Malcolm Davies

Stesichorus' Geryoneis and its Folk-tale Origins *

‘More light is thrown on the poetic art of Stesichorus by the papyrus-text of his Geryoneis than by all his other fragments together.’ This verdict continues to be as true now as when it was first enunciated. But we are also in the fortunate position of being able to infer much of value about what we may term the pre-history of the legend which the poet took as the basis for his composition. And a key document within this process turns out to be a text that is not preserved upon papyrus, that is not, indeed, included as part of any edition of the poet, and which has been the object of some very serious misconceptions. The relevant section consists of a phrase only three words long, but it is difficult to underestimate their importance, once they are rightly understood.

The judgement of Paris and "Iliad" book XXIV

Il . xxiv 22–30 It is now almost half a century since Karl Reinhardt first published what must still rank as the most brilliant and perceptive attempt to explain the significance of the above passage for the Iliad as a whole.

Aeschylus′ Clytemnestra: Sword or Axe? *

Few portions of Eduard Fraenkels commentary on Aeschylus′ Agamemnon have been so influential as the three and a half ages On the Weapon with which, according to the Oresteia, Agamemnon was murdered.1 In contrast with the controversy and disagreement stirred by his remarks on The Footprints in the Choephoroe,2 his thesis concerning Clytemnestras murder-weapon has met with almost universal approva and the matter is widely regarded as settled. It is symptomatic that within the past twelve months two important books should have appeared4 which independently assume the unquestionable Tightness of Fraenkels conclusion: the weapon envisaged by Aeschylus was a sword, not an axe.

Agamemnon's apology and the unity of the Iliad

Agamemnons apology ( Il. 19.95ff.), in particular that portion which relates the story of Zeus and Ate, contains a number of oddities and peculiarities. This was recognised in antiquity, as various remarks in the Homeric scholia testify. Further inconcinnities have been unearthed by more recent scholars, who by and large belonged to the school of Homeric analysts. Although the presuppositions of this school are now generally regarded as outmoded and inappropriate, we should not underestimate the services of the scholars who drew the relevant unique features to the worlds attention. Ways of explaining the oddities may have changed, but the oddities themselves are still well worth considering.