¹ On WD 11–12 see Zarecki 2007; on Hymn. Hom. Aphr. 31–2 see Olson 2012: 23.

² See pp. 57–63 on ‘unrecorded traditions’; pp. 104–12 on the pitfalls involved in identifying Homeric echoes of earlier poems.

³ Janko 1982; 2011: 26, 28. For criticism see Jones 2011; Olson 2012: 10–15; Vergados 2012: 142–5.

⁴ Grieve 2007, esp. 266–7; Juola 2006 provides a useful survey (Grieve and Juola both focus on authorship attribution, not relative chronology).

⁵ Van Wees 1994: 138–46 (round shields, greaves, spears); M. L. West 2011a: 15–19 (Gorgoneion).

⁶ M. L. West 1966: 328, commenting on Th. 584 ζωοῖσιν ἐοικότα.

⁷ Paus. 9.31.4 (=Hesiod test. 42).

⁸ Koning 2010: 18–22.

⁹ See Hall 2014: 127–34 on the meaning of βασιλεύς in Iron Age Greece. In classical Greek the word means ‘king’; in Homer its meaning is closer to the term ‘big man’ popularized by the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins. Homeric βασιλεύς-ship is not an inherited constitutional position but a prestigious social role linked to personal qualities and wealth. The word's meaning in Hesiod is a moot question.

¹⁰ See pp. 37–8.

¹¹ Plut. Conv. sept. sap. 153f–54a; Contest 6.

¹² See Introduction, pp. vi–vii with n. 2.

¹³ Hdt. 5.99; Thuc. 1.15. Archil. fr. 3 distances ‘the masters of Euboea, spear-famed’ from the use of bows and slings, and this is sometimes linked to the Lelantine War by a legend that a treaty forbade the war from being fought with missile weapons (Strabo 10.1.12); but that legend cannot realistically be dated earlier than Ephorus, in the fourth century (see E. Wheeler 1987).

¹⁴ For a sceptical view see Hall 2014: 1–8; more sympathetically, Janko 1982: 94–8, with further bibliography.

¹⁵ Cf. Janko 1982: 228–31, dating WD to 690–650; Kõiv 2011 makes ‘Hesiod’ contemporary with Archilochus (both give extensive bibliographies).

¹⁶ See also Hall 2014: 25–6 on mismatches between the narrator's stated philosophy on work and his vocation as a poet.

¹⁷ A sample of recent literary approaches to Works and Days: Clay 2003: 31–48; 2009 (the Works represents a mortal outlook on the cosmos, complementing the Theogony); Lardinois 2003 (the Works is structurally similar to a Homeric angry speech); Beall 2004 (the Works is closer to Greek epic than to Near Eastern wisdom poetry); Canevaro 2013 (misogyny in the Works is an expression of anxiety about the efficacy of work); Hunter 2014 (ancient reception of the Works); Canevaro 2015 (self-sufficiency as an interpretive strategy for approaching the poem).

¹⁸ Nelson 1998: 57.

¹⁹ Fraser 2011 gives a recent survey and discussion of questions surrounding Pandora.

²⁰ ‘Proem’ is used here to refer to the brief, semi-formulaic preface that follows a hymnic prelude and precedes the main body of a poem. See pp. 45–8.

²¹ Janko 1982: 220–1.

²² This supposition is based on treating WD 11–12 as a retraction of Theog. 225. Identifying cross-references between early Greek poems is hazardous to say the least: see pp. 1–2 above, also pp. 57–63 and 104–12 below.

²³ Janko 1982: 228–31 dates the Theogony to 700–665 bce based on stylometric evidence; Kõiv 2011 makes both the Theogony and Works and Days contemporary with Archilochus (i.e. c.650), based on a survey of the biographical tradition and ancient chronographies; M. L. West 2011b: 236–7 assigns the poems to 680–660 based partly on the biographical tradition, partly on the catalogue of rivers in Theog. 337–45. See also pp. 4–5 above.

²⁴ See below, pp. 38–40.

²⁵ All of these poems appear in Bernabé 2004–7. For the Derveni Theogony, see also Bernabé 2007; and (full Derveni papyrus) Kouremenos et al. 2006.

²⁶ Orphica frs. 20.ii, iii, iv Bernabé.

²⁷ Orphica frs. 8, 9, 12 Bernabé.

²⁸ Orphica frs. 80.iii, 85, 241 Bernabé. See M. L. West 1983: 198–202 on Phanes' egg. The Rhapsodies rationalize the variants by making Phanes and Metis one and the same (frs. 140, 243.9; in frs. 96 and 139 they are two persons of a trinity).

²⁹ Some recent literary approaches to the Theogony: Clay 2003: 12–30 (the poem as a god's-eye perspective on the emergence and articulation of order in the cosmos); Stoddard 2004 (narratological analysis, with chapters on focalization, representation of time, etc.); Pache 2008 (the mortal world's dependence on female divine sexuality hints at erotic aspects of religious experience); Pucci 2009 (the poem's ‘concrete, rapid and abstract’ style).

³⁰ Pl. Symp. 178b (=FGrH 2 F 6a; Parmenides fr. B 13 D–K).

³¹ M. L. West 1966: 195–6, on Theog. 120, aptly cites parallels in Parmenides, Empedocles, and Plato, as well as more purely literary or religious writers such as ‘Orpheus’ and Euripides.

³² See also pp. 113–14 on splicing at the end of the Theogony.

³³ A passage in Galen records the nineteen-line passage (Hes. fr. 294=Chrysippus fr. 908) and quotes Chrysippus for an attribution to Hesiod. As West observes (M. L. West 1966: 401–3), a note in the Galen manuscript assigning the passage to the Theogony is itself a later addition in a second hand: another intrusion. West suggests the Hesiodic Melampodia as a possible source.

