IBYCUS : POLYCRATES, TROILUS, POLYXENA

b y Martin Robertson

P L A T E S I and 1 1

Dr J . P. Barron in h is brilliant ar t ic le Ibycus: to Po fycra te s l h a s shown that th i s poem i s by no means the botch it h a s sometimes been condemned a s , but a careful p iece of construct ion, cunningly designed for a par t icular purpose. I find h i s general reconstruct ion, and the de ta i led ana lys i s on which i t is b a s e d , ent i re ly convincing except at one point : the al lusion to Troilus 2 must , it seems to me, be taken differently: and it is poss ib le that a different interpretation can be made to support and s l ight ly extend Barron’s e lucidat ion of the structure and nature of the poem.

It h a s commonly been fe l t a puzzle tha t , after concluding a l i s t of Greek heroes arriving at Troy with two who surpassed the res t in beauty, the poet should suddenly introduce the Trojan Tro i lus a s gold t o their or ichalc . T h i s led Barron formerly3 to emend T W I . . . Tpwihov to TOW . . . Tpwihwi. He h a s now abandoned th is rather brutal solut ion, following ?rlr David Campbell, who takes the meaning to be that Zeuxippus (only the second of the two Greeks is actual ly com- pared to the Trojan boy) and Tro i lus were indis t inguishable for beauty as gold and or ichalc are indistinguishable to the eye.

I cannot read the p a s s a g e in quite th i s way. It is true that to take opEiXahKo5 as meaning brass or ‘fool’s gold’, a s Barron formerly d id , seems ( a s Rarron now persuades me) not to be justified. I t is sometimes mentioned by archaic poets a longside gold in descr ipt ions of ela- borate metal-work in a way which implies that the two are es teemed at much the same high ra te ; and later writers e x p r e s s t h i s more expl ic i t ly . Servius indeed says apud maiores orichulcum pret iosius metal l is omnibus fuisse; but the res t of h is remarks sugges t that he was influenced by the false Ia t in iza t ion aurichalcum. Much more important is a p a s s a g e of P l a t o , where he is descr ibing the mineral wealth of h i s fabled Atlant ic cont inent of yore: TO vGv ~ V O ~ ~ ~ U E V O V

nohhoir~ ~ i i 5 vtjuou, m h j v xpuao6 TipiCjTaTov kv T O ? ~ T ~ T E O V . ~ T h i s c lear ly def ines the philo- sopher’s conception of or ichalc a s something very precious indeed in ancient d a y s , but not qui te so precious a s gold; and exact ly th i s I take to be the implication of Ibycus’ p a s s a g e : TLII 6 ’ apa Tpwihov & U E ~ xpwuSbv ~ P E I X ~ ~ K W ~ TpiS anqeov. an interpretation as a simple comparison of like to like, rather a s s e r t a contrast . One could indeed take the cont ras t e i ther way: that even the purest gold is not a s good a s or ichalc; or

&OV - TOTE 6; T h k O V 6VOvCXTOS fiV TO YkVO5 kK Yqs 6PUTTOpEVOV bpEiXCXhKOV KCXTbc T6TOU5

Structure and phrasing are surely aga ins t

11

that , good a s or ichalc i s , it is s t i l l not thrice-refined gold. ponds to P la to’s view of the legendary metal , and I shal l try to argue that th i s makes a bet ter point in Ibycus’ poem than d o e s the other , though while we only p o s s e s s the end of the poem th is argument h a s to remain purely conjectural .

T h e second interpretation corres-

Barron speaks of Tro i lus a s “only casua l ly i n t r ~ d u c e d ” . ~ If Campbell is right that no contrast is implied in the s imile , then the introduction d o e s appear c a s u a l , and somewhat point- l e s s . If there is cont ras t , and or ichalc is above gold, the object must b e to underline the beauty of the Greeks by making it greater than that of the young Trojan prince. l i t t le more force than the simple comparison, but is not very compelling. cha lc , then the introduction cannot be c a s u a l but a punch-line which must make some par t icular point. quality of gold is i t s incorruptibility. th i s latent idea , underlining the contrast implicit in the simile and placing Polycra tes with gold and Tro i lus aga ins t Zeuxippus and or ichalc?

