Homeric Epithets for Troy-Bowra

8/16/2019 Homeric Epithets for Troy-Bowra

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-epithets-for-troy-bowra 1/9

Homeric Epithets for TroyAuthor(s): C. M. BowraSource: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 80 (1960), pp. 16-23Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/628372 .

Accessed: 25/07/2013 23:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.26.133.57 on Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:21:41 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic

http://www.jstor.org/stable/628372?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/628372?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic



HOMERIC EPITHETS FOR TROY

THE

publication

of

the fourth volume on the

excavations conducted at

Troy by

the

University

of Cincinnati

in

the

years 1932-19381

enables us

to

review with

more

confidence

the historical

events

which

lie,

no matter

at how

great

a

distance,

behind the Iliad

and

to reconsider

the

Homeric

epithets

for

Troy

in the

light

of

new

knowledge.

We

may

at

the

start

agree

with the writers that

no other

city

in the Troad

except

Hisarlik

has

any

reasonable claim

to be the

site of

1

roy,2

and

it

is

now clear

that

Troy

VI,

which was

gravely

damaged

by

an

earthquake

c.

1275

B.C.,3

was

succeeded

by

Troy

VIIA,

which

had a

real

continuity

with VI

and was

largely

a

rebuilt version of

it,

until

it

perished

itself from

fire

c.

1240

B.C.4

VIIA

has

thus a

substantial

claim to be

the Homeric

city,

and

the date

of

its

destruction agrees with that given by Herodotus for the Trojan War as

Ka-r'

dKrCaKdota

(,"rEa)

duta-ra

E'

E/

(ii

145.4).

We

may

ask

how

relevant

the

Homeric

epithets

are

to

Troy

as we now know it

and when

they may

have

been

introduced into the

oral

tradition

which

Homer

inherited

and

used in

the

eighth

century.

At the

start we

may

say

that,

while

all of them are at

least

adequate

for a

walled

city

on

the site of

Hisarlik,

and some

are

much

to the

point,

not

all

are

equally

individual,

and we

may

classify

them

according

to

their use

for

cities in

general

and for

Troy

in

particular.

In

doing

this we

must

remember

that

in

the

Homeric

poems

cities

need

epithets

as much

as

gods

and heroes

do,

and that

there is

bound

to

be a

certain

overlap

between

one

city

and

another

in

the

epithets

applied

to it.

Though

we

may

postulate

a

pool

of

adjectives

suitable for

cities

from

which

the

poet

draws those

that meet

his

needs most

adequately,

there are some

which

are

confined to

Troy

and

others which

are

specially appropriate

to it.

I.

CONVENTIONAL

EPITHETS

FOR

PLACES

(a)

The

application

of

E'iKT-LEYVOV

to

Troy

occurs

in

the

formulaic

EiiKT

LEVOV

VTT-OA

E(pOV

at

A

33,

O

288,

P

433

and has

recently

come into

prominence

because

of

its

possible

con-

nection

with the

Mycenaean

ki-ti-me-na,

which is

used with

reference to

the

ownership

of

land.5 But the

Homeric

use

of

E'iiK•1•'LEVOV

for

Troy

does

not

conform to

any

of

the mean-

ings suggested

for

the

Mycenaean

word. It

cannot be

applied

to

'private'

as

opposed

to

'communal'

land,

or

to

'cultivated' as

opposed

to

'uncultivated'.

If it

is

connected

his-

torically

with

ki-ti-me-na,

it

has

changed

its

meaning.

When it is

applied

to

cities,

such

as

Phere

(E 543),

Arisbe

(Z 13),

Iolchos

(B

712), Lyktos

(P

6

I1),

Pylos (y 4),

and

Nerikos

(o

377),

it can

conceivably

mean 'well founded' or 'well

built',

but it can

hardly

have

this

meaning

for

Lemnos

(Q

40,

283),

Lesbos

(8

342,

p

133)

or

Ithaca

(X

52).

It

seems

therefore

to

have some

rather

vague meaning

like

'well

established',

and this

is

supported

by

the words

vuaov

diiKqTt11'rV

KaCLovTo

(t

130)

for

Scherie. It

clearly

has

no

special

significance

for

Troy,

and

looks

as

if

it

were

drawn

from

a

pool

of

epithets

suitable for

cities. Even

if

it

has an

ancient

origin,

its

meaning

has been

distorted

and

dimmed

with

time.

(b)

Eip•loAos

I

329,

Z

67,

[

215)

is

certainly

applicable

at

least to

the

Trojan

plain,

but

it

is not

very

distinguishing,

and it

is not

surprising

that

it is

applied

also

to

districts

like

Phthia

(I

363),

Paeonia

(Q

i54)

and

Scherie

(E

34).

