You are here

Chapter XII: Hipponax on Lydian Scenes and Society

Chapter XII: Hipponax on Lydian Scenes and Society
A. The Royal Road through Lydia
The purpose of this chapter is to observe in a few cases the light that Hipponax throws on the condition of Ephesus of Lydia and even of Anatolia generally about 600–500 B.C. and to suggest how much more might be done by a systematic study of the old Ephesian poet. The modern editions of the fragments should be set aside because by so-called “emendations” (!) they divert attention from the important points. Hipponax was an Anatolian and Old-Ionian poet. He has been edited by learned scholars who see him through a European atmosphere which distorts the Eastern features and their aim is to make him as like a European Greek as the difference of dialect allows; much evil can be done by ingeniously twisting and torturing the traditional text; and the editors have devoted their skill learning and ingenuity to this end with quite remarkable success. Such an authority as Tzetzes in the Scholia that he himself wrote on his own poor compositions is far from good;1 but at least he leaves Hipponax sometimes quite intelligible whereas the learned modern editors have screwed and twisted the old poet until his meaning is lost and some sham new meaning is forced into a mangled text disiecti membra poetae.

Generally in Bergk's notes the text of the original authority is so hidden that one can only with difficulty discover it; but if one goes behind Schneidewin or Bergk or Crusius’ re-edition of Hiller and looks at the unadorned text of Tzetzes or other original authority the meaning is fairly clear provided that one does not continue to look through European-Greek binoculars badly focused on an Asian object. Yet each of those scholars has contributed something valuable occasionally. It is not my province to “restore” the text of the old Ephesian. My aim is to see what he tells about Asia Minor and the business of its great harbours in their relations with the Anatolian merchants who came down to trade there a mixed and far from pleasing crowd: Quidquid agebant Asiani homines votum timor ira cupido gaudia discursus nostri farrago capituli.

Hence my comments on each line are out of all proportion to the original text; but I wish to show what is implied in the text and to illustrate it by modern experience in exploration. The old travellers are the most useful because they were humbly exploring and learning. The modern travellers tell what they think or fancy and omit all that they do not understand as unimportant; but the things omitted are often the most important.
To achieve our purpose however it is necessary to catch the words that fell from the poet's lips; and Tzetzes etc. transmit them not indeed accurately but with some true “echo of the ancient strain”; whereas the sound is entirely lost in the pretentious volumes in which great scholars have mangled the Ionic talk and ribald jest under which the listener can catch the grave and ominous sounds of the great contest between East and West never ceasing since the war of Troy and likely to continue long. The text must be occasionally remodelled; but for the most part the process will be a recurrence to the old traditional words with slight changes usually only of one letter.
A good example of this is found in the first fragment which I propose to study here: the text of Tzetzes as printed by Cramer in Anecdota Oxoniensia2 iii. p. 310 permits us to see a traveller walking along the Royal Road across Lydia and down to Ephesus to observe how his road is marked by “signs” after the Anatolian fashion and to gather some knowledge of episodes in the varying influence exercised by kings of the Khatti or Hittites on Lydia. We find that Tzetzes hands down an almost correct lettering of the text in which however some wrong words have arisen from false division made by ancient or modern scholars.
Cramer2 used two MSS. of Tzetzes’ Treatise on Metres one at Paris one in Oxford. As he says the Paris MS. is the better of the two; but in one case at least it is worse for it gives a line of five feet as I saw when I consulted (through my old friend S. Reinach) the leading authority on Palaeography in Paris. In the Oxford MS. I found the true text.
Behind Tzetzes there lie two older MSS. of Hipponax; one was used by Diogenianus from whom Hesychius adapted his Lexikon or rather by the originals of Diogenianus viz. Pamphilos and Zopyrion: Diogenianus lived in the first half of the second century after Christ; Pamphilos flourished in the first century B.C. and Zopyrion whose work was completed by Pamphilos was earlier. A different MS. of Hipponax was the origin of the text as known to Tzetzes who lived in the first half and the middle of the twelfth century. Whether he himself read Hipponax or quotes that poet from the quotations of others is doubtful; but his statements about his own great learning may imply a claim to have read such poets as Hipponax and Pindar himself; and there were doubtless copies at Constantinople accessible to him. So far as the evidence goes the differences between the two editions of Hipponax were entirely in the spelling and form of Anatolian words which occurred in the Ephesian poems but the MS. used by Tzetzes was more valuable and truer to the old Ionian poet than that used by Zopyrion and Pamphilos; that had suffered from Alexandrian learning which was intended to restore Hipponax to a purer Greek form but often only produced a modernised text.
Hipponax Λυδίζων is what we should expect. He was born at Ephesus. He knew the market-place of Miletus and the Phrygians from inner Anatolia fr. 43 (30)3 who came down intending to sell their home-grown barley and buy in exchange the imports of that great harbour (Kolonialwaaren as the Germans whose colonies produced and sent none to them call the products which we find in the shops of “Italian warehousemen” preserving a name of the old times when Venice and Genoa were the European centres of import and distribution); those strangers from Phrygia had to face the dangers and the brigands or in modern phrase Zeibeks4 of the long road down the Maeander valley.
καὶ τοὺς σολοίκους ἢν λάβωσι περνᾶσιν
Φρύγας μὲν ἐς Μίλητον ἀλϕιτεύσοντας.
“And if they catch the Phrygians who come down to Miletus to put their barley on the market bargaining in pidgin-lingo they sell them for slaves.”
The Ephesian poet used phrases and terms caught from the lingua franca (σολοίκους Φρύγας) in which business was done at the markets of Miletus and Ephesus a mixed “pigeon-Greek” containing Lydian and Greek and Phrygian words mixed probably with some old Anatolian (that ancient language “of the gods” as Homer sometimes called it). In Hesychius the term Λυδιστί is almost equivalent to “in Hipponax”; but both phrases would be best rendered “a term of the speech used in those Old-Ionian markets at Ephesus and Miletus.”
Buckler well describes Hipponax: “How absurd the editors’ guesses at emending Hipponax do seem when one remembers how little they know of his topical allusions” [and how little they think about that aspect of his scazons]. “I fancy he was like Aristophanes or W. S. Gilbert—constantly mentioning the people places and slang of the period and a favourite in the cafés chantants of Ephesus.” In this paper I restrict myself mainly to proper names and find that the traditional text needs little emendation but only interpretation even in such names which are readily open to corruption. Probably even in the allusions and gibes interpretative imagination would be more suitable and fruitful than ingenious alteration. In the names we find as might be expected some reason to believe that in Lydia a new class of names was superimposed on that old Anatolian stratum which is characteristic of Eastern Anatolia (Lycaonia Isaurica Cilicia Pisidia). Similarly in Lycian names a later stratum overlies an earlier; and the attempt made by Sundwall to reduce all Anatolian names to one class diminishes the usefulness of his valuable study of the subject.
Hipponax fr. 5 (Bergk-Rubenbauer 15) is highly important topographically and historically. The five lines are given as follows by Hiller-Crusius (1897) and in Bergk's fourth edition5 as resulting from the labours of successive editors; but they still need careful and more conservative treatment:
Crusius:πᾶσαν τέαρ᾿ (ὅδευε) τὴν ἐπὶ Σμύρνης·
ἴθι διὰ Λυδῶν παρὰ τὸνττάλεω τύμβον
καὶ σῆμα Γύγεω καὶ Μεγάστρυοςστήλην
καὶ μνήματ᾿ (῎Ατυοςττάλυδα) πάλμυδος
5πρὸς ἥλιον δύνοντα γαστέρα τρέψας.