T h i s h a s a If gold is above ori-

C a n we g u e s s what such a point could be? One s tep seems to follow. Does not a@iTov in the next line pick up and express

T h e unique

Barron h a s demonstrated that the beautiful pr inces of Sicyon, Cyanippus and Zeuxippus , are of Argive l ineage or assoc ia t ion , and that they are introduced here as a side-kick at the anti-Argive propaganda of the tyrant Cl i s thenes , which included a dras t ic recension of the c i ty’s legendary history. Aeschines , but had then quarrelled with h i s patron. interpretation of the ev idence a s showing that Ibycus came from Sicyon t o Samos, and that h i s poetry there entered on a new phase ; and that th i s poem is a ‘prospectus’ in which the poet offers h i s s e r v i c e s , in h i s new manner, to Polycra tes . l o I t i s , I think, compatible with th i s to read a further meaning into the al lusion to the Sicyonian pr inces: not only is Cl i s thenes’ claim that Sicyon w a s never dominated by Argos nonsense ; the Sicyonians anyway, even the Argive o n e s , are not qui te of the f i rs t water. T h e brief, a l lus ive character of th i s end of the poem would be natural if it contained references t o themes s ta ted a t the beginning, something perhaps like th i s : “I have made many songs , but now that I s e e you, Polycra tes , and your Samos , the Muses inspire me to a different measure and new heights .” T h e end would then mean: “ T h e songs I made for the Sicyonians were a s or ichalc; the immortality of pure gold sha l l be yours , Polycra tes , and mine with you.”

Ibycus had evidently been in the serv ice of C l i s t h e n e s , or of h i s s u c c e s s o r Barron follows Bowra in h i s convincing

None of this expla ins why Troi lus should be chosen for the comparison, and it is poss ib le that no special reason need be sought. v e r s e , but in the literature which h a s reached us from antiquity he is a shadowy figure. s ixth century, however, th i s was cer ta inly not the c a s e . art, espec ia l ly but very far from exclusively Attic vase-paint ing, are four ep isodes from the story o f h i s dea th a t Achi l les’ hands: the ambush a t the fountain; the pursui t (boy on horse- back, Greek running - the c l a s s i c example of that f l e e t n e s s of foot which gave Achi l les h i s most constant epi thet) ; the s laying a t the al tar of Thymbraean Apollo; and the bat t le joined over the mutilated body. l 1 In whatever form or forms i t w a s told, th i s w a s evident ly a well- loved ta le ; and i f a n exemplar of youth and beauty were needed , Tro i lus was an obvious choice . A s Barron h a s pointed out , however, nothing is sa id direct ly of Polycra tes ’ beauty; and it may well be that th i s , though the qual i ty in which Tro i lus is gold to Zeuxippus’ or icha lc , i s not that for which Polycra tes is promised immortality. l 2 must surely have been addressed to the young crown-prince, the elder tyrant’s son; but Barron h a s shown the difficulty of th i s . l 3 ill-omened one: poor Troi lus’ youth and beauty brought him l i t t le happiness . hand, a s Rarron h a s made most probable, the poem is addressed to the elder Polycra tes a l ready in la force de l’age (in 564-60 B.C.), the omen could be turned to good. Troi lus’ dea th in the Trojan t a l e w a s that one of three charms on which the safe ty of the c i ty depended was h i s living to be a man. l 4

T h i s youngest son of Priam h a s h i s immortality in la ter

Among the favourite themes of a rcha ic In the

If Polycrates’ beauty is the point, the poem

Moreover, such a direct comparison would seem an awkwardly If, on the other

T h e importance of

It seems to me l ikely that here too we have an a l lus ion

12

back to a p a s s a g e ear l ier in the poem, to the effect : “ T h e well-being of Samos depends on you, Polycra tes , as Troy’s sa fe ty depended on Troi lus . less fortunate. a p a s s a g e could link the kind of opening I have envisaged for the poem t o the point where our fragment begins; but of course , even if these conjectures are on the right l ines , there may have been many more loops on the way. but told the story of h i s dea th . T h i s was recounted, we know, in the Cypria; l 5 but given i t s popularity, a t tes ted by the p ic tures , in the archaic period, it is extremely likely that it w a s retold in lyric form, as it was in dramatic form in the next century by Phrynichus and Sophocles . l 6 Stesichorus might well have included a digression on the Three Charms in h i s I l iupersis , and Ibycus might have told the story of Troi lus here . of the Trojan war in the surviving l ines seems to me compatible with there having been - perhaps would seem more natural if there had been - a more de ta i led treatment of one ep isode from it ear l ier . T h e l ines in which the poet d i sc la ims the intention of singing of P a r i s , C a s s a n d r a and the “other children o f Priam” and the day of the ci ty’s capture , would certainlv read differ- ent ly (perhaps better?) if he had already sung an event with a direct bearing on the capture , the story of one of Pr iam’s chi ldren; or possibly of two.

You live and Samos f lourishes . Troy w a s Such Tro i lus fe l l to Achi l les , and the Greeks destroyed Priam’s great city.”