(c)

E'pfhac

is a

variant on

bplfwAos,

used for

its

different

scansion in

its

oblique

1

C.

W.

Blegen,

C. D.

Boulter,

J.

L.

Caskey,

M.

Rawson,

Troy

iv

(Princeton,

1958).

2

Ibid.

xi.

S

Troy

iii

I I.

*

Ibid.

iv

ii,

50,

90,

176,

5

M.

Ventris

and

J. Chadwick,

Documents

in

Mycenaean

Greek

233.







HOMERIC

EPITHETS

FOR TROY

17

cases,

accusative

at

F

74,257,

and

dative at

Z

315,

H7

461,

Q

86.

It is

evidently

common

currency,

since it is

used for Larisa

(B

841,

P

301),

Phthia

(1479),

Tarne

(E

44),

Askanie

(N

793),

Paeonia

(P

350),

and Thrace

(Y485).

(d)

'pa-rEv-4

at

E

2Io

has

an emotional

connotation,

but is

in

no

sense

descriptive,

and

is

applied

to

places

so

various as

Augeia

(B

532,583),

Araithuree

(B

571),

Arene

(B 59'),

Mantinea

(B

707),

Emathia

(S 226),

Maeonia

(F

491,

X'

291),

Lakedaimon

(F 239,443),

and Scherie

(-r

79).

(e)

EV'pEta,

used

of

Troy

at

N

433,

Q

256, 494, 774,

a

62,

8

99,

E

307,

A

499,

v

256,

is

limited to

regions

with a certain

amount of

open

land,

and

is

therefore suited

to

countries

like

Lycia (Z

173,210,

H

673,683),

and

Crete

(N 453),

but

also

to cities with

open

land

around

them,

appropriately

for

Knossos

(Z

591)

and

Sparta (A

460),

but less

so

for

Helike

(B 575).

It

is

certainly appropriate

to

the Troad.

(f)

p-4

s

used

twenty-one

times

in

the Iliad for

Troy

and

may

be

connected with

it as

the

seat of

a

temple

of

Athene.

It

also lies

behind

the

phrase

Tpol"r

lEp

Kp7"8E)LVa

1

Ioo).

It too

is

common

currency

and used for

Onchestos

(B

5o6),

Thebe

(A

366),

Sounion

(y 278),

Pylos (01 o8),

Athens

(A 323),

and the

Echinades

(B 625).

Its

frequent appearance

in

the Iliad is

probably

due to its

happy

and useful

union with

"IAtos

at

the end

of the

line.

In

these

cases

epithets

applied

to

Troy

are

evidently

drawn

from a

common

stock

which

was available to

deal

with

most

places.

They

are all

appropriate

enough

but never

very

individual or

illuminating. (a)

refers

to

the

good

work

which

has

gone

to

the

making

of

Troy;

(b)

and

(c)

to

the

fertile land around

it;

(d)

to its

general

amenities;

(e)

to the

extent

of

its

territory,

and

(f)

to

its

cults.

All

of them are

consistent with

what

we

know of

Troy

VI

and VIIA and

indeed

of VIIB

and

VIII.

But

they

do

not

differentiate

it

very

firmly

from

other cities which are

well

founded,

have

lands

around

them,

and

are known

for

local

cults. If

the demands of oral

composition

meant that

Troy

had to

have

epithets,

these

are

adequate enough

but do not

suggest any special knowledge.

2.

EPITHETS

CONFINED

TO TROY

(a)

i'SLyroS,

which

appears

in

the

phrase

dii8tLp'roto

dA-oS

at

Q

516,

is

normally

used

of

towers

(H7

700,

X

195)

walls

(M

36,

v

302,

X

24,126)

and altars

(A

448),

but

is

applied

in

this

single

case

to a

whole

city.

It

suggests

the solid

work

which has

gone

to

its

building

and

is

abundantly justified by

the remains

of

Troy

VI

and

VIIA. It

is

not

used

of

any

other

city

as

such,

and

looks

as

if

it were

given special

duties for

a

clear

impression

of'I

roy

in

its

strength

and

solidity.

(b)

E1••EIXEOS

at A

129,

B

113,288,

E

716,

O

241,

I

20

is

more

specific

than

E'i~p-os..

he

walls of

Troy V1,

which

survived with some

patching

in

Troy VIIA,'

show

how well

deserved the

epithet

is,

and

it

helps

to

explain

why

the

Achaeans

took

ten

years

to

capture

the

city.

Its absence

from other cities

does not

indicate

that

they

lacked

walls

but

suggests

that those of

Troy

were

particularly noteworthy.