Bergk:Τέαρε … δεύειε τὴν ἐπὶ Σμύρνης·
ἴθι διὰ Λυδῶν παρὰ τὸνττάλεω τύμβον
καὶ σῆμα Γύγεω καὶ μεγάστρυ στήλην
καὶ μνήματ᾿ Ὦτος μυτάλιδι πάλμυδος
5πρὸς ἥλιον δύνoντα γαστέρα τρέψας.
This fragment is preserved by Tzetzes in his treatise on ancient metres (see Cramer Anecd. Oxon. iii. p. 310).6 If we take the text given by Cramer from Tzetzes and write it as it would be written in the early centuries of our era very little change is needed only right division of the words.
Only three letters need alteration. The text is—
πατίαν Τέαρ᾿ ὅδευε τὴν ἐπὶ Σμύρνης·
ἴθι διὰ Λυδῶν παρὰ τὸνττάλεω τύμβον
καὶ σῆμα Γύγεω καὶ μέγ᾿ ἄστυκαὶ στήλην
καὶ μνῆμα Τῶτος Μυτάλιδι πάλμυδος
πρὸς ἥλιον δύνoντα γαστέρα τρέψας.
I have profited by the suggestions and criticisms of my friends Professor Sayce and Mr. W. H. Buckler; and it is mainly due to them that the passage has become simple. For myself I can claim credit for little more than the recognition from the first that here is a description of the “Royal Road” and that the fourth line was correctly written but disfigured by Tzetzes’ false division of the words. I have also been responsible for guiding the discussion; but I have learned from my friends far more than I have contributed myself.
The Smyrna of Hipponax is not the historic Smyrna the old Lelegian city which was brought by the Ephesians into the Ionic union. Strabo p. 633 tells of the ancient time when Ephesus was called Smyrna and when Callinus the Ephesian poet about 700 B.C. called the Ephesians Smyrnaeans; and he says that “Smyrna was an Amazon7 who took Ephesus and from her the name was applied to the inhabitants and the city after the same fashion as a section of the Ephesians used to be called Sisurbitai from Sisurbe.8 And a certain locality at Ephesus used to be called Smyrna as Hipponax shows—
He dwelt behind the Polis in Smyrna
Between Tracheia and Scabby Headland."9
Tracheia the Rough (Mountain) is the serrated ridge running east to west on the south side of the Caystros valley. It is usually called Mt. Koressos: see the map in Pauly-Wissowa or the sketch in Letters to the Seven Churches p. 212. Scabby Headland was a popular name for the massive hill called Pion or Peion almost isolated in the plain north of Koressos connected with it by a ridge.
The lines of Hipponax contain a description of the road from Maeonia (or West Phrygia) through the Lydian country to Smyrna (of Ephesus); and they are a commentary on the words of Aristagoras (with the addition made by Herodotus v. 49 and 53) about the western section of the Royal Road from Susa to Sardis and the Aegean coast. In the account of this road given elsewhere the central section between Sardis and the Sangarios valley is traced stage by stage according as the line is marked out by a series of monuments and great tumuli at important points. Such points are chiefly at the entrance to mountain-glens or passes leading up from the plain.10 This “Royal Road” of Herodotus and Hipponax fr. 5 is to be distinguished from the road implied in fr. 43 (30)11 viz. the “Central Trade Route” in its western section from Kelainai-Apameia-Kibotos to the coast at Miletus and at Ephesus: that western section was common to the Central and the Pisidian Routes12 which fork about three or four miles above and behind Kelainai-Kibotos.
Great help is given by Hesychius who explains many of the words. He (or rather his authority Diogenianus) used a different text of Hipponax from that which Tzetzes knew (p. 142) with variation in the proper names; and the differences are helpful. The late existence of two texts in MS. leads to the hope that a papyrus copy of Hipponax may be found.
The failure of modern editors to recognise the fact that a road is described point by point in this fragment has exaggerated the difficulties presented by the text. Every one who has experience of Anatolian travel knows how a road is marked by striking signs sometimes natural sometimes artificial. The situation of a town is indicated by its own peak or sign sometimes by a pair of peaks visible for days before the town itself comes into view; but the traveller learns how to detect a city far away (and even to take compass readings to it from a great distance over intervening hills and plains). The city is known by its sign; and to the ancient mind the guardian spirit of the city dwells in the peak or sign and from thence exercises its influence on the life and the safety of town and citizens. This feature of old Anatolian life and religion is part of that imaginative interpretation of nature which is so conspicuous in the social life of ancient Asia Minor. To many scholars my opinions will seem fanciful and unprovable; but that verdict only shows that they have not come into sympathy with early thought as it unfolded itself and created its equipment on the great central plains and amid the mountains and hill-country and the isolated peaks that break the monotony of the main Anatolian plateau. The explorer must gradually and slowly and painfully learn to interpret that strange old way of thinking about and understanding nature and taking nature as man's guide.
A valued friend has mildly ridiculed my idea of tracing a road by signs and ancient monuments for as he says these are everywhere. They are indeed numerous; but it needs experience and sympathy to detect the plan. There are mountains everywhere in Scotland but one alone marks the way to a real traveller. There are peaks protruding through the level limestone plateau of Central Anatolia; but only one marks the situation of Derbe: you see the “Pilgrim Father” (Hadji Baba) a long way off and your path to Derbe is certain. See p. 216.
Line 1. The opening is the most difficult part of the whole but the important feature lies in the last three words which are certain— τὴν ἐπὶ Σμύρνης—“the region which lies before you in the direction of Ephesus-Smyrna.” We shall therefore pass over the initial difficulties for the present and attend to the tracing of the road and the interpretation of the signs which mark its course.
Line 2 causes no difficulty—
ἴθι διὰ Λυδῶν παρὰ τὸνττάλεω τύμβον.
The only trouble is due to Schneidewin's conjecture (which is often quoted as authoritative but is rightly rejected by Hiller-Crusius and Bergk) Ἀλυάττεω τύμβον. Attales was one of two illegitimate sons of King Saduattes; the other was Adramus: their mothers were sisters and the sons gave name to the Lydian cities Attaluda and Adramuttion. The legitimate son13 and successor of Saduattes was Aluattes who captured Aeolic Smyrna. The tomb of Attales was situated doubtless near the unknown city Attaluda (of which the termination is as in Attouda or Attoudda Sibidounda also -onda -anda -inda -ada etc.). It is probably to be looked for where the Royal Road going east from Sardis enters on the mountainous district towards Maeonia and Phrygia (in modern terms the direct road from Sart to Menye and Koula and Ushak). Here the traveller coming westwards emerges from the Maeonian mountain region and the broken edge of the central plateau and enters the wide valley of the Hermus.
Probably the text used by Hesychius read this genitive in another form Ἀττάλη: he has ἀττάλη· ϕάρυξις ὑπὸ Φρυγῶν. ϕάρυξις is corrupted through the influence of the following Φρυγῶν and nothing can be learned from it.14 The genitive of Lydian and Anatolian names was formed in various ways when expressed in Greek. The text before Diogenianus read Ἀττάλη where that of Tzetzes read Ἀττάλεω.
Line 3. All editors agree in the first four words καὶ σῆμα Γύγεω καὶ. As the Royal Road went direct to Sardis we should look for an artificial mound15 or a natural peak indicating that city and marking to the traveller a long way off the end of the Royal Road in its strict sense (Susa to Sardis); probably it should be in view from the grave of Attales. The general opinion is certainly right that the Sema of Gyges is one of the grave-mounds of the Lydian chiefs beside the Gygaean Lake Koloe for these although away north of the Hermus are conspicuous to the wayfarer on the Royal Road. The most lofty and widely visible was the Sema of Gyges.