Ibycus could, for ins tance , not merely have alluded to Tro i lus ,

T h e summary, a l lus ive character of the ske tch

A schol ias t on Eur ip ides te l l s us that Ibycus, like Eur ip ides , s a i d that Polyxena was sacri- f iced by Neoptolemus, but that the poet of the Cypria told that s h e was wounded during the s a c k by O d y s s e u s and Diomede and buried by Neoptolemus. l7 At f i rs t s ight there is no obvious reason for imagining that it was in th i s poem that Ibycus touched on th i s subjec t , but looked at c loser i t becomes a possibi l i ty worth considering. the Cypria l ie a l l before those of the Iliad; the sack is well ou ts ide them, and th i s episode from it can only have been told in parenthesis . T h e story of Tro i lus ’ death l i e s within the period and w a s told in the poem. s tant ly accompanied by a girl (PI. la ) , identified in one c a s e by a fragmentary inscription a s Polyxena. l 8 and it seems if not a safe a t l e a s t a plausible conjecture that the ta le of her dea th w a s told in the Cypria in connexion with that of her brother. We have s e e n that Ibycus might have included the story of Tro i lus a s a structural par t of h i s poem t o Polycra tes ; in a work so loaded with ep ic echoes it would not be unnatural that he should introduce Polyxena in the same connexion, and either te l l her story o r a t l e a s t make al lusion to her dea th - the scholium d o e s not allow us to assume that he did more, wherever the reference occurred.

T h e events covered by the narrative of

In pictures of the ambush and of the pursui t the boy is con-

She evident ly featured in a literary vers ion of the s tory popular in the s ixth century;

T h e vers ion of Polyxena’s dea th given by Ibycus was evident ly the one which became canonical : l 9 that s h e was sacr i f iced by Neoptolemus on h i s fa ther’s tomb, to appease the injured spir i t and a s s u r e the Greeks a fair wind home - a pendant to Iphigenia a t Aulis ten years before. in the Cycle , in the I l iupersis ascr ibed to Arct inus.20 It is further a t t e s t e d before the middle of the s ixth century by a copiously inscr ibed Att ic v a s e ( P i . I b ): 21 throat of Polyxena, who is held by Anphilochos, Antiphates and A i a s I l iades . Behind Neopto- lemus s t a n d s Diomedes, behind him Nestor P y l i o s , both looking on; while the scene is c losed a t the other end by another old man, Phoinix, but he, like the decent character he always appears , h a s turned h i s back on the dreadful scene . It is possible that Anphilochos is a mistake for Anti lochos, Nestor’s son; but Amphiaraus’ son Amphilochus i s sometimes named as taking par t in the Trojan war. 22 An Antiphates appears in la te l i s t s of Greeks in the Wooden Horse. 23 T h e low mound on to which the victim’s blood flows h a s a fire bui l t on top and appears to be an al tar rather than the tomb; but another Att ic v a s e , from the end of the century, which though uninscrihed plainly i l lus t ra tes the same story, d o e s show th is feature: a warrior with drawn sword holds a woman by the wris t and leads her (other warriors and a chariot behind) towards a large mound, a snake bes ide i t , a n ezdolon - a minuscule winged warrior - flittering above. 24

T h i s form of the story too comes in the e p i c tradition: it w a s told in i t s p lace

Neoptolemus c u t s the

13

One v a s e seems most probably to i l lustrate the story recorded from the Cypria: Polyxena wounded b y O d y s s e u s and Diomede. or not much la ter , in the Greek manner i f not by a wandering Greek, it shows on one s ide (P1.IIb) Achi l les dragging Tro i lus from h i s horse. an al tar , looking back at two warriors in pursui t , the leader drawing h i s sword on her , the other threatening with ra i sed spear . 2 5 If t h i s does represent Polyxena with O d y s s e u s and Diomede, the pairing with the Troilus picture is interest ing. T h e s tory is curious, particularly the s ta te - ment about Neoptolemus. Achi l les’ love for Polyxena .26 it is of interest that a few p ic tures of Achi l les in ambush a t the fountain (from late in the s e r i e s , the beginning of the fifth century) d o not show Troi lus a t all but only the girl with her pi tcher . 2 7

Painted in Etruria around the middle of the s ixth century

On the other (Pl. Ha) , a woman mounts the s t e p s of

Did he bury her in h i s fa ther’s tomb? L a t e writers te l l a s tory of There is no c lear evidence that th i s w a s an early theme, but

Direct evidence that it w a s in th i s poem that lbycus descr ibed or alluded to the manner of Polyxena’s end is l ikewise lacking; but it is perhaps not absurd to sugges t that the naming, among the other chi ldren of Priam about whom he does not mean to s ing, of a daughter, C a s s a n d r a , a s w e l l a s a son , P a r i s , would take a new point if he had jus t told the s tor ies of one son and one daughter.

