Acusilaus of Argos' Rhapsody in Prose

Introduction, Text, and Commentary

Ilaria Andolfi

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9783110617030
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literatur
• Subtopic: Antike & klassische Literaturkritik

This volume is a full-scale commentary on the extant fragments of Acusilaus of Argos, commonly regarded as one of the earliest Greek mythographers (VI-V cent. BCE). To encapsulate his contribution to archaic literature, his book on Genealogies is described as a "Rhapsody in Prose", that foregrounds especially the exegetical nature of his book, which rewrote the most ancient past on the basis of the most authoritative epic poems.

1Introduction

1.1Life and Works

Acusilaus’ life is shrouded in mystery: despite what happened with his illustrious colleague Hecataeus of Miletus, for whom one can infer something from Herodotus’ Histories,1 very scanty evidence for him is available. Acusilaus’ name, Ἀκουσίλαος, is sometimes attested differently: T 4 EGM (= Men. Rhet. 338.5, p. 14 Russell-Wilson, cf. fr. 45A) has Ἀκουσίλεως, which occurs three times in the LGPN (between the 4th and 3rd cent. BC in Thrace and in the Cimmerian Bosporus), and fr. 9 (Phld. piet. N 1088 VII, cf. fr. 6c) has Ἀκουσιλάς, which has twelve occurrences (esp. in Crete, but also in Rhodes, in sites of the Adriatic Sea like Issa, in the Cyclades, in the Cimmerian Bosporus, 4th cent. BC and after). The lexicon of the Suda gives details of his father’s name, Cabas,2 of his hometown, Argos, and of his φάτρα, Cercadai (T 1 EGM = Sud. α 942 Adler). The text of the Suda actually states that Acusilaus was an Argive from the town of Cercas close to Aulis. This information is likely to derive from a misunderstanding that occurred in antiquity: Aulis would seem to be a mistaken version of Nauplia and Cercas (IACP, 601) might stem from the Argive φάτρα, Cercadai (cf. IG IV 530, SEG XXIX 361). This reconstruction has been proposed by Fowler EGM II, 623.3 Cabas is a very obscure name, since there are no other occurrences. Pàmias (2015, 65) has illustrated the possibility that the entry in the Suda was influenced by Acusilaus’ treatment of the Cabeiri in fr. 20: accordingly, ancient biographers may have drawn on this piece of information to name his father and may have inferred the family’s involvement with homonymous mysteries. Also, in Pàmias’ view (2015, 66–67) the mention of a city like Cercas near Aulis is to be believed: first of all, it is relevant that Acusilaus was said to have come from the Boeotian coastline in order to prove his relationship with Hesiod,4 and secondly that this area was well-known for bronze craftsmanship, a piece of information that matches the anecdote about the discovery of bronze tablets on which Acusilaus was to base his work (cf. § 1.3). On this point, the loss of certain types of evidence, especially archaeological evidence, may skew our interpretation: however, the hypothesis that the Suda drew from Acusilaus’ text and from his (widely accepted) relationship with Hesiod for these lines deserves consideration.

The most controversial issue is chronological collocation: the Suda calls him simply ἱστορικὸς πρεσβύτατος, a “very ancient historiographer” and both Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Thuc. 5.1–3 = T 2 EGM) and Flavius Josephus (Ap. 1.13 = T 3 EGM) place him generically before the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars. Upon closer investigation of surviving fragments, modern scholars have attempted to individuate a more precise collocation, especially taking into account (more or less) likely intertextual relationships with other authors. In particular, a group of scholars since Mazzarino (1966, 60, 70) has placed Acusilaus in the first half of 6th cent. BC, previous to the other most ancient mythographer, Hecataeus of Miletus, thus challenging Jacoby’s arrangement in his collection. According to Mazzarino, it is undeniable that Acusilaus, with his cosmogonic interests, shared an intellectual milieu with Epimenides of Crete (600–590 BC). This assumption is strengthened by a textual reference (in frs. 9–10 both Acusilaus and Epimenides know a story in common about the Hesperides) and by Acusilaus’ occasional inclusion among the Seven Sages (T 11a EGM = D.L. 1.41; T 11b EGM = Clem Al. Strom. 1.59.5).5 Other arguments have been put forward in support of this chronology: Pellegrini (1974, 161–162) mentions fr. 23 as testimony of a polemic with the local epic poem Phoronis, and, more broadly, the whole section on Argive genealogies (including frs. 24 and 25) matches well with the political situation of the Peloponnesian cities (Argos, Tiryns and Sparta) in 6th cent. BC. Consequently, Acusilaus must have worked before the Battle of Sepeia (494 BC). As I will argue in the commentary on the Argive section, the political situation inferrable from these fragments has little to do with Acusilaus’ chauvinism (Pellegrini 1974) or with his treatment of sources (Fontana 2012, 405–411), but is mainly based on the interpretation of Homer. Also, Lanzillotta 2009 posits Acusilaus prior to Hecataeus: in particular, he sees in a fragment by Hecataeus (FGrHist 1 F 102c), which deals with the river Inachus, a polemic against Acusilaus’ fr. 23, in which Inachus is said to be Phoroneus’ father. Lanzillotta believes that this Argive version of Inachus’ story, which Hecataeus directly attacked, stems from Acusilaus’ work, but one cannot exclude the possibility that someone else before him told this story or that Hecataeus was referring to oral accounts that he came to know independently. All in all, these speculations are based only on opinions that cannot be further investigated. In Acusilaus’ case, the total lack of references to him and his biography, together with the absence of incontrovertible termini post quem and ante quem, makes it particularly difficult to establish a positive chronology. Perhaps the safest thing is to place him at the end of 6th century among the most ancient prose-writers, following that to which ancient sources testify.6

