovestruck girls of many related
15. Jackson (1995: 65). 16. Haslam (1988). 84 MARIEKE MOLENKAMP stories, she has the common sense to secure promises first. The final out- come then follows the usual pattern: the traitress is killed. A story that strongly resembles the L°sbou Kt¤siw is that of the girl who delivers to Achilles the city of Pedasos, on the mainland opposite to Methymna. When Achilles was about to give up his siege of that city, the girl, who had fallen in love with him after seeing him from the city walls, threw down an inscribed apple telling him he only had to wait a little longer to capture the city (schol. Il. 6.35a): mØ speËd', ÉAxilleË, pr‹n Monhn¤an •le›n: Ïdvr går oÈk ¶nesti: dic«sin kak«w. Do not hasten away, Achilles, before capturing Monenia: there is no more water and they are very thirsty. The author of the L°sbou Kt¤siw probably used this story and similar ones as sources for his foundation myths about Lesbos. Not only Achilles, but also Peisidice formed a connection between Lesbos and the Greek world. Although Parthenius’ text suggests that Peisidice is the daughter of Lepe- tymnus and Methymna (toË basil°vw yugat°ra), in which case she would be entirely ‘autochthonous’ as opposed to related to the island’s Greek colonists, the author of the L°sbou Kt¤siw does not say this with so many words, at least not in the excerpts. Her Greek name leaves room for several interpretations.17 It is clear that the L°sbou Kt¤siw, although an original piece of work in its present form, is almost entirely composed of well-known motifs.
Authorship Now that we have examined the fragment and the Lesbian foundation myths, let us see what we can conclude about the poem’s authorship. Since Müller it has usually been assigned to Apollonius, primarily be- cause he is the confirmed author of five other foundation poems.18 Further arguments are based on vocabulary, thematic parallels with the Argonau- tica, and compositional technique. Powell gives a list of words in the fragment “quae saepe Apollonius usurpat” (1925: 7): égãllomai (9), yhe›syai (9), §°ldesyai (10), o‰tow (19), Íposxes¤h (15), §paga¤esyai (19), dusãmmorow (21), élkÆeiw (3) and aÈtokas¤gnhtow (4). Although most of the words from this list are
17. Jackson (1995: 64). 18. Müller, FHG IV.314; cf. Sakalowski (1896: XXV); Schmid (1947: 84); Powell (1925: 7). We have fragments of Apollonian ktisis poems about Alexandria (fr. 4), Kaunos (fr. 5), Knidos (fr. 6), Naukratis (fr. 7-9) and Rhodos (fr. 10-1). All of these fragments con- sist of only a few lines or merely testimonia. THE LESBOU KTISIS 85 also used by authors other than Apollonius,19 their accumulation carries some weight. Moreover, the fragment also contains a number of phrases which resemble phrases in the Argonautica. In lines 7-8 koÊrhw fr°naw §pto¤hsen | Peisid¤khw recalls A.R. 1.1232-3 t∞w d¢ fr°naw §pto¤hsen | KÊpriw, where, like in the L°sbou Kt¤siw, the subject is the goddess Aphro- dite, who makes a water-nymph fall in love with Hylas. Also 18-9 oÈd' ˜g' ¶mellen | tå =°jein has a close similarity to A.R. 1.1030-1 (Cyzicus) oÈd' ˜ge … ¶mellen | … flk°syai. These correspondences, to which one could add a number of others,20 would fit in with Apollonian authorship. As I have mentioned, the story of Achilles and Peisidice shows thema- tic resemblance to that of Jason and Medea: a princess sees the enemy commander, falls in love, negotiates with him, and betrays her parents and country. This resemblance can be used as an additional argument for Apollonian authorship, although it is a fact that many other stories told by other authors also follow this pattern or a very similar one. The way the poet of the L°sbou Kt¤siw combines several stories to create a new one with original additions, as we have seen in the previous section, is taken by some as an indication of Apollonian authorship. For instance, Jackson (1995) has forcefully argued that this mode of composi- tion strongly resembles that of Apollonius in the other ktisis fragments and in ktisis passages in the Argonautica. As an example from the Argo- nautica, he cites the story of the death of Idmon at Heraclea Pontica in 2.815-50, where Apollonius has superimposed his Idmon cult story on an earlier foundation myth. In the Naukrãtevw Kt¤siw, Jackson argues, Apollonius conflates elements of a Hesiodic source and a Rhodian one to produce the final version of his story in a way that recalls the L°sbou Kt¤siw (1995: 65). This poem also resembles the L°sbou Kt¤siw in that it treats a love story within the framework of a foundation myth. In the Naukrãtevw Kt¤siw, Apollonius tells the story of the Samian nymph Ocy- rhoe. She is rescued from Apollo by Pompilus, whom the god transforms into the homonymous fish. Although at first sight the story has little to do with the foundation myths of Egyptian Naukratis, Apollonius probably used the first settlers of Naukratis, who were of Milesian and Samian origin, as a link to the foundation. The real foundation of Naukratis could have been mentioned in only a few lines, merely to provide an excuse for telling stories such as this curious and rather abstruse love affair.