(c)

Ei1rvpyos

at H

71

may

be

taken to refer

not to walls

but to

towers in

the

fortifica-

tions,

such as

existed

in VI in

at least four

places,

known

as

V1

g,

V1

h,

VI

i,

VI

k,

and

survived

into VIIA.

We do not

know how

high they

were,

but

they

were an

integral

and

important

feature

in

the

defences of

Troy

and must

have

presented

an

impressive

spectacle.

Towers

also

existed at

Mykene

and

Tiryns,

but,

since

they

were

built

in

connection with

gates,

and these were

fewer than at

Troy,

the

towers also

were

probably

fewer.

Their

number

at

Troy

certainly

contributed

to the

impression

which

it

made

as a

'well-towered'

city.

6

Troy

v

6,

48,

73,

88.







18

C.

M.

BOWRA

(d)

8

pvdcraa

occurs

only

once in a

highly

dramatic

passage,

when the

Trojans

burst

into

lamentations

as

they

see the

dead

body

of

Hector

dragged

behind the chariot of

Achilles:

LT

E aA

ap

En

Ev

t

v

aALyKJV WsC

aaa

"Jtogo

dopvd•cra

rrvp

OCLxvOLTO

aT

aKp,•g.

(X

410-411

)

The

adjective

seems to be derived from such

phrases

as

Err

dpv'atc

KaAAMKOA;dVrjY

59)

and

is

explained

by

the Townleian

scholiast as

Ed7l

Cbpv'8rovs

Trdrrov

KEJLLJVY.

t

was

used

in

the seventh

or sixth

century

by

a

Delphic

oracle for Acrocorinth

(Hdt.

v

92

f

3),

and

not

only conveys

a

vivid

impression

of

Troy

on

its

ridge

overlooking

the

plain

but

helps

by

contrast

to

strengthen

the note of

menace

in

its

coming

doom. It is a

general

comment

on

the

forbidding aspect

which the

city

presented,

especially

to

any

possible

attackers.

(e)

ayTv LEyad

B

803,

H

286,

136,278,

0

681,

P

I6o,

0

3o9,

X

35I)

is

not

very

appro-

priate

to the site of

Troy

if

it

refers

simply

to

extent. The

remains

of VI and

VIIA

measure

some

200

yards

at their

widest

diameter

and cover

not more than

five

acres,

nor

does it

take more than

a

quarter

of

an

hour to

walk

round

them without

hurrying.

It is

true

that

in

the

Iliad

Homer

suggests

that a

very large

force is

housed

in

this small

area,

and

that we may well agree with Thucydides when he says EtCOS

T1L

%

TO%

ELOV E

.y

.TOLt71T7V

OV7a

KouaL0jcaa

i Io.3).

But

LLEyd

eed not refer

to

extent,

and

may

well

refer

to

height

and

mass,

as it

is

used for

a

tower

(Z

386)

or a

mountain

(H

297).

Such a

meaning

would

be

highly

appropriate

to

Troy

with

its

formidable

fortifications and

the look

which these

presented

to

anyone

on

the

plain

below.

(f)

Ev'TwAOS

belongs

to

rather

a

different

category

from

the

preceding

cases,

since it is

concerned

with

Troy

not

for its

appearance

but as a

place

famous

for its

horses. As

such

it is connected

with

the

epithet

17rd"aoL0ot,

hich is

used

of

the

Trojans

twenty-one

times

in

the Iliad.

EiV'rroos

s

fully justified

by

history.

Though

no

bones of

horses

have

been

found

in

the first

five

settlements,

they

are

abundant

in

Troy

VI7

and

VIIA8,

but become rare

in

VIIB.9

It

has been

surmised

with

good

reason that the

people

who built

Troy

VI

owed

their success to their use of the domesticated horse,0 and they seem to have left this legacy

to their descendants

who

held

the

city

till

the

destruction of

VIIA.

The

epithets

in

this class are

more

precise

and more

distinctive than

in

the

preceding.

Taken

together they suggest

actual

observation

and local

knowledge.

They

are

more

than

merely

appropriate

to

Troy,

and

were

surely

chosen

with an

eye

to

its

appearance

and character. Since none of them

is

applied

to

other

cities

which

seem to

deserve

them,

it looks as

if

they

were

intended to

give

from

different

angles

an

impression

of

Troy

in

its

striking individuality

with its well-made

walls

and

towers,

its

threatening appearance,

and

its reliance

upon

horses.

3.

EPITHETS

SUITABLE

TO

TROY BUT

NOT

CONFINED

TO

IT

A

third class of

epithets

differs from

the

first

in

not

being

obviously

drawn

from

stock,

and from the second in

not

being

confined

to

Troy.