³⁴ See M. L. West 1966: 381–2 on the Typhoeomachy.

³⁵ There are allusions in sch. vet. Pind. Nem. 9.123 (where it is set at Sicyon); Callim. Aetia fr. 119 Pfeiffer.

³⁶ Some recent literary approaches to the Catalogue of Women: I. Rutherford 2000 (genre and ‘Ehoie’ poetry); Hunter 2005 (essays on many topics, including performance context and reception); González 2010 (the end of the heroic age); Ormand 2014 (intertextuality, and aristocratic attitudes to women and marriage).

³⁷ Janko 1982: 85–7, with 248 nn. 38–9.

³⁸ M. L. West 1985: 130–7.

³⁹ M. L. West 1985: 164–5; similarly Ormand 2014: 3–6.

⁴⁰ M. L. West 1985: 72–6.

⁴¹ The Mehrtens–Pack³ catalogue (available online through the CEDOPAL database) lists finds of fifty-two copies of the Catalogue plus six doubtful cases; compare thirty-six copies of the Theogony, thirty of Works and Days, and thirty-eight of other Hesiodic works. For comparison, the catalogue also lists 1,420 papyri of the Iliad, 252 of the Odyssey, 136 of Euripides' entire output, 36 of Sophocles, and 32 of Aeschylus.

⁴² See Martin 2005: 154–5 on modern treatments that see the Shield as imitative of Homer.

⁴³ Adrian Kelly informs me that a new critical edition is planned by Henry Mason, currently of Merton College, Oxford.

⁴⁴ See Hall 2014: 312–17 for a brief review. Specifically on the Shield, see Janko 1986: 40–7 (who accepts both Stesichorus' report and the First Sacred War as genuine). A reference to foreign domination over Delphi in Hymn. Hom. Ap. 540–3 reflects the existence of the amphictyony but is not evidence for a war.

⁴⁵ Janko 1986 (with review of older discussions) puts the poem between 591 and c.570; Zardini 2009: 7–19, between 630 and 600; M. L. West 2011b: 240, c.570.

⁴⁶ Guillon 1963; Russo 1965: 29–35; Janko 1986: 43–4.

⁴⁷ Some recent literary approaches to the Shield: Thalmann 1984: 62–4 (Heracles' monstrous shield stands for the ugliness of war); Toohey 1988 (the macabre preoccupation with death in Heracles' shield); Martin 2005 (‘pulp epic’); Stamatopoulou 2013 (Heracles' character, and intertextuality with the Theogony).

⁴⁸ See e.g. N. Richardson 2010: 4, with bibliography.

⁴⁹ For some mainstream datings see Janko 1982, esp. 200 and 228–31; M. L. West 2011b. West also dates the Hymn to Dionysus to the seventh century, though that dating relies on multiple conjectures.

⁵⁰ Clay 1989, 1997, 2011.

⁵¹ Vergados 2011 (see 82 nn. 1–2 for further bibliography).

⁵² N. Richardson 2010: 50–5 gives an overview of the poem's religious elements and problems in interpreting them.

⁵³ Sch. Pind. Nem. 2.1c.

⁵⁴ Burkert 1979; Janko 1982: 112–15; M. L. West 1999: 368–72, 2003a: 11–12. See Chappell 2011 for a survey.

⁵⁵ N. Richardson 2010: 9–13.

⁵⁶ On the reception of this Hymn see Vergados 2012: 76–124.

⁵⁷ On initiation see Johnston 2002. For parallels in Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave see Larson 2005.

⁵⁸ For contrasting views and bibliography see Faulkner 2008: 3–18; Olson 2012: 1–9.

⁵⁹ Severyns 1928: 245–425; Bethe 1929: 149–204; Huxley 1969: 123–73; Davies 2001; M. L. West 2013; Fantuzzi and Tsagalis 2015a.

⁶⁰ As entry points into the bibliography on Proclus and the mythographic tradition, see Davies 1986: 100–9; M. L. West 2013: 4–16.

⁶¹ Burgess 1996, 2002. The main pieces of evidence are Cypria frs. 33, 34 Bernabé (West rejects the latter), which belong to an account of the sack of Troy; and a second-century-bce Halicarnassian inscription (Cypria test. West) identifying Cyprias as the author of an Iliaca.

⁶² Burgess 2002 (arguing for Cyprias); M. L. West 2013: 32–4 (Stasinus).

⁶³ Cyclus test. 2 Bernabé (=Tab. Iliac. 10K§h Sadurska, the Borgia plaque), 14, 15; Cyclic Theogony test., fr. 1 Bernabé; Eumelus fr. 14 West; Epigoni fr. 3* West (attribution uncertain); Alcmeonis fr. 6 West. M. L. West 2013: 13–14 speculatively suggests adding the Naupactia to the Borgia plaque's list.

⁶⁴ The Borgia plaque links the Oedipodea and Thebaid in a ‘cycle’, but also includes the Danais and a Titanomachy, so it is not a ‘Theban’ cycle. The only other potential evidence for a grouping is that Herodotus and Alcidamas regarded the Thebaid and Epigoni as both Homeric (Epigoni test. 1, 5).

⁶⁵ Pausanias knew the Cypria and Little Iliad directly (10.31.2, 10.26.1), and probably also the Returns (10.29.6, 10.30.5). Athenaeus may also have read some of the poems.

⁶⁶ Little Il. fr. 3.

⁶⁷ The latest evidence of the Aethiopis' survival is the Capitoline tablet, dating to Augustus' reign (