Those who find the σῆμα Γύγου near the Γυγαίη λίμνη distinguish between it and another famous mound which he erected; but so far as I may judge the so-called Tumulus of Gyges is the Ἑταίρας μνῆμα erected by Gyges in memory of a favourite Hetaira to such a height as to be visible to himself wherever he was travelling through the country north of Mount Tmolus and conspicuous to all that dwelt in the Lydian land (Athen. xiii. 573 A from Clearchus in book i. of his Erotika F.H.G. ii. 314). The Hetaira story is a popular legend worthy of Erotika; but the important fact that underlies the legend is the wide visibility of this watch-and-ward point (consecrated as all such spots were in Anatolian custom by the grave of an old prince or leader).16 It was visible from afar therefore a watcher on it commanded a wide prospect. Hegesander's explanation of the festival Hetairideia at Magnesia (quoted by Athenaeus on his preceding page see F.H.G. iv. 418) shows the religious connexion with travel and sea-voyaging which underlies much of Greek folk-lore and was often strangely distorted.17 The μνῆμα ἑταίρας or the σῆμα Γύγεω was seen from afar on the great route N.W. to S.E. from the Hellespont through the Kaikos valley past Thyateira to Sardis and the Kogamos and Lykos valleys and the Pamphylian coast and also from the line of the “Royal Road.” My friend Buckler reminds me that always as the excavators of Sardis were going by train to the city the first intimation that they were coming near Sardis was the sight of the mounds beside the Gygaean lake. The parallel is illuminative. Asia Minor should always be studied from the point of view of the traveller. Much of its religion and life must be looked at in this aspect; otherwise its nature and origin is misapprehended. Radet in his striking and guiding book La Lydie et le monde grec emphasises the importance of international or intertribal trade and markets in Anatolia.
The end of line 3 is corrupt; but under Buckler's guidance the cure is easy. The great city of Sardis the outstanding city of the world to the Greeks of the coast cities like Ephesus can hardly be left out in this road survey. The Royal Road led from Susa to Sardis past the old Hittite monuments and the capital of the Hittites and the Metropolis or Ballenaion (βάλην Phrygian king) of the Phrygians and the tomb of Attales.18 Buckler omits one letter and finds the convincing reading μέγ᾿ ἄστυ instead of the meaningless μεγάστρυ (which must be altered in some way to give either metre or meaning). “The Sema of Gyges and the Great City”: the double expression sums up admirably the impression made on every traveller that knows the old and has eyes and mind for the present as he goes to Sardis: he sees first the Sema and after some time the great city. This completes the second stage of the way. It would be an anticlimax to add anything; but what then of the ending στήλην?19
With στήλην begins the third stage the extension of the road to Smyrna-Ephesus; and this must be connected by καὶ with the second stage (as the second is with the first) καὶ was abbreviated in writing as K with a little curl at the end: this K was mutilated and misread as P which being evidently out of place found entrance into the preceding syllable and thus the text became μεγάστρυ στήλην “the Sema of Gyges and the Stele Megastru.” Fortunately the scribe copied without making any clever ingenious alteration to mend the metre20 and the missing syllable gives warning where the error lies. It seems at first surprising to begin the third stage at the end of a line; but the pause after μέγ᾿ ἄστυ is intended to heighten the effect as is seen in line 4.
Line 4. The conjectures in this line have been varied and yet no conjecture is needed. The transmitted text is correct: καὶ μνῆμα Τῶτος Μυτάλιδι πάλφυδος.21 Cramer Schneidewin M. Mayer Bergk Hiller and even Crusius read (with Tzetzes’ false division of words) μνήματα; but (as Sayce and Crusius in his prefatory notes perceived) the singular is necessary here as in the preceding lines; a single monument or sign-post is needed.22 The editors however having used the letter T to make μνήματ᾿ must find a name Ὦτος or Ὤτου (Mayer)23 or Ἄτυος. Crusius in his note suggests μνῆμα τὤτυος (i.e. τὸτυος) but does not put it in his text. The name Tôs belongs to a class of Anatolian names found in Lycaonia Isauria and Cilicia (see e.g. the long list of priests or priest-dynasts engraved on an anta of the little temple at Korykos)24 such as Mos (gen. Motos) Zas (gen. Zatos) Plos Knos Tous Klous Glous also Ros or Rous (used only in composition) Bas Tos Tas Tes Ges etc.25 The occurrence of Tos in Hipponax26 is interesting as showing that this primitive style of name common in East Anatolia extended westwards formerly across Lydia as far as the mountains bordering the Ephesian country. Toi or Tou is known as a Hittite name (2 Sam. viii. 9; 1 Chron. xviii. 9): Toi king of Hamath (a Hittite city) sent his son Joram or Hadoram to King David “to salute him and to bless him.” This name Toi Tou survived in Anatolian as Toues.27 Tos here is not the same; it is the Lycian Teattes.
At the end πάλμυδος has been accepted by all; but μυτάλιδι has caused much trouble. Bergk conjectures Ἀττάλυδα (comparing Steph. s.v.)28 and Crusius follows while Schn. and Hiller have Μυρσίλου τε. Read Μυταλιδι or (if the Anatolian-Old-Ionian gen. ending of the word Mutalidis seems strange) we may read Μυταλιδα.29 Either reading gives a patronymic or racial title “sprung from Mutalli or Muttallu” (whom Sayce with Sachau Berlin Sitzungsber. 1892 p. 320 long ago recognised)30 an old Hittite king (see C.B. Phr. 1895 i. p. 141 where the S.W. Phrygian or S.E. Lydian Kome Motella (modern Medele) and the personal name Motalis are explained from this Hittite origin). The epithet Mutalida like the name Tos brings Lydia into the Hittite area which Sayce marked out in his letters in the Academy 1879. The lapse of forty-four years has produced many confirmations of the bold historical generalisations which he there stated but none more striking than this.
From this line Hesychius has two lemmata μυττάλυτα· μεγάλου31 (a genitive explained by a genitive) and παλμυός· βασιλεύς. πατήρ. οἱ δὲ πάλμυς (which is evidently the πάλμυδος of this line with δ omitted). πάλμυος was understood by Hesychius as nominative; and he changed βασιλέως (the true reading of the old commentator from whom the gloss is borrowed)32 to βασιλεύς adding “some say the word is πάλμυς” In the words of Hipponax μυττάλυδα πάλμυος33 the first was strange to Diogenianus and he guessed the meaning to be μεγάλου βασιλέως “of the great king.”
While πάλμυος in Hesychius might be taken as corrupted from πάλμυδος the truth probably is that the text of Hipponax which lies behind Diogenianus had the genitive πάλμυος not πάλμυδος. It is no objection that υ is long: if the Ionians could say πόληος (Hipponax quoted on p. 146) they could use πάλμυος at the end of a scazon. Great freedom was permitted in the inflexion of Anatolian names in Greek: from Μεννέας either Μεννέαδος34 or Μεννέου was used indifferently. See also Κανδάλητος in the second part of this chapter. The inflexion πάλμυος πάλμυν like πόληος πόλιν was permitted (and perhaps best) in Ephesian Ionic dialect.
Such a patronymic as Μῡταλῑδις is characteristically Anatolian. Many examples are quoted in J.H.S. 1918 p. 146 f. At Pergamos the “Epilaidai” at Synnada the “Thunnaridai” at Colophon the “Herakleidai sprung from Ardus” were great families sprung from some historical or divine or heroic ancestor. At Colophon the great priestly “family represented the early Herakleid dynasty of the Lydian-Hittite period; and one of that dynasty was Ardus brother of Kadus both sons of Aduattes (Nic. Dam.) or Aluattes (Euseb.): this old Lydian family retained the priesthood even when Klaros and Colophon were Greek and Ionian. The first family of such divine origin to be discovered in Anatolian epigraphy was “descendants of Manes Ourammoas.”35 At Olba the priest-dynasts were alternately Aiant and Teukro Yavan and Tarku (alternately Ionian and pre-Ionian36 or Anatolian). Orestes (native Oaris) was the ancestor and ancestral name or title of the priests of Komana and Kastabala and at Zizyma near Iconium Orestes was a frequent name in the hieratic family. Other examples loc. cit.