None

the less

they

suit

it

very

well

and are

in

this

respect

close to

the second

class. The

aspects

which

they

stress are

shared

with other

places,

but are

none the less

characteristic of

Troy.

(a)

acdr

(N625),

alrrcw O

71),

and

alcrrwEv

(L

419,682,

N773,

0

558,

P

328)

all

have

the

same

meaning,

and their

usage

is

determined

entirely

by requirements

of

scansion.

All

are

apt

for

Hisarlik,

which

rises

steeply

from

the

plain

on

the north and

west

side,

and

certainly

must

have risen

noticeably,

if

not so

steeply,

on

the

east and

south

sides

before

the

builders

of

Troy

IX did their

great

levelling,

alrcd

s

confined to

Troy,

but

alrELvc4

s

also

applied

to

Kalydon

(N2

17),

Gonoessa

(B

573),

and

Pedasos

(Z

35),

and

is

relevant

7

Troy

iii

123, 136, 182, I88,

etc.

8

Ibid.

iv

51,

66,

70,

73, 92,

1

17,

123.

Ibid.

iv

199.

10

Ibid.

iii

o.







HOMERIC

EPITHETS FOR

TROY

19

enough

to

what

we know of these

places.

alcjd

has a similar

range,

and is

justifiably

used

of Dion in northern Euboea

(B

538),

where the modern

village

of

Lithada

is set on the

edge

of

a

precipice;

of

Pylos

(y 484,

o

193),

which deserves the

adjective

if the reference

is to

the

Mycenaean

site

of Ano

Englianos;

and of the

mythical

home of the

Laestrygonian

Lamos

in

a mountainous

fjord

(K 87).

Its

application

to

Troy may

have been

suggested

by

the

view which it

presents

to

anyone

who

approaches

it from the north or the

west,

as travellers

who

come

by

sea

normally

do.

(b)

z

i'brvvAos

H

698,

P

544)

is

explained

by Hesychius

as

meaning

6brqA'•s

T'Aag

E'XOV,

and

his

assumption

that

it refers

to

the

number,

as well as

the

height,

of

gates

is

important

for

Troy.

In

Troy

V1

excavation

has revealed the remains

of

gates

VIR in

the

north-

east,

VIs in

the

east,

VIT in the

south,

VIu

in the

south-west,

VIv

in the

west,

VIY

in

the

south,

and

VIz

in the south-west.

Not all of these existed at the same

time,

but

there

must

have

been

at least four

at

most

periods

in

the

life

of

Troy

VI,

and

such

seem

to

have

lasted

through

Troy

VIIA.

Nor

can

we

rule out

the

possibility

that

there

were

other

gates

in the north wall which does

not survive. The

only

other

city

to

which

Homer

applies

OSTI0rvAos

s the

Mysian

Thebe

(Z

416),

and

on this we are in

no

position

to

say

whether

it is justified or not, though Thebe had close relations with Troy and may have resembled

it in

the

manner of its fortifications

in

its

strategic

position

at the head of

the

Adramyttian

Gulf.

The

adjective

might,

we would

think,

have been

applied

to other

citadels

such as

Mykene,

Tiryns,

and

Athens,

but

in

fact

it

is

not.

The

fortifications

of

Mykene,

which

present

so

striking

a

spectacle today,

are

not

hinted

at,

nor

are

those

of

Athens,

while

Tiryns

is

called,

very

appropriately,

-TEXLdec•a

(B

559)

without

any

mention

of

its

gates.

The reason for this

must

be that

Troy

was

unusual

in

the

number

of its

gates,

while

these

other

cities

had

only

one main

gate

and a

postern entry.

A

series

of

lofty gates

at

Troy

would

earn

the

epithet

v4,3/1TvAos.

The

nearest

approaches

to

it are

the

Boeotian

Thebes,

which

is

called

EdiTra-TfrAoLoA

406)

in

accordance

with

legend

and

the

importance

attached

to each

gate

in

the

War

of the

Seven,

and the

Egyptian

Thebes,

which

is

EKaTd"pTrvAo

(I 383), as befits so remarkable a city outside the familiar limits of the Greek world.

(c)

vEbdtoEaaca,

hich

is

found

in

the

formula

"IALov

qvEJLdoEaav

T

305,

O

499,

M

i

5,

N

724,

'

174,

FI

64,297),

is,

as

anyone

who has

visited

Troy

knows,

remarkably

apt,

and

engaged

the

special

attention

of

Schliemann,

who

made

meteorological

inquiries

about it.