Lincoln College, Oxford

NOTES

1 BIGS 16 (1969) 11949.

2 Lines 41-5; Rarron p.131.

3 CK 11 (1961) 185, n.3.

4 ( ; reek 1,yric Poetry (London 1967) 309.

5 E.g. I / . {lorn. 6.9; Hesiod Sc . 122. Professor Handley points out to me that in Ezra 8.27, where the ,.I\’ speaks of “two vesse l s of fine copper, precious a s gold”, the NEB has “fine red copper” wrth the note “red copper: or orichalc”. The Septuagint h a s U K E ~ T ) XahKoG O T ‘ I ~ ~ V T O S &yaBoS ’ E ~ ~ e u u & E V X ~ u ~ : v .

6 On 4 r n . XII.87. I owe this reference to Dr Barron.

7 (’ritias 114e. 1 owe this reference to Mr Barrett, through Dr Barron.

4 This part of the poem is thick with echoes of epic and especially of the Il iad, and Barron has shown that this is not lack of invention but deliberate art. I wonder if, in such a context, a reader might not be expected to think, when x p u a b ~ i s contrasted with &&ixah~o5 , of the poor exchange, xpwub~ against XahKbS (Z 232-S), made by Glaucus with Diomede, though the opposition here i s of a subtler nature.

9 Loc .c i t . 131.

10 1 . 0 ~ . C i t . 136-8.

11 Brommer I’asenlisten2 264-6 (ambush); 266-8 (pursuit); 268-9 (death and bat t le) , Kunze Archaische Sch:ldbander (Olyrnprsche Forschungen I I , 1950) 140-2; and s e e the mythological indexes to Beazley’ s unv and A K V ~

12 Loc. cit . 135; and s e e next note.

14

13 L o c . c i f . 149. n.86.

14 The Three Charms most clearly s ta ted by Plautus Bacchides 953 ff., 987 f f . and Servius on Aeneid 11-13. See my remarks in GRBS 11 (1970) 24-6.

15 Proclus’ Summary: Homer O C T V , 105 1.12.

16 See Jebb and Pearson, Sophocles Fragments 1 I 253-62 (Phrynichus rbid. 254; TGF 723).

17 Page PMG fr.307 (Ibycus 26); Cypria fr.26.

18 Franqois Vase: Beazley ABV 76, Kleit ias no.1, with some refs.; this detail : F R p11.11-12; Arias and Hirmer p1.44. girl i s more often than not shown in pictures of the ambush and the pursuit. London B.M. 97.7-21.2; Beazley ABV 86 (Paralipomena 32) Painter of London B 76 no.8, with refs. See a l so below 11.27,

Only the letters ... mu.. survive, but the restoration can hardly be in doubt. A The vase on pl.1a i s

19 For u s particularly in Euripides’ Hecuba.

20 Proclus’ summary: Homer OCT V, 108 1.7 f .

21 Neck-amphora in London, B.M. 97.7-27.2; Beazley ABV 97 (Paralipornena 37), Tyrrhenian Group no.27. with refs.

22 See Stoll in Roscher 1305 .

23 Schirmer [bid. 384.

24 Hydria in Berlin, 1902; Beazley ABV 363 (Paralipomena 161) Leagros Group no.37, with refs.; Jb 29 (1914) 225.

25 ‘Pontic’ neck-amphora in Par is , Louvre E 703; Dohrn Die schwarzfigurigen etruskischen Vasen (Berlin 1937) 146, Parismaler no.74, with refs.; Gerhard AV 1.185; Jacobsthal Ornamente griechischer Vasen (Berlin 1927) pl. 1Oc (Troilus); On the Group and the Painter s e e Dohrn loc. cit . 33-4. I am grateful to M. Chuzeville for the photo- graph here reproduced in Plate I I and to the authorities of the Louvre for permission to reproduce i t .

26 Dictys 111.2; Dares XXVII . See Escher in R E I 238; Jebb and Pearson, Sophocles Fragments I1

Ducati Pontische Vasen (Berlin 1932) p1.9b (Polyxena?).

163, with notes 3 and 4 . (see Jebh and Pearson loc. cit. 254). a fascinating theme I hope some time to take up.

27 Red-figure hydria, Leningrad 628; Beazley ARV2 210 (Parallpomena 510), Berlin Painter no. 174, with refs.; Berlin Maler p1.24,1; Peredolskaya C a f . no.38, p1.28. There are several contemporary black-figure examples: Haspels A B F L 150 with n.6, 250 no.40, 256 nos.78-9, with refs.; Beazley P aralipornena 261 and 285.

There is a l so evidence for Achilles loving Troilus: Lycophron 307-13 The interrelation of the s tor ies of Troilus and Polyxena is

15