The road from Sardis to the Ephesian country37 turns out of the main Hermus valley away from the modern railway line into the side valley of Nymphio (Nymphaion) between the ranges of Sipylos and Tmolos. Traversing this valley the road enters a deep glen leading up to Kara-Bel and so crosses the mountains into the Ephesian country. In this glen on the rock walls are the now famous Hittite sculpture commonly called after Sesostris and described so by Herodotus ii. 106 and by Aelius Aristides38 Or. 16 vol. i. p. 397 (Dind.). Bergk rightly perceived that this sculpture was mentioned by Hipponax but tried to find it in line 3 by “correcting” μεγάστρυ στήλην to Σεσώστριος στήλην; this alteration he did not put into the text but only suggests in a note. If the pass were now explored with eyes quickened by study of Hipponax the exact meaning of the double “Stele and Mnema of Tos” would be discovered. As usual a tumulus (μνῆμα) marks the entrance to the pass of Kara-Bel39; and those mounds regularly were finished on the top by a stone pillar or στήλη. According to Buckler the στήλη still stands on one of the mounds beside the Gygaean lake; and I saw in 1888 such a stele about three feet high in a Turkish cemetery at Apameia-Celaenae; it was not unlike a Turkish headpiece for a grave but was far too massive for Turkish work; and it bore an almost illegible ancient inscription in Greek (having evidently been used in the Roman period as a gravestone). In form the stele was circular with a larger top as headpiece presenting very rough analogy to the human torso with shoulders and head. In one way or other the memorial of Tos was a pair stele and mnema (tomb) as it was called in the traditions that floated in the market of Ephesus and has been preserved by Hipponax.
The term stele though inexact was customary in Greek literature when rock sculptures and inscriptions are meant. Herodotus in describing (ii. 102 and 106) the monuments which Sesostris erected to commemorate his conquests calls them in general stelai. Similarly the reliefs on the rocks at Nahr-el-Kelb near Beyrout are called stelai by many modern writers (e.g. Hall Ancient History of the Near East pp. 149 162 358 499). Sesostris belongs to the realm of Greek popular legend and the Egyptian original is found by some (e.g. Hall 149 162) in Senusert III. Khakaura by others (e.g. Sayce) in Ramses II. Sestura.40 Hall even by conjectural emendation finds Sesostris in Manetho as the Greek name of Senusert I. and II. (Sesonkhosis was substituted by a “careless copyist”). So far as historical basis is concerned the legendary Sesostris is a combination of Egyptian conquest in foreign lands generally and much more;41 and it is vain to seek for a real original; but it is a fact that Hittite monuments were attributed to him (or to Memnon see below p. 169) and called by the general name stelai even though they were only rock-carvings on what may be loosely called tablets i.e. prepared parts of rock surface. Hipponax therefore might call one of the two Kara-Bel reliefs a stele. It is indeed true that Herodotus who speaks of the memorials erected by Sesostris as stelai particularly that which the historian claims to have seen personally in Syria Palaestina on the coast at the mouth of the Dog-river describes the reliefs of the Kara-Bel pass more correctly as two figures carved on the rocks although he classes them among the stelai. There are at the mouth of this pass two reliefs similar to each other on the right and on the left; one is much higher above the road than the other; and the pair may be described by Hipponax as stele and mnema; so Herodotus practically says “among the stelai of Sesostris are two figures on the Kara-Bel rocks.” But stele and mnema should be distinguished.
It is the ancient and modern popular belief in West Asia that sanctity is given by a grave and a dead hero; and these monuments near Ephesus known by report to the public whom Hipponax addressed are called the stele and mnema.42 It was from the two sculptures of Kara-Bel that Sayce in 1879 deduced his theory (rediscovered in the German excavations at Boghaz-Keui) of a great Hittite Empire extending over Asia Minor to the Aegean coast. The sculptures and inscriptions together with thousands of cuneiform tablets now being published by the Berlin Museum authorities have demonstrated this. The tomb and the name of Tos are as truly Hittite monuments as the Kara-Bel sculpture or the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Carchemish or the cuneiform of Boghaz-Keui.
Tos was of the race of Mutallu: in Muttalidis there is transposition of length between the first and second syllables. The patronymic is formed like Atreides from Atreus and may have been spelt Mutaleidis gen. Mutaleidi (grecised Μυτταλιδα Μυτταλυδα). There is no universal law or practice in the grecising of foreign names and transposition of length or accent is common.
After the preceding paragraphs were written and discussed with my friend Sayce Bergk's fourth edition came into my hands and I learned that he had formerly conjectured μνῆμα Τωτὸς μυττάλυτα (nearly the same that Sayce and I reached); but Bergk discarded this happy idea. He had quoted Hesychius but missed the force of the genitive μεγάλου which he changed to μεγάλα. He also suggested in a note Τουδοῦς (Nic. Dam. 49) which would be good if the text did not give a different and much better name. This shifting about hitting the truth and then wandering astray is disappointing; it suggests misguided ingenuity.
There is a climax in the enumeration of the stages and Signs: (1) the tomb of Attales; (2) the Sema of Gyges and the great city; (3) the Stele and Mnema of Tos of the line of Mutallu the king. The emphasis is laid on the last the nearest to Ephesus the most familiar to the public whom Hipponax addressed and the most famous Anatolian rock monument in ancient literature. Historically it is important as the limit on the west of Hittite art and influence (τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως) in the words of Clement Rom. i. 5.43
This climax is obviously intentional. Hipponax was not merely a scurrilous lampoonist and jester; he had in him something of the poet. Even in the scanty fragments quoted with an eye more to scurrility than poetry and most of all for rarity and obscurity in the words the poetic power is not wholly lost. Yet it was evidently his nature even in such a picture of travel as this not to break away entirely from his usual rôle and the jester shows himself in the words “turning his belly towards the setting sun.”
Line 5 presents no difficulty.
We go back now to the difficult line 1. In TCAPCΔCϒC Schneidewin recognised OΔCϒC an easy and fairly satisfactory alteration which leaves TEAP’ instead of TEAPE. We turn now to Hesychius who has ὁδεύει· περιπατεῖ ἀπέρχεται where Schmidt adds a (conjectural) reference to Callimachus Del. 18. The second gloss suits the style of Callimachus and the context of ὁδεύει but περιπατεῖ would be laughable. Two distinct lemmata have been mixed up—ὅδευε· περιπάτει from Hipponax here and ὁδεύει· ἀπέρχεται from Callimachus. The present indicative with the gloss suits well Del. 18 where some scholiast gave as an explanatory rendering something like “When the islands gather to the court of Okeanos and Tethys Delos is summoned among the first and noblest goes away.” There ἀπέρχεται would be the satisfactory explanation of ὁδεύει but περιπατεῖ would be singularly unsuitable and cannot have been used by the commentator. Schmidt is partly right and partly wrong.
The Hesychian gloss ὅδευε· περιπάτει emphasises that the road was to be traversed on foot: L. and S. quote περιπατεῖται ἡ ὁδός “the road is for walking on.” Hipponax had himself travelled that road for the description as quoted is exact to a degree and implies eye-witness.44 Herodotus on the contrary obviously had never seen inner Asia Minor but reports the gossip of the seaports (which was far from accurate) about the road to Sardis and the monument on it. When Herodotus ii. 10645 speaks of the road from Sardis to Smyrna he may have been relying on some authority (perhaps oral) who meant Ephesus-Smyrna.46 His second road from the Ephesian territory to Phokaia is obscure and there lies beneath this expression some error or misapprehension of the reporter.