The north

wind,

which the

modern

Greeks call

OpaKLc~'S

n

the

winter

and

utEA-r••'L

in

the

summer,"

blows

powerfully

at

most

seasons of

the

year

and

provides

ample

justification

for the

epithet.

But

it is not

attached

uniquely

to

Troy.

It

is

applied

also to

the

mountain

of

Mimas

(y

172),

which

is

on

the

Ionian

coast near

Erythrae

and

was

the

scene of

a

severe

storm recorded

by

Thucydides

(viii

34-5),

and

to

Enispe

in

Arcadia

(B

66o),

whose

exact

position

is not

known to

us,

as it

was not

known to

Strabo

(388).

But of

course in

Arcadia the

adjective may

well

be

deserved.

(d)

EvlpvdyvLa,

which is applied to Troy eight times in the Iliad and twice in the Odyssey,

presents

a

special problem.

It

used

to

be

thought

that it

referred

to

Troy

VI,

in

which

there is an

unusual

unoccupied

space

between

the

walls and

the

buildings

enclosed

by them.'2

This is

indeed so

unusual that it

might

well call

for

notice

and

deserve

a

special

epithet.

But this

interpretation

is

hardly

tenable,

since the

adjective

is

applied

also

to

Mykene

(A

52)

and

Athens

(r

8o),

where

there

is no such

space.

In

VI1A

this

open

space

was

covered

with houses

when the

city

was

rebuilt after

the

earthquake

of

c.

I275

B.C.,13

and

this

suggests

that

eapvdyvLa

must have

another

meaning,

which

can

only

be 'with

broad

streets'. One

of the

most

noteworthy

features of the

rebuilding

done in

VIIA

is

the

con-

struction of

well-paved

and

well-drained

streets,

notably

Street

7Io,

which

leads

from

the

South Gate to

the

heart of

the

citadel,

and

may

indeed

have been

one of

the

ways by

which

11

I

owe this

information to

Professor C.

Trypanis.

12

W.

Leaf,

Troy

150-1I.

13

Troy

iv

6-7.







20

C.

M.

BOWRA

the Achaeans

entered

Troy,

since

a bronze arrow-head

has been found in

it.14

This

street,

together

with the remains

of

others,

suggests

that

Troy

VIIA

was

well

planned

for

internal

communications,

and this alone

would

justify

the choice

of the

epithet.

It is

significant

that

E•pvcdyvLa

is

applied

also

to

Mykene,

where

a

royal

road led

through

the

Lion

Gate

to

the

summit,

and to

Athens,

which

had a well-made

approach.

Homeric notions

of

width in streets were not the same as

ours,

and it is

likely

that

any

city

which had a

system

of

streets

would be

noticed for

them.

In

Troy,

as

in

Mykene

and

Athens,

the

epithet

is

amply justified

and seems to fit

Troy

VIIA

better than

Troy

VI.

(e)

Ev6

vatdLLEvov

hich

is

applied

to

Troy

in

the

formula

E

va••oLEvov

7rT-oALEpov

A

164,

B

133, 1402,

N

38o),

seems to mean 'well

populated'.

It

is used also

for

the island

of

Kos,

where Heracles arrives

after the

first

Trojan

War

(?

255,

O

28),

and

for

Sidonie

(v

285).

The

first

may

have been chosen to

suggest

a

flourishing city worthy

of

capture

by

Heracles

(Apollod.

2.7.1;

Strab.

531;

Eustath.

985,35),

and the

second,

even

if

it

is not

the

same

as the historical

Sidon,

must

surely

be a

city

of

the Phoenician

coast

and

as

such

assumed

to be

prosperous

and

suited to such an

epithet.

Hisarlik

VI

cannot have

been

very

populous,

as its

small

area

left room for

houses to

stand

in

their

own

space

without

overcrowding, but VIIA was different. Houses are smaller and more crowded; empty

spaces

are

covered

by

them;

their

stores

are

kept

indoors

in

jars

below

the surface

of

the floor.

When

the

city

was refashioned after

the

earthquake

of c.

1275

B.C.,

special

steps

were

taken

to

make it

accommodate

more

inhabitants without

extending

the

circuit of

its

walls.'5

It

is

therefore

possible

that

this is what is meant

by

EO

vaYLdLEVoV.

Even

if

some

epithets

for

Troy

are so

conventional

as to be

not

very

informative,

others

are

much to

the

point

and

chosen with an

eye

for what

Troy

really

was.