In ancient testimonies, Acusilaus is named ἱστορικός (T 1 EGM), ἱστοριογράφος (T 5 EGM) and ἀρχαῖος συγγραφεύς (T 2 EGM).7 If the first two labels are inappropriate, since they refer to a literary genre that would emerge only later (cf. § 1.3), the last well suits his broad interests, including cosmogony, theogony, and the most remote eras of Greece’s past. Calame 2004, 232 has proposed translating συγγραφεύς as “compiler, collector”: according to his analysis, the main task of a συγγραφεύς was to collect information encompassing what we now regard as rhetoric, philosophy, politics, medicine, and history. His aim was to be at society’s service in the manner of a poet. Acusilaus’ task did include what Calame identified in his research but, as far as the meaning of συγγραφεύς is concerned, it seems to be more generically that of “prose-writer”.8

Only one work has been attributed to Acusilaus, entitled Γενεαλογίαι (T 1 EGM, fr. 3) or Περὶ Γενεαλογιῶν (fr. 37) and once cited as ἱστορίαι (fr. 1). Modern scholarship refers to it with the title Genealogies, as with the work of Hecataeus of Miletus. The report that his book was forged (T 7 EGM = Sud. ε 360 Adler) is not trustworthy, since parts of his text were cited by an ancient witness like Plato (fr. 6a, cf. 23a).9 Like all extant pieces of early Greek mythography, Acusilaus’ Genealogies are written in Ionic dialect and in prose (cf. § 1.7).

A peculiarity of his book set among those of his peers is the dedication of the opening section to a theogony: however, for want of evidence we will never know whether this choice was actually so isolated.10 This circumstance, however, is still striking and is perhaps responsible for Acusilaus’ occasional presence in the number of the Seven Sages (T 11a, b EGM; see Fowler 2001, 105).

Ancient witnesses mention Book 1 and Book 3 of the Genealogies: from this we can infer that Acusilaus’ work spanned across at least three books. Fr. 1, which is about Achelous’ prominence, is allocated to the first book: it presumably dealt with theo-cosmogonic themes. Frs. 2, 3 and 4 are from Book 3 and are all connected with Homer (with the content of his poems but also with Homeric tradition in general, as is the case with fr. 2 about the location of the Homerids). This most likely means that frs. 39–43, with their Homeric content, were part of Book 3, while frs. 6–22 are to be placed in Book One.

1.2Sources and Testimonies

Our knowledge of the texts of early Greek mythography is, unfortunately, not direct but exclusively indirect. In the case of Acusilaus, we have the incredible luck to be able to work with a long word-for-word quotation preserved in a miscellaneous papyrus (fr. 22): but this is an exception rather than the rule. Sources are manifold, but for Acusilaus there are some recurring witnesses: Philodemus in his De pietate (where he appears 8 times), Ps. Apollodorus’ Library (9 times), and above all scholiastic literature (19 times). In the latter case, one often finds materials from the D-scholia to Homer, usually known as “Mythographus Homericus” (here Acusilaus appears 5 times). There are also very early citations, like that by Plato (fr. 6a and a possible allusion to fr. 23a). As far as the chronological range is concerned, a testimony by the Suda speaks of a hypomnema to Acusilaus composed during the age of Hadrian by Sabinus. If true, this information would imply that his Genealogies were still available at that time (T 12 EGM = Sud. α 942 Adler).11