The name Tearos may be accepted as Lydian or Anatolian. A fair analogy is the mountain Ouiaros on coins of Prostanna (Prostawenna) in Pisidia which we take as pronounced with a long. Aris (accented ἆρις by Heberdey-Wilhelm Reise in Kilikien p. 77) occurs in the Korykian list of (priests?). Oaris47 in the same list has probably a short and so Thunnaros (Θυνναρίδαι occurs in a hexameter). Tearos was a river in Thrace (see Pape-Benseler) but the quantity is unknown. The best analogy is Kudrelos-Hudrelos the oikistes of Hudrela in Caria and Myus in Ionia (Strabo pp. 633 650): now Hudrela was the same as the Kudrara of Herodotus and the oikistes must originally have been Kudraros (C.B. Phr. i. p. 85). As to Ouiaros when we observe the long a the meaning is evident. Oϒ and B were used as equivalent in writing Anatolian names in the Greek alphabet. Biaros meant strong powerful and was a suitable name for a mountain: cp. Ταρκυμβίης (βίη Τάρκυνος like Homer's βίη Διομήδους βίηρακληείη) and similar names in the Korykian lists.
Buckler suggests that Taoreas a magistrate's name on coins of Ephesus about 400 B.C. may be another attempt at grecising the Anatolian name Tearos (or Teoros or Taoros) which contained undoubtedly a digamma: probably the nearest Greek approximation would be Tewaros or Taworros: while Taoreas involves a suffix -eas. The personal name Tauros (like the mountain Tauros in Anatolia) may be the same native word; though there always exists a probability that the personal name in Roman time is taken from the Latin cognomen Taurus.48 Some analogy may be found in a quotation from Arkwright in J.H.S. 1918 p. 66 “Messapian Θator for Tiator or Teator resembles the Phrygian forms.”49
That the affinities suggested by Buckler are on the right lines and that Tearos was a personal name originally identical with Taoros seems indicated by Hesychius with whom Bergk (M. Schmidt approving) wisely takes refuge: τεωρός· συκοϕάντης. καὶ τὰ ὅμοια (“a sycophant and so forth”). This is to be taken not as giving the meaning of the word τεωρός but as explaining that Teoros in Hipponax was some low scoundrel and sykophantes (known to Hipponax and the public of Ephesus). Buckler points out that he was a fat pot-bellied person who turns towards the west and the setting sun not his face but his γαστήρ. What his connexion with the inner country may have been the loss of the context conceals. At any rate he must be a Phrygian or Anatolian trader as in fr. 43 (30) Bergk 46 (30) for Greeks rarely went into the inner country to trade. The better class of merchants stayed at the port cities and did business with country traders as in modern times and even at the present day.50 It was among them that Herodotus had acquaintance and from them that he learned the little which he mentions about the situation and facts of the inner country; except that the list of Persian auxiliaries from the nations in book vii. rests on much better authority (in all probability written). Those Greeks who went into Anatolia were as a rule needy and low-class people; but among their crimes and peccadilloes they were not “pot-bellied” but thin and wiry. The central country is a hard place to travel in.
No one can be satisfied with πᾶσαν as the first word. The best MS. one of the four in Paris must have had πατίαν in contracted form. Dubner suggests that the contraction meant πατέρα; but the mark over a indicates that the word ended in -αν. Hesychius solves the difficulty with the gloss (used in plural) πατίαι· χώραι.51
That the word patia was Anatolian appears from the Tekmoreian lists where the ethnic is pateênos with “e” for “i” (a common mis-spelling in Anatolian Greek). The ethnic Batteanos occurs also in those lists. There was therefore one homestead or village called Patia (Patea) or Battea52 similar to many others which bear such names as regio klêros chorion. These were all imperial estates in the Roman time where old customs lingered long. Patea (Patia) meant the. “home farm” perhaps.
In conclusion I mention one out of the many changes which I proposed considered seriously and rejected. There was a popular saying a sort of proverbial laudation current in Anatolia in the Roman time (the period that is best known to us): this was a phrase that often occurs in epitaphs expressed in the Greek tongue but the thought was familiar to the Anatolian peoples. Hospitality to travellers was a duty prescribed by custom and by religion:53 in the intercourse and intercommunication that lay at the basis of the old Anatolian social system hospitality to the wayfarer was a virtue praised and prized: inns were bad and the memory of them is a horror that the traveller recalls in moments of depression when life seems a sea of troubles with no compensation. Then one thinks of the abounding hospitality of numberless villagers and even townsmen who welcomed the stranger and put everything they possessed at his service. With this memory πάντων ϕίλος “friend of all” in epitaphs acquires a wealth of meaning. The same idea was of course used in a wider way e.g. Aristides in his oration at a panegyris in Cyzicus (Or. xvi.; vol. i. p. 396 f. Dindorf) contrasts the monarch who conquers fortified cities with him who exhibits in his career for all to see brilliant and admirable ensamples of virtue and justice and ϕιλία. Such monarchs and men have in truth gained victory as a gift from the gods such men have been adorned with the immortal crown such men it would be reasonable to style friends of the gods as they are friends of others and to regard purely as benefactors of mankind. Paul of Tarsus in his brief words “adorned Gaius with the immortal crown” when he called him “my host and (host) of the whole Church.” The thought expressed in this Anatolian phrase is close to human nature and has a home in every land; but its chosen home is in the life and literature of Asia Minor.
Hipponax in the true rollicking Ionian Greek spirit parodies and depraves the most sacred sayings and stories: in need he invokes for aid the god Hermes ϕωρῶν ἑταῖρε δεῦρό μοι σκαπαρδεῦσαι Is fr. 5 a case of this degradation? To Schneidewin's suggestion πᾶσαν δ᾿ ἑταῖρε might be given a Hipponactian turn degrading the πάντων ϕίλος into πασέων ἑταῖρε who goes with all women.54 I mention this rejected emendation only for the opportunity of calling attention to the deep meaning that lies in this common phrase of the Anatolian epitaphs a phrase which I used to regard as merely conventional and meaningless. In many other cases it will be found that epithets on grave-stones which expressed the pathetic love of survivors in halting and stereotyped phraseology are really full of meaning. It is a common error to regard Anatolian epitaphs especially metrical as merely conventional and to disregard the deeper meaning that lies in them. The friends and relatives who composed the epitaphs were full of sorrow but not skilled in expressing it verbally. Hackneyed phrases were the only forms that came to their minds; but to them those common stereotyped words expressed sincere emotion and grief. Formerly I held the false view which I now criticise; but my improved attempts to explain the situation and the meaning of those epitaphs have sometimes been rebuked by critics as reading too much into what was only a stock phraseology employed merely because it was customary and meaning nothing. When criticism has studied Anatolia instead of looking at Anatolian things through Greek spectacles and prepossessions it will appreciate the truth that I have learned.
The text of Hipponax which lies behind the work of Hesychius contained the following differences from the text as read by Tzetzes: Τέωρε for Τέαρεττάλη for Ἀττάλεω Μυττάλυδα for Μυτάλιδι παλμυός for πάλμυδος and perhaps it differed in the uncertain first word of line I: the variations are chiefly or entirely in the Greek rendering of Anatolian words in which there always existed great diversity of practice.