Just

as

Pylos

is called

Cada0io'aaa

ecause of

the

sandy

beaches below

the hill

where the 'Palace

of Nestor'

stands,

and

Mykene

has been

abundantly

justified

in

its

epithet

7roAvXpvaoto

y

Schliemann's

discoveries,

so

Troy

has

epithets

which

are

always

consistent

with

its

site and

appearance

and

often

illuminating

and

picturesque. They

indicate

that at

some

stage

or

stages

a

poet or poets knew the site and found appropriate adjectives for it. This need not have

happened

within a

single,

short

space

of

time,

but

we

ought

to be

able

to

decide

roughly

when

some

of

these

epithets

were

brought

into

poetical

use.

We can do

something

for

this

by

asking

how

appropriate

they

are

to

the

different

cities on

the

site of

Hisarlik. Of

these VI

and

VIIA,

which

may

be

treated

as

a

continuous

settlement,

provided

obvious

opportunities.

The

walls

and

towers

and

gates,

the

well-made

streets and

the

crowded

houses,

even the

breeding

of

horses,

are all

reflected

in

the

epithets.

Troy

VI-VIIA

was

in

contact with

the

Mycenaean

world,

as the

finds

of

pottery

show,16

and

if

information

from

travellers was not

enough,

it

could be

supplemented

by

warriors who

fought

at

Troy

in

the middle of

the

thirteenth

century.

This

is

the

obvious

Troy

for

the

epithets,

but

we

must

first

inquire

whether

some of

them

might

not

come from

a

later

date.

Troy

VIIB

continued in a diminished and presumably poverty-stricken form the life of VIIA and

maintained

some

relations with

mainland

Greece.7

It

is

therefore

not

impossible

that

wandering bards,

who

had

already

parts

of

the

tale of

Troy

in

their

repertory,

added to

the

existing

epithets

others

formed from

a

knowledge

of

the

site,

which

might

indeed

be

partly

ruined

but still

suggest

something

of

its

former

glory.

This

period

would be

from

c. I240

B.C.

to

c.

IIOO

B.C.18

In

it

falls

the

beginning

of the

Dark

Age

and the

vast

destruc-

tions of

c.

I200

and

the

subsequent

movements

of

peoples,

but the

poetical

tradition,

which

was

already

at

work

in

Mycenaean

days,

survived the

catastrophes,

and

there

is no a

priori

reason

why poets

should

not

have

known

Troy

and

made

use of

their

knowledge

in

songs

of the

glorious

past.

From

c.

I Ioo

B.c.

to a little

before

700

B.c.,

when

it

was

refounded

by

Greek

colonists,

it

seems

to

have

been

deserted,

and even if

poets

visited

it,

which

must

14

Troy

iv

48-51.

15

Ibid. iv

7.

16

Ibid.

iii

38;

iv

9.17

Ibid.

iv

145.

18

Ibid. iv 249.







HOMERIC EPITHETS

FOR

TROY

2I

have been

rare at the

best,

its

remains would

hardly

have

conveyed

much

to them.

Nor

is

it

easy

to believe that the

poet

of our Iliad could

have seen

much of the ancient

town.

If,

as is

likely,

he

lived in the

eighth

century,

he would in

all

probability

have

found

nothing

but a

desolate,

overgrown heap

of

rubble,

and

certainly

not sufficient

ruins

to

provide

him

with

the exact

knowledge

which

the

more

special epithets

imply.

He

might

see

the

actual position where Troy had stood and grasp its relation to the

surrounding

country,

but

he

would

not

see towers or

gates

or

houses or streets.

We

are

forced to

conclude

that

in

so

far as the

epithets

reveal

a real

knowledge

of

Troy,

this

must have been

gained

during

the

existence

of

VI

or

VIIA,

with

perhaps

some small

reinforcements from

VIIB.

We

need not shrink

from the notion

that some Homeric

epithets

go

back

to

Mycenaean

times.

An

oral,

formulaic

style,

like

that of the

Iliad

and

the

Odyssey,may

last for

many

centuries and

preserve

in fixed

phrases

much

information which

dates

from a

remote

past.

Just

as the

poems

carry unexpected

details

about

Mycenaean

civilisation"9

into a

time

when

some

of

them

must have been

almost

unintelligible,

so

they

preserve

information

on

Troy

and

the

Trojan

War

which

must

go

back to

men

who knew

about

them

at

first hand

from their

own

experience.

We cannot

say

exactly

for

what kind

of

poem

these

epithets

were chosen and fashioned into formulae, but they look as if they were made for hexameters,

and

this

suggests

that the

hexameter

existed

in

Mycenaean

times,

and

the

poems

containing

them would

have

been

KAa

cdv8p3v,

which,

whether

they

were

sung

in

praise

of

the

living

or as

tales of

the heroic

dead,

told of

great

doings

at

Troy.