The most substantial amount of material comes from scholia (esp. on Pindar and Apollonius of Rhodes): this is evidence of the way in which Acusilaus text was primarily received, namely as an erudite source for mythological discussion. This kind of testimony has an interest in shedding light on points of detail and it is highly likely that their writers attempted to do so by consulting compendia.12

In his consistent attempts to dismiss foolish ancient beliefs about Greek gods and heroes in the first book of De pietate, Philodemus mentions Acusilaus always in connection with other authorities in the field of mythography, like Hesiod, Epimenides of Crete, and Pherecydes of Athens. As Cameron 2004, 94–95 has persuasively argued, the way in which he cites Acusilaus strongly suggests that Philodemus did not know his text at first hand but based his exposition on some kind of mythological compendia.13 Philodemus engaged in a clear dispute with such authorities and mentioned them one after the other in order to achieve an effect of rhetorical “accumulation”. Among their number, Acusilaus happens to be the most cited: in every case but one Philodemus uses him when discussing theogonic issues (Salati 2012, 214): whether this is because he had access only to the contents of Books 1 and 2 (directly or via a compendium) is not possible to say. However, what matters most is that as a source Philodemus was not entirely devoted to transmitting Acusilaus’ text in its original form. His implementation of early mythographic materials is very well described by Salati 2012, with discussion of related passages.

The problems with Ps. Apollodorus’ citations in his Library, the peak of actual mythography, are similar in ways. Differently from Philodemus, here the impersonal character of the narration has perhaps misled scholars in their assessment of the value of its citations. There has been a long debate over Ps. Apollodorus’ treatment of myth and his sources, which must have served as intermediaries between him and the earliest texts he mentions (Cameron 2004, Kenens 2013). However, considerable papyrological discoveries regarding the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women have shown substantial agreement with the Library in the narrative section where they overlap (M.L. West 1985, 44–45). By contrast, when handling theogony, Ps. Apollodorus’ arrangement has been proven different from that of Hesiod’s Theogony with its Orphic elements (M.L. West 1985, 121– 126).14 The reason he treated these Hesiodic poems so differently is an unsolved problem, one that should lead us to (at least partially) reconsider M.L. West’s position (see the useful summary in Most 2017, 230–233, also discussing the views of West and Cameron on the issue). Moreover, in recent years (Tzraskoma 2013) Ps. Apollodorus’ own creative contribution to the shaping of his materials has been also highlighted. This should warn the reader not to take Ps. Apollodorus as a faithful witness, considering both his range of possible intermediate sources and his literary engagement with them.

The D-Scholia to the Iliad (and its Odyssean equivalent, the V-Scholia) include parts of a Greek mythographical work, conventionally said to come from the pen of the “Mythographus Homericus” (henceforth MH). The MH’s work is also known through direct transmission, since matching papyri (from 1st cent. AD) have been discovered,15 a circumstance which testifies that the subscriptions appended to the historiae are not as late as some have thought.16 Over the scope and nature of this mythographical work scholars have been in debate since the 19th century.17 It was arranged in historiae that followed the narrative order of the Homeric poem: a historia was basically a narrative gloss, which expanded on what was only briefly alluded to in the quoted verses. These stories deal with both well-known and obscure pieces of Greek mythology, and they do so without recording variants and dissenting voices, displaying only one among the possible narratives (van Rossum Steenbeek 1998, 87). At the end of these narratives we find subscriptions like ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ “X” or “X” ἱστορεῖ. The level of accuracy of such pieces has also been debated: in scholarly discourse one finds sceptical positions, like those taken by Schwartz 1881, 441–445 and Cameron 2004, 104–106, while van der Valk 1963, 342–413 and Montanari 1995, 141–143, 154–164 are more optimistic about their value.18 In most cases, when it is possible to put their testimony to the test,19 the subscriptions seem to be more or less reliable as far as contents are concerned. However, each case must be assessed separately: as will be shown in the commentary on frs. 39 and 43, linguistic nuances prove that the story has been reshaped to meet later narrative standards. And, as van Rossum Steenbeek 1998, 90 notes, “although the subscriptions mention many authors, the phrasing does not modulate with respect to changes in authorship. On the contrary, similar wording and constructions occur in stories which are ascribed to different authors”. The style of those narratives is the same as that of the hypotheseis of epics, tragedies and comedies: short sentences, simple syntax and vocabulary, and extensive use of participles (Pàges 201...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations and Editions
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Commentary
• Bibliography
• General Index
• Index of Greek
• Index Locorum