I. Text.—Cramer's text of the treatise of Tzetzes On Metres was derived from four MSS. in the Bodleian Library and one in the Bibliothèque Nationale; but only two of these viz. Bodl. B and Paris A contain the Scholia (which give on his p. 310 three quotations from Hipponax): A is much more ancient and correct but B has more complete margins and contains a good deal that has perished from A through mutilation. These Scholia Cramer believes to originate from Tzetzes himself and Bergk on line I also quotes them as the witness of Tzetzes. The only variations important enough to deserve note by Cramer are in A (in regard to which I am indebted to Monsieur H. Omont's courtesy for information confirming Cramer's statement). In A there are over the words μεγάστρυ ὦτος and μύταλι horizontal lines (the last is written μυτάλιδι in full). A has δύνονται and an important variant at the beginning viz. πγ which Cramer explains as πατέρα. Bergk understands both B (πᾶσαν) and A to give erroneous readings of πάλιν which he attributes to Tzetzes making Tzetzes introduce the second quotation by καὶ πάλιν and the third by καὶ. I disregard Bergk's conjecture as illegitimate: the third quotation would be more naturally introduced by καὶ πάλιν than the second moreover πάλιν would not explain satisfactorily the text of A and B. Both B and A go back to the same source viz. Tzetzes himself: both represent one group of symbols written by Tzetzes. The abbreviation used in A should apparently be interpreted as π-γαν but that is impossible. γ is taken by Cramer as a corruption of τ but his πατέρα neglects the mark over α which indicates a final ν. If we suppose that γ is an error for σ the reading could be interpreted πᾶσαν as in B.55 At any rate some correction of A is here necessary.
In A there is an unwritten space of about five letters between τεαρε and δευειε (which it gives for δευει). The empty space we disregard: it is due to the irregularity of the writing in the margin. δευει for δευε is like δύνονται for δύνοντα in A; the final ι is a slip on the part of the writer which may be disregarded. The ε above the line in A may be taken as correcting ει to ε: probably this error goes back to Tzetzes himself who in writing the scholia to his own poem introduced (either involuntarily or voluntarily) both the error and the correction. The text then which the scribe of A had before him read π-αντεαρε δευει corrected to δευε by a note above the line.
II. Anatolian Patronymics.—An Anatolian or Old-Ionian patronymic ending in di-s has been assumed in 1 4. Perhaps it occurs also as vocative in Solon's address to Mimnermus Λιγυασταδη where the eta metrically short can be explained as shortened before omega.56 Solon though an Athenian was likely to use an Anatolian form in addressing the Ionian Mimnermus. Solon had travelled in Lydia and conversed with Croesus. The use of dialect to attain some special effect on appropriate occasions was a common device in Hellenic literature. Hippokrates of Dorian Cos used Ionic as appropriate for medical treatises the Attic tragedians used Doric for choral odes and Solon addressed Mimnermus as “sprung from the race (or school)57 of clear-voiced singers.” He conveyed with this compliment a courteous apology for admonition and correction: “Say not sixty but eighty thou scion of the poets.” Just as at the present day the phrase “son of the prophets ”would show that the writer was aiming at a Hebraistic turn so Λιγυασταδις implies Anatolian tone. Probably Solon created the word but it may perhaps have been in general use: the latter is suggested by the words of Souidas (ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ Λιγυαστάδης διὰ τὸ ἐμμελὲς καὶ λίγυ a merely scholiastic explanation). It seems more probable however that the epithet was invented by Solon because (1) it conveys in that case a greater compliment (2) it is apparently a freak variation of Λιγυρτιάδου (son) of Ligyrtiades made by Solon with the thought that the implied ancestor Liguastes bore a name containing the element ᾄστης singer (known only as a gloss according to L. and S.).
III. The Hittite-Trojan Road.—A branch of the “Royal Road” is alluded to by Pausanias an excellent authority for he was born at or near Magnesia58 and had travelled in Asia Minor as far east as the Phrygian border where he had heard about (but hardly believed the tale ἐμοὶ θαῦμα) the skeleton of a giant excavated from a lophos in the territory of the small town Temenou-thyrai59 near the modern Ushak. The λόϕος was probably situated about the point where the Royal Road emerged from the Maeonian hills and mountains (really the broken edge of the central Plateau) on to the plain of Ushak. The great tumulus60 with the grave of an ancient hero who was taken by the populace to be a “Giant” and whose bones were described as of gigantic size was probably one of the monuments which marked the course of the Road. It is alluded to in H.G.A.M. p. 31 from memory of a tiring journey in 1881 for the tumulus there mentioned is probably the lophos of Pausanias.
In x. 31. 7 Pausanias says that Memnon went from Susa to Troy conquering all the nations which he passed through and that the Phrygians still point out61 the road by which he led his army choosing the shortest way through the country (the road τέτμηται διὰ τῶν μονῶν).62
I find in H.G.A.M. p. 31 a written note that Robertson Smith considered Memnon to be a grecised form of the Syrian name Naaman = Adonis. The allusion in Pausanias makes it certain that some tradition was floating among the Lydians in his time about an ancient connexion of Troy with inner Asia Minor and a road through Phrygia down the Rhyndakos valley towards the Hellespont associating the road with a Syrian king or deity; but the tradition is really a faint echo of the fame of the old Hittite empire with capital in Anatolia; and it should be compared with the war waged by Priam in his youth against the Amazons on the banks of the Sangarios (Iliad iii. 187).
B. Hipponax on the Lydian Priests
Tzetzes Exeg. Iliad. 76. 8 illustrates Homer's description of the priest Chryses as follows: the priests of the sun i.e. prophets and Magi such as was Chryses used to go crowned with laurel as is proved by Hipponax:
Κίκων δ᾿ ὁ πανδαύλητος 63 ἄμμορος καύης
τοιόνδε τι δάϕνας κατέχων
Hiller-Crusius 12 (5) emend this in the form—
Κίκων δ᾿ (πανδήλητος) ἄμμορος καύηξ
τοιόνδε δάϕνης κλάδον ἔχων
Bergk 2 (5) edition iv. prints the text—
Κίκων δ᾿ ὁ πανδάλητος ἄμμορος καύηξ
τοιόνδε δάϕνης κλάδον ἔχων
Tzetzes has καύης and it is not permissible to transform the priest into a sea-mew or a gull merely because as Hesychius says the Ainianes applied the name καύηξ64 to a bird of that class (usually called λάρος). In this fragment regarded as an illustration of Il. i. 13 or 370–373 the essential points are two: (1) Kikon is a priest; (2) he carries a branch of laurel in his hand. Hipponax must mention both points and Tzetzes quotes accordingly. There is no justification for “emending” either point out of the quotation; and there is nothing to show that Kikon was a priest except the word “kaues.” Now καύης was the Lydian term for a priest known both at Sardis and at Ephesus fem καύεις καύειν (see Robinson and Buckler in A.J.A. 1910); and Hesychius has κοίης and κόης· ἱερεὺς Καβείρων.65 ἄμμορος καύης was a priest without a stipend similar to those beggar priests Metragurtai (such as Aeschines was in youth Dem. De cor. 259 f. perambulating Attica with his mother the priestess and hierophantis).
Kikon was a good hieratic name and must be accepted as denoting a real person some priest known to Hipponax's public. In mythology Kikon was son of Amythaon who dwelt in Thessaly at Iolkos in old Pelasgian surroundings. Amythaon was father also of Melampus the seer and Bias and Aeolia (the isle of Stromboli). Bias the strong or violent is a name associated with many places and scenes in early legend; but typical rather than individual. The name is often found in Homer. The Amytha-onidai were kings of Argos and Melampus was the founder of Pylos. The family is connected intimately with the wanderings of the Old-Ionians the sons of Yavan and with some of the most famous seats of early Greek mythology. In Ephesus Kikon is probably typical of the Ionian share in the Ephesian priesthood. There is no direct evidence that the sons of Yavan had any such share; but the long series of vicissitudes and alternations in the history of the city which was sometimes more inclined to yield to the Western influence and sometimes was fastened by a rope to the temple of the native goddess (according to the story) implies that the priesthood with its power was shared. A united and unalloyed native Lydian priesthood would have been fatal to the very life of a Hellenic city; and in fact the goddess proved in the long run stronger than Hellenism and Ephesus proved to be the least Hellenic of the twelve Ionian cities. Moreover the analogy of other mixed nationalities in Asia Minor shows that this partition of the priesthood was usual (see Chapter IV.).