That the

one

kind

of

poem

passes

easily

into

the other is

proved

by

poetical practice

in

many

parts

of

the

world20

and

is

indeed

a

natural

process

as the

high

exploits

of

the

present

recede

into

the

past.

It is

clear that the tale of

Troy

became a

subject

for

song

at an

early

date,

and

it

is

no less

clear

that certain

details

and

episodes,

which are

fully

intelligible

only

in

the

light

of

what we

know about

Troy

VI-VI1A,

were

preserved

for

centuries

as an

integral

part

of

the

tradition,

despite

their minor

relevance to

the

main

story.

It is

no

accident

that

the

faulty

structure

of the

western

fortifications of

Troy,

which

have been

revealed

by

excavation,21

were

known

to Homer's Andromache:

Aaov

84

'

ia-qov

7Tap

yEP

'V,

Evla

/LcfaAtYa

dcjaT•g-

E•-•

7

TAS

KaL

E7TLpo0OV

TAETo

LXOS.

(Z

433-4)

or that

the

batter

of

the

walls,

which is

not

nearly

so

steep

as

at

Mykene

and

Tiryns

and

provides

an

easy

climb

up

to

the

angle,

or

dcyK,6V,

where

the

perpendicular

battlements

on

top

of

them

begin,22

was

enshrined in

Patroclus'

attempt

to

scale

them:

'7plS

FLV

alT

ayKWVOS*

-

TELXEOS

b47o7

H'rjpoKA0os,

p~s

'

avi'rTv

7TrrcE-rv•EA(Ev

AroAAowv.

17

702-3)

If

the

tradition

preserved

details

such

as

these

from

Mycenaean times,

and

it can

hardly

have done

so

from

any

other,

it

is

even

more

likely

to

have

preserved formulae

for the

city

itself,

since

these

were

indispensable

instruments for

any

oral

song

about

Troy.

In

trying

to

decide

which

of

these

epithets

are

likely

to

be

early

we

may

start

with

those

which

gave

a

visual

impression

of

Troy

as a

fortified

citadel.

They

are

Cqpvdicua,

EdEIXEoS,

3•nvAos,

EimvypyoS,

"sir-os.

Some of

these

may

well

be

Mycenaean

words.

The

prefix

eU-

occurs

a

number

of

times

in

proper

names from

Linear B

tablets

from

Knossos

and

Pylos.23

-TELXEOS

ooks

as if

it

were

related

to

to-ko-do-mo

(toikhodomoi,

builders'),24

and

-8~tpros

to

de-me-o-te

demeontes,

who

are

to

build').25

All

five of

these

epithets

are

suitable

19

T.

B. L.

Webster,

From

Mycenae

to

Homer

64-90.

20

C. M.

Bowra,

Heroic

Poetry

9-23.

21

Troy

iii

102-4,

109-13.

Cf.

W.

Leaf,

Troy 156.

22

Troy

iii

87;

cf.

D.

Gray

in

J.

L.

Myres,

Homer

and

his

Critics,258.

24

Id.

182

(PY

An2o).

23

Ventris-Chadwick

408.

25

Id.

174 (PY

Ani4).







22

C. M.

BOWRA

for

Troy VI-VIIA,

and if we

add

Evpvacyvta

and

Ev

vadoLEvov,

which

we

have seen

to

be

peculiarly

suitable for

VIIA,

we

get

a

fairly

comprehensive

picture

of

Troy

as

it

would look

from

without

and within

in

the

middle of

the

thirteenth

century.

zb'TWAoS

lso

must

be

early,

since

it comes from

the time

when the

Trojans

were

renowned

for

their

horses,

and

this does

not seem to have

been the

case

after the

destruction

of

VIIA.

It,

too,

may

be

an ancient word, since the dual po-ro

appears

on a tablet from

Knossos.26

All these

epithets

look

as

if

they

went back to

Mycenaean

times

and

were

adapted

to

poetry

when

the

events

of

Troy

were

still fresh

in men's

minds,

and the

memory

of

the

city

which

the

Achaeans

had

besieged

and burned

was

fixed

in

these

apt

and

convincing

words.

Against

these

we

may

set other

epithets

which

cannot

be

ascribed

with

equal

confidence

to

Mycenaean

times and

may

indeed

come from

any period

when

men

knew

that

there

had once been

a

city

of

Troy

on a hill in

the

Troad.

They

none

the

less

record

impressions

of the

actual

physical

scene and

setting.

Of

these

the

most

striking

is

vEdLo'Eaa,

which

at least looks like

an

ancient

word,

since it

is

related

to

the

Mycenaean

a-ne-mo27

and

may

well

embody

the memories of

men who

knew

the

hardships

of

a

campaign

in

the

Troad.

