Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2014
Scholarship has long argued that the Batrachomyomachia (BM) is to be dated to the Hellenistic period or later, but the question of its literary affiliations in this context has only recently been addressed. Usually considered an example of παρωιδία, the poem is a unique example of that genre in several respects, including the extent to which it develops its own formularity rather than merely mirroring the Homeric exemplar with minimal change, and the fact that it was passed off as the work of Homer himself instead of being self-consciously distanced from the parodied author. It is therefore fitting that the BM is also unusual for ancient parody in dealing with the scholarly discourse surrounding its primary exemplar. This note offers, as an(other) example of this tendency, the BM's engagement with the Homeric arming scene, and its reception in Hellenistic poetry and scholarship.
I would like to thank Matthew Hosty and CQ's anonymous reader.
1 Cf. Wackernagel, J., Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (Göttingen, 1916), 188–96Google Scholar; Wölke, H., Untersuchungen zur Batrachomyomachie (Meisenheim am Glan, 1978), 46–70Google Scholar; Glei, R., Die Batrachomyomachie (Frankfurt am Main, 1984), 34–6Google Scholar; Most, G.W., ‘Die Batrachomyomachia als ernste Parodie’, in Ax, W. and Glei, R. (edd.), Literaturparodie in Antike und Mittelalter (Trier, 1993), 27–41Google Scholar; Vine, B., ‘Towards the stylistic analysis of the Batrachomyomachia’, Mnemosyne 39 (1986), 383–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sens, A., ‘τίπτε γένος τοὐμὸν ζητεῖς; the Batrachomyomachia, Hellenistic epic parody, and early epic’, in Montanari, F. and Rengakos, A. (edd.), La Poésie épique grecque: métamorphoses d' un genre littéraire (Geneva, 2005), 215–48Google Scholar; contra e.g. Bliquez, L., ‘Frogs and mice in Athens’ TAPhA 107 (1977), 11–25.Google Scholar
2 Cf. Olson, S.D. and Sens, A., Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BCE: Text, Translation and Commentary (Atlanta, 1999), 5–12Google Scholar for a brief narrative; contra Cebrián, R.B., Comic Epic and Parodies of Epic: Literature for Youth and Children in Ancient Greece (Hildesheim, 2008)Google Scholar, who classes the BM within a different genre, the παίγνιον.
3 Cf. Olson and Sens (n. 2), 37 and Fantuzzi, M., ‘‘Homeric’ formularity in the Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes’, in Papanghelis, Th. and Rengakos, A. (edd.), A Companion to Apollonius Rhodius (Leiden, 2001), 171–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the same practice in Apollonius. That is not to say that the BM poet entirely avoids this practice, but it is considerably less prominent than in the work of Euboeus, Polemon, Hegemon, Matro et al.
4 Cf. Sens (n. 1). One example is the strategy of ‘Homeric mistake’, in which the BM points to the Iliad's propensity to ignore the deaths of some of its characters, a problem on which the scholia had commented and sometimes tried to fix; cf. Kelly, A., ‘Parodic inconsistency: some problems in the Batrakhomyomakhia’ JHS 129 (2009), 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Cf. Arend, W., Die typischen Szenen bei Homer (Berlin, 1933), 92–7Google Scholar; Armstrong, J.I., ‘The arming motif in the Iliad’ AJPh 79 (1958), 337–54Google Scholar; Danek, G., Studien zur Dolonie (Vienna, 1988), 203–29Google Scholar; Kelly, A., A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Homer, Iliad VIII (Oxford, 2007)Google Scholar, 318 and n. 1.
6 Cf. Hunter, R.L., Apollonius of Rhodes. Argonautica Book III (Cambridge, 1989), 232–3Google Scholar; Knight, V.H., The Renewal of Epic: Responses to Homer in the Argonautica of Apollonius (Leiden, 1995), 102–4.Google Scholar
7 A. Rengakos, ‘Apollonius Rhodius as a Homeric scholar’, in Papanghelis and Rengakos (n. 3), 193–216, at 209–10; already suggested by S.R. West, The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer (Cologne, 1967), 55 n. 34. The information comes from Σ A (Ariston.) ad Il. 3.334–5.