Kikon may also have been the ancestral hero and eponym of the Thracian tribe Kikones who were allies of the Trojans (Iliad ii. 846 a leader; Euphemos another leader; Mentes xvii. 73; cp. Od. i. 105 ix. 39 a city Ismaros Od. ix. 39 f.). The great Kikonian in religious-historical mythology was Orpheus. The Old-Ionian epic preserved these stories and connects the priest with the Ionian stock. Yet if any one prefers to refer Kikon to a Danubian element conquering Lydia with the Mermnads he has a good case.
πανδαύλητος or πανδάλητος is obviously indefensible. The editors assume that the first syllable is right and look for a corrupted compound with παν. Bergk who has a different reading in his text suggests in his commentary πανδαύχνωτος i.e. πανδάϕνωτος (adding “Meineke comprobavit”): thus he finds the laurel here but Tzetzes’ quotation gives the laurel in the next line.66 Hesychius has δαυχμόν· εὔκαυστον ξύλον δάϕνης which is far from suggesting a leafy branch.
If the word used by Hipponax had been one of the familiar Greek compounds beginning with παν corruption would have been unlikely. Moreover there must always have been an unconscious tendency in a scribe to find such a compound by misreading a blurred initial letter e.g. kappa. The seat of error therefore is in the first syllable and probably the first letter; for here the unconscious tendency would influence the mind of the scribe. The errors which the scribe made were unintentional not wilful alterations as we observe in practically every case.
The same cure occurred independently to Sayce and to Buckler. Sayce was looking for some Anatolian word and thought that K was a more probable beginning than Π. Buckler saw that meant “son of”: now Kandaules is a Lydian hieratic and royal name and Kikon the priest is his descendant in the priestly line (see p. 177). With the change of one letter at the point of error the true reading emerges: Κίκων ὁ Κανδαύλητος ἄμμορος καύης Kikon “scion” of Kandaules (claiming to be of the old hieratic descent from the god himself) a priest without a stipend. Hesychius has Κανδαύλας· Ἑρμῆς. ἢρακλῆς which is evidently a comment on Hipponax and implies that here as so often the text of that poet known to Pamphilus or Diogenianus had the Anatolian words in slightly different grecisation from the text that lies behind Tzetzes.
Kandaules is the Lydian form of Herakles who is described in the Greek mythology as wearing woman's attire and associating with Omphale the Lydian queen (i.e. priestess and goddess) who adorns herself with the lion's skin which was in Greek legend appropriate to Herakles. The Lydian priests representing Kandaules wore women's robes. Perhaps Hipponax thought that was sufficiently suggested by “sprung from Kandaules” but more probably if we had the context we should find that the feminine style of dress worn by Kikon was described.67 Moreover Kandaules is equally the Lydian counterpart of Hermes; he is the arch-thief the companion and leader and patron of thieves like Hermes; so that “descendant of Kandaules” implies quite as much “robber” as “effeminate” and as thief is stated in the next line so also women's dress should be mentioned in the context.
In grecising Anatolian names great freedom was shown in declension. Names in -ας and -ες make the genitive in -δος -τος -ου -εω according to metrical convenience or prosaic caprice. Χάρητος and Χάρηδος occur as genitive in the same region and time apparently even in the same family and individual: the genitive of Kidramas or Kidramoas was grecised alike as Kidramantos and Kidrama and Kidramoa.68 κανδαύλη -εω -ητος are all equally possible as genitives.
Among the ancients poverty was an aggravation of guilt and always a cause of ridicule. See e.g. the picture drawn by Gregory Nyss. of the low-born Aetios the heretic working for his living quoted and illustrated in my Pauline and other Studies in History of Religion p. 371 ff. This prejudice is not unreasonable in Western Asia nor even in Eastern Europe where the self-respecting poor man hardly exists. As the saying still goes “it is only a rich man that can be honest; a poor man must live by his wits” and must be ready to do anything to get a living. Hence it is only among those brought up in comparative wealth that a pleasant easy trustworthy tone is found in those lands. “The poor are always in the wrong” literally. Accordingly it was a common climax of invective to picture an opponent as poor and obliged to earn a living by toil. So Demosthenes contrasts himself and his own respectable education and training with the early life of Aeschines the beggar assistant to his mother the wandering priestess (see p. 172). Yet Aeschines belonged to a good Athenian family impoverished in the wars. To work for a livelihood even as a teacher of children was disgraceful: to teach rhetoric to young men or to inherit means or to be a soldier was honourable.
Hipponax degrades in his usual fashion the Lydian divine idea by picturing the high-born priest of the god who made supplication on behalf of the people as a beggar. Doubtless strolling priests and priestesses were known in Ephesus as they were in Attica during the fourth century. On the character of such foreign mainly Asian cults in Attica the treatise of P. Foucart on Les Associations relig. chez les Grecs is instructive. Although Foucart thinks specially of these metragurtai as Phrygian the cult was essentially the same in other parts of Anatolia; and coins show that the conception of the divine figures (whom the priests represented in their mystic ritual orgia) was practically identical in Lydia and in Phrygia. The deities were Old-Anatolian worshipped and feared by every conquering race that swept over those countries; and their ritual spread to neighbouring countries as e.g. to Attica not through any intentional missionary propaganda (it was of the essence of paganism to restrict the benefits of the ritual to a few lest the value might be diminished if it were common to an increased number of believers and devotees) but because it was a paying business to celebrate the rites and exact fees from the superstitious or the curious.
It is of course impossible to say how far Hipponax relates and exaggerates actual facts about Kikon or how far he is inventing mere calumnies. There was no law of libel to restrain his scurrilous invective. It was for him to judge how far he could go in trying to amuse the public and where he must stop lest he might outrage public feeling and become liable to damages illegally but effectively imposed. Certainly very wide limits were permitted to scurrility before a Greek public provided that the hearers (or readers) were amused. It is however evident that Kikon was not a mere strolling priest showing for money the rites of Artemis-Cybele to superstitious devotees. He was a high-class priest of the goddess and his titles are here parodied; but fees were doubtless exacted for celebrations of the mystic ritual of the goddess which was performed not merely at regular intervals but irregularly and occasionally as desired by important (and rich) persons for curiosity or religious devotion (so at Claros). Perhaps fees were scarce; and there were doubtless often scandals where religious rites are celebrated for a fee (which doubtless was made a matter of bargain in the universal graeco-oriental fashion). Perhaps Kikon demanded a high fee from some visitor who refused it; and he was satirised as a priest that gets no fee.
The leading priestly families of Anatolia boasted to be descended from the god (in this case Kandaules-Herakles-Hermes)69: the priests sustained his character wore his ceremonial dress and often bore his name or some sacred name e.g. Sabos Bacchos Atis Diogenes Apollonios etc. (for even Greek names like the two last are frequently found see p. 209). That the name Kandaules as applied to the god was not complimentary may be gathered from the lemmata κάνδωλος explained κακουργός λῃστής and perhaps κάνδη· γυνὴ ἡ καν (mutilated: omitted from M. Schmidt's single volume text). The same spirit is apparent in the often-quoted fr. 1.
In the following line Tzetzes gives τοιόνδε τι δάϕνας κατέχων breaking off evidently as soon as his purpose was attained by the mention of the laurels carried by Kikon. Bergk says that τοιόδε must be governed by a verb such as θεσπίζει from the context or suggests τοιόνδ᾿ ἔϕη (for -δε τι); but no emendation of this kind shows fine quality. κατέχων can hardly be right. Bergk suggests κρᾶτ᾿ ἔχων (for κρᾶτι); but in Homer Chryses has the laurels in his hand and Hipponax is quoted to illustrate him. δάϕνης κλάδον or κλῶνα is preferred by Bergk and Hiller-Crusius; but δάϕνας branches of laurel seems original. I should prefer χειρί to κρᾶτι but the alteration is too violent to be satisfactory. The name of the god is wanted before or after δάϕνας: Apollo suits the metre.