But

we

cannot rule out

the

possibility

that it

might

also

convey

an

impression

formed

at a

later date by travellers who knew the site of Troy and marked its wind. Its highly restricted

use

in

the text

suggests

that it is

perhaps

less

fully

acclimatised

than,

for

instance,

evdpvyvta,

hich

is

used

in

more than one

formula,

and

that

its

entry

into

the

poetical

tradition

did

not

come

very early.

ale•wv'4

and

its

cognate

words

suggest

knowledge

of

the hill

but

not

necessarily

of

the

city,

while

EdpP3Aaa

nd

plflwAos

refer

only

to

the

countryside,

and

for

this

reason

we cannot

assign

them

with

confidence to

Mycenaean

times

and

must

concede

that

they

could have been added to

the

repertory

at

any

time

up

to

Troy

VIII.

Once the

right

epithets

for

Troy

had

been

found,

it

was

helpful,

for

reasons of

com-

position,

to

supplement

them with

others,

and

some of

these look

as if

they

were

introduced

by

men

who

did not know

the

look of

Troy

and

therefore

used

words like

EdiiKT•LEVOS,

Epa'-Ewv7,

Vb'p•ta,

g,

which

come

from a

general

stock

of

epithets

for

cities

and

their

territories and imply no specific knowledge of Troy. Some of them may indeed be ancient

words,

but

others have a

more

modern

air,

as

EViKT9LEVOS

eems

to

have

lost

any

close con-

nection

with the

Mycenaean

ki-ti-me-na,

and

"pr•

n

its

contracted

form

is

later

than

the

Mycenaean

i-je-ro.28

But

whether

ancient or

recent,

these

unspecific

epithets

were

evidently

adapted

to

poetry

when bards

had no

actual

acquaintance

with

Troy

and,

feeling

a

need

to

widen

the

range

of

phrases

for

it,

made

use of

more

or

less

standardised

words

which

would be

appropriate

enough

but not

very

distinctive or

revealing.

None of

them

makes

an

unusual

point. They

belong

to

traditional

methods of

introducing

cities,

and

their

applica-

tion

to

Troy may

have

come when

the

city

and

the

landscape

were

no

longer

familiar

and

had to be

treated with

cautious

vagueness.

If

we

think

that the

Iliad

was

composed

in

the

eighth

century

by

a

man

called

Homer,

it

is clear

that he had

very

little

part

in

bringing these epithets for Troy into the epic lan-

guage.

They belong

to

a

tradition

which he

inherited

and

no

doubt

expanded

and

im-

proved.

In this

matter,

as

in

others,

he

seems to

have

been

content

to

operate

with

formulae

which

were for

the

most

part

fixed

and

regularised

before

he

began

to

compose,

and

his

task

was

rather to

use them

with

the

utmost effect

for

his own

vision

of

the

wrath of

Achilles

and

its

dire

consequences.

It is

out of

the

question

that

Homer

saw

Troy

in

its

heyday

or

even

enough

ruins of

it to

give

him

a

clear

notion

of

what it

had

been

some

five

hundred

years

before

his own

lifetime.

But

this

does

not

mean

that he

did

not

know

the

country

round the hill

where

Troy

had

once

stood.

Indeed it

is

difficult

to

imagine

how he

could

have

composed

the

Iliad

unless

he

had

in

his

mind a

far

clearer

picture

of

the

Troad

than

that of

Ithaca in

the

Odyssey,

and the

clarity

of

the

picture,

which

helped

him

to some

of

his

26

Ventris-Chadwick

2Io

(KN

Ca825).

27

Id.

306

(KN

Fpi).

28

KN

Fp363.







HOMERIC

EPITHETS FOR

TROY

23

dramatic

effects,

must have

been

due in some

degree

to

personal knowledge.

Though

it is more

than

questionable

whether he lived to see

Troy

VIII,

he

may

have seen

the Troad

when

Greeks

were

beginning

to

visit

it

again

as

a

possible

site for a

colony.

But

all that

is another

question.

For the moment

we

must

be

content to

recognise

that the Homeric

epithets

for

Troy go

back

in

part

to the

Mycenaean

age

and

reflect the

sight

which

the

city

must have

presented

to at least one

generation

of Achaeans.29

C. M. BOWRA.

Wadham

College,

Oxford.

29

I

am

grateful

to Professor A. Andrewes

and Mr

W.

G. G. Forrest

for

helpful

criticism.

This content downloaded from 200 26 133 57 on Thu 25 Jul 2013 23:21:41 PM