8 This is the order in the scholium, but G.M. Bolling, The External Evidence for Interpolation in Homer (Oxford, 1925), 83 suggested deleting the expression εἵλετο δ’ ἄλκιμον ἔγχος; cf. West (n. 7), 54 n. 33. If correct, then Zenodotus followed the traditional shield > spear sequence, and Apollonius was not correcting him (see above). There is, however, no reason to doubt the scholium's integrity, and in any case my argument about the BM is unaffected.
9 Cf. previous note. I make no judgement here as to whether Zenodotus had MS authority for this version; cf. Nickau, K., Untersuchungen zur textkritischen Methode des Zenodotos von Ephesos (Berlin, 1977), 173–6Google Scholar, who compares the arming scenes from Apollonius and the BM, but only in order to show that Zenodotus' version is ‘eine “Modernisierung” des homerischen Schemas’ (175); also below, n. 18.
10 For the complete sequence as set out in Paris' scene, cf. Il. 11.17–46, 16.130–9, 19.369–88. For abbreviated examples showing the sequence shield > helmet > spear, cf. Il. 14.370–4, 15.479–82, Od. 22.122–5; for the sequence sword > shield > helmet, cf. Il. 10.255–9. In all of these cases, the shield comes before the helmet.
11 Cf. Nickau (n. 9), 175; Kirk, G.S., The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume I: Books 1–4 (Cambridge, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 314.
12 Cf. Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford, 1968), 146–8Google Scholar; Rengakos (n. 7), 206–12.
13 Σ A (Ariston.) ad Il. 3.334–5a; cf. also Σ A (Ariston.) ad Il. 15.480a: ὅτι πρότερον τὴν ἀσπίδα εἴληφεν εἶτα τὴν περικεφαλαίαν. ὁ δὲ Ζηνόδοτος ἐνήλλαχεν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου μονομαχίας (‘because he has taken up the shield first, and then the helmet. But Zenodotus has changed the order in Alexander's duel’).
14 The priority of the shield is seen even in the arming scene of Eumaeus (Od. 15.526–30), where the cloak which protects him against the cold (~ shield) (esp. 529) is once more taken up before the skin of a shaggy, wild goat (~ helmet); cf. R.M. Newton, ‘Cloak and shield in Odyssey 14’, CJ 93 (1997), 143–56, at 149–50.
15 Σ A (Ariston.) ad Il. 11.32: πρὸ δὲ τῆς περικεφαλαίας ἀναλαμβάνει τὴν ἀσπίδα, ὡς ἂν δι’ ἀναφορέων χρωμένων ταῖς ἀσπίσιν. ὁ δὲ Ζηνόδοτος ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὸν ὁπλισμὸν ἐνήλλαχεν (‘And he takes up the shield before the helmet, because of the (shield-)bands which work shields. But Zenodotus has changed the order in the arming scene of Alexander’).
16 Cf. e.g. Σ A ad Il. 2.388b, Σ T ad Il. 7.304a; also Nickau (n. 11), 174 with n. 28, and van Wees, H., ‘The Homeric way of war: the Iliad and the hoplite phalanx (II)’, G&R 41 (1994), 131–55Google Scholar, at 132–3 with nn. 50–8 (149), for discussion of the practicalities, and further bibliography.
17 Cf. Knight (n. 6), 102–4.
18 A strategy evident in the Homeric papyrus Π Hibeh 19 (third century b.c.e.), which adds several verses to Menelaus' somewhat terse arming scene (3.339) in response to Paris', giving the arrangement shield > helmet > spears (339a) > greaves (339b) > sword (339c). The papyrus preserves the Homeric order (whilst omitting the breastplate), in taking the opening greaves > sword sequence and placing it after the shield > helmet > spears sequence, creating thereby a rather pleasing ring composition. It is surely inauthentic; cf. West (n. 7), 54–6.