19. See the sceptical notes of Levin (1962: 157-8). 20. Listed by Lightfoot (1999: 500-4). One might add that the bare catalogue of killings at the start of the L°sbou Kt¤siw resembles the description of the Argonauts’ battle against the Doliones in Arg. 1.1040-7 (but of course similar passages can also be found in Homer). 86 MARIEKE MOLENKAMP
Cumulatively these arguments appear to present a strong case for Apol- lonian authorship. One counter-argument, however, seems all but insur- mountable: the fact that Parthenius does not mention Apollonius’ name in his introduction to the fragment. His reference to the author as ı tØn L°sbou kt¤sin poiÆsaw allows several interpretations: either (1) Parthe- nius believed the author of the poem so well known that he did not need to name him; or (2) he did not know the author’s name or found this name irrelevant. Other references of the ı … poiÆsaw type seem to plead in favour of the second interpretation. In general we find such references when the title of the work is better known than the name of the author, which can hardly have been the case with Apollonius.21 Moreover, Par- thenius wrote his work to Gallus. Would he not recommend imitation of Apollonius by mentioning his name, as he does in the case of the two other poets whose verses he quotes? I conclude, therefore, that it seems more likely that the L°sbou kt¤siw is an Apollonius imitation, composed by a relatively unknown author. This would explain both the resemblances to Apollonius’ genuine work and Parthenius’ anonymous reference.22
Conclusions The fragment of the L°sbou Kt¤siw is a very interesting example of Helle- nistic foundation poetry. Though the subject of ktisis was not new in the Hellenistic period – there is extensive archaic ktisis material –, the Hel- lenistic poets not only gave foundation myths a prominent place in their poetry in other genres but also made them into an autonomous genre.23 Foundation myth became the basis for a new kind of poetry. In most of the fragments of Apollonius, ktisis myths form the framework of the poem, although many digressions are usually included, which do not always have
21. See, for example, Ath. 8.10.6 ı tå KÊpria poiÆsaw ¶ph, Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.21.104.1 (Hellan. FGrH 4F152a) ı tØn Mikrån ÉIliãda pepoihk≈w, Str. 10.2.9 ı tØn ÉAlkmaion¤da grãcaw, 15.1.9 plãsma t«n tØn ÑHrakle¤an poiÆsantvn, schol. A.R. 3.587 ı tå Naupaktikå poiÆsaw, schol. A.R. 4.816 ı tÚn Afig¤mion poiÆsaw, Ath. 2.9.7 ı poiÆsaw tÚ efiw Krat›non §p¤gramma, Paus. 9.5.8 ı tå ¶ph tå §w EÈr≈phn poiÆsaw (contrast schol. D Il. 6.130 ı tØn EÈrvp¤an pepoihk∆w EÎmhlow). I would like to thank Stefan Radt for draw- ing my attention to the Strabo passages. 22. See also Cuypers (forthcoming). 23. Dougherty (1994: 45-6). In both Callimachus’ Aetia and Apollonius’ Argonautica we find several aetiological myths linked to foundations. In the Aetia it is sometimes also the other way around, not aetiological myth linked to foundations, but rather foundations linked to aetiological myth, as in Call. fr. 75, where the love story of Acontius and Cydippe is followed by some foundation stories. 24. Krevans (2000: 72). Since all surviving fragments of Apollonian ktisis poems treat a story other than the actual foundation, we do not know in what form it appeared in the THE LESBOU KTISIS 87 a close connection to the original foundation.24 We have seen the same kind of creativity in the fragment of the L°sbou Kt¤siw. This fragment cannot be attributed to Apollonius as easily as it has sometimes been. The similarities between this poem and Apollonius’ other ktisis fragments and Argonautica in vocabulary, composition, style, and subject matter may point towards a very competent imitator rather than towards Apollonius himself. The L°sbou Kt¤siw fits perfectly into the Hellenistic and Apollo- nian genre of foundation poetry. It is larger than all the other excerpts from Apollonius’ ktisis poems and therefore offers more insight into the literary techniques of the genre. The characters Achilles and Peisidice are used in a poem that treats local history, aetiological myths and love sto- ries within the framework of a foundation poem. Peisidice in particular, whose origins remain somewhat unclear, forms a complex and interesting element of the L°sbou Kt¤siw.25
References Cuypers, M., “Ptoliporthos Akhilleus: the sack of Methymna in the Lesbou kti- sis”, Hermathena 173/174 (forthcoming). Dougherty, C., “Archaic Greek foundation poetry: questions of genre and occa- sion”, JHS 114 (1994), 35-46. Fehling, D., Ethologische Überlegungen auf dem Gebiet der Altertumskunde: Phallische Demonstration – Fernsicht – Steinigung (Munich 1974). Haslam, M., “ÉAlka›ow ı t«n §p«n poihtÆw”, BASP 25 (1988), 9-11. Jackson, S., “Apollonius of Rhodes: author of the Lesbou Ktisis?” QUCC 49 (1995), 57-66. Knaack, G., review of Sakalowski (1896), PhW 20 (1900), 705-12. Krappe, A.H., “Die Sage von Tarpeja”, RhM 78 (1929), 249-67. Krevans, N., “On the margins of epic: the foundation-poems of Apollonius”, in M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, and G.C. Wakker (eds.), Apollonius Rhodius (Leuven 2000), 69-84. Levin, D.N., “Apolloniana minora”, TAPhA 93 (1962), 154-63. Lightfoot, J.L., Parthenius of Nicaea (Oxford 1999). Powell, J.U., Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford 1925). Sakalowski, P., Mythographi Graeci II.1 (Leipzig 1896). Schmid, P.B., Studien zu griechischen Ktisissagen (Freiburg 1947). Shive, D.M., Naming Achilles (Oxford 1987). Westerman, A., Scriptores poeticae historiae Graeci (Brunswick 1843).
poems; whether Apollonius told the complete story, or just made a summary and told obscure myths instead. 25. I would like to thank Martijn Cuypers, Annette Harder and Richard Hunter for their useful comments on this paper.