Kandaules is often explained by scholars as the Lydian translation of κυνάγχης on the authority of Schol. ad Tzetz. Chil. (Cramer An. Ox. p. 351. 7); but the statement is a mere inference of Tzetzes from the above passage of Hipponax (and is false); and Hesychius (as quoted above) gives the right interpretation when he says that Kandaules was the Lydian name of Hermes. Μηονιστὶ Κανδαῦλα then is not an explanation of the epithet κυνάγχε hut a statement that the god's name in Maeonian speech was Kandaules. Probably the idea of “brigand” is nearer the meaning than “dog-choker”70 for the following word comes to us in the corrupt form τοιόνδε which needs daring treatment. Hesychius who aids so often in the interpretation of Hipponax has τεγοῦν· Λυδοὶ τὸν λῃστήν. It seems probable that the text behind Tzetzes was τεγῶν δέ (or perhaps τεγῶνα).71 Kikon this “son” of Kandaules is called thief as Kandaules was the companion of thieves. λῃστής combines thieving with violence like our “brigand” and unites two aspects of the Lydian god's character; in the assimilation to Hellenic gods those two aspects are separated and the god is grecised both as Hermes-Mercurius and as Herakles or Ares. The dedication Ἄρηι καὶρείαις in Lycaonia72 connects the Anatolian deity as a god of violence with his armed and warlike priestesses or Amazons. See the dedication to Benneus and his priests Benneitai Le Bas-Waddington No. 774 also pp. 188 f. 220.
The quotation breaks off” in the middle of a line because the words needed or suited to illustrate Homer ended there and it would be wrong to conjecture χερσίν as the last word of the scazon.73 After ἔχων nothing can be allowed that corresponds directly to the words of Homer.
τεγουνδετι may conceal τεγοῦν δὲ χερί or possibly τεγουνα χερί with an easy correction. Then the correspondence with Homers στέμματα χερσὶν ἔχων would be complete. κατ before ἔχων might arise through anticipation of Ἀπόλλωνος the last of the verse. If a god's name is supplied it must be Apollo. Chryses was the priest of Apollo; and Apollo was the Greek god to whom suppliants applied with fillets or branches of laurel in their hands.
Another lemma in Hesychius has caused discussion: Κίκων· ὁ Κίκωνμυθάονος ἦν οὐδὲν αἴσιον προθεσπίζων which all editors (Schneidewin Meineke M. Schmidt Bergk etc.) consider to be an explanation of this fr. of Hipponax. Schneidewin and Meineke (not Bergk) think that the last three words also come from Hipponax (though the words have no Hipponactian tone); and Hartung attributes to the Ephesian poet even the word Ἀμυθάονος Brink ineptly conjectures προσῆλθεν οὐδὲν αἴσιον προθεσπίζων. Hartung is condemned by Bergk as worse for he places the words (omitting οὐδὲν) in the preceding line and attributes to Hipponax the wholly unsuitable verse: Ἀμυθάονος παῖς αἴσιον προθεσπίζων. The reference to the mythical Amythaon74 and the touch οὐδὲν κτλ. with its tragedian's tone should not be attributed to Hipponax. Probably the gloss alludes to the tribal ancestor of the Thracian people Kikones (Orpheus was a Kikonian). No restoration can give Hipponactian quality to this Hesychian gloss: it contains an explanation of and quotation from some poet but has nothing to illustrate either Homer or Hipponax. It must therefore be wholly disregarded as being not Hipponactian but tragic or epic or Orphic and hymnic.
Tzetzes says that the priests of the sun wore garlands on the head but Homer and Hipponax speak of laurel or garlands in the hand of Chryses and of Kikon. The word ἔχων is common to both poets: the στέμματα of Homer are the δάϕνας of Hipponax. The Stephanephoroi officials in Hellenistic cities of Asia Minor were representatives of the old hieratic or hieratic-dynastic families (C.B. Phr. i. p. 56 f.) and the wearing of crowns (not necessarily of laurel) was doubtless customary alike in ancient and in later time.75 The carrying of stemmata in the hands was a different matter and doubtless marked Chryses as a suppliant and Metragyrtai as suppliant-beggars. Tzetzes in his comment mixes up the two different customs. Tzetzes probably regarded χερὶ ἔχων (in κατέχων) as an illustration of Homer's ἔχων ἐν χερσίν but wandered off to the fashion of wearing garlands on the head.
This fragment seems to be completed by Bergk's 1 and 107. Of these fr. 1 is put together from two distinct fragments by Schneidewin (whom Bergk etc. follow). The description of Kikon was elaborated through several lines and 107 is a suitable description of such a degenerate priest as Hipponax paints: on it see § C of this chapter. If we put the three fragments together the whole would read:
Κίκων ὁ Κανδαύλητος ἄμμορος καίης
τεγοῦνα χερὶ δάϕνας ἔχωνπόλλωνος
… …
βασαιγίκορος [δὲἀλλὰ]
συνουσιάξων θᾶσσον [ἢ κύων ?—οὗτος]
ἔβωσε Μαίης παῖδα Κυλλήνης πάλμυν
“Ερμῆ κυνάγχα Μηονιστὶ Κανδαῦλα
ϕωρῶν ἑταῖρε δεῦρό μοι σκαπαρδεῦσαι·76
I give Bergk's text (accepted by Hiller-Crusius) which is very near the words of Hipponax in the last three verses.
“Kikon scion of Kandaules (god and king in Lydia) thief (like his god) holding in his hand the laurel branch of Apollo [effeminate wearing a woman's dress] servant of the city goddess [as he pretends to be but] more lascivious than a dog—this man called loud his prayer to the son of Maia the king of Cyllene: ‘O Hermes dog-choker in Maeonian speech Kandaules companion of thieves hither! to my aid!’”
Apollo and Hermes and Herakles are found everywhere closely associated with the Anatolian cult as it was expressed in Greek forms and names. This is a fact of religious symbolism all over Asia Minor. Here we find it at Ephesus in the mocking verses of Hipponax and on the coins of the city. In the B.M. Cat. Ephesus 238 “Apollon Hikesios of the Ephesians” is represented on a coin holding out his right hand to take from Artemis a laurel branch which she presents with her right hand as they stand facing one another. Apollo is thus commissioned by the goddess to answer suppliants who appeal for aid and purification. Then the priest as representing on earth the god in heaven must have held in his hand the laurel as Hipponax pictures him but yet he continues equally to be Kandaules the arch-thief. The son is the father reborn. Such is the mystery of the divine life. “The Bull is the father of the Serpent and the Serpent of the Bull” according to the formula which was shouted loud in the Phrygian Mysteries77 and imitated widely in the Roman period during the progressive assimilation and elaboration of the mystic ceremonial throughout the pagan world.78
Hermes and Herakles also appear on coins as gods of the State: Hermes in the usual Roman type a nude figure except for the chlamys carrying purse and caduceus: Herakles on coins of the alliance 394–387 B.C. an infant strangling two serpents. These two types each occur only once. Artemis is the almost universal type at Ephesus together with her favourite animals bee and stag: also local surroundings the rivers and the sea (ὠκεανός: Ephesus was a seaport still). One important exception occurs where the imperial brothers Caracalla and Geta are represented as the twin Kabeiroi (see p. 273) on many coins. The appearance of this important Anatolian feature accidental in its character shows how intimately the Ephesian cult was related to the general Anatolian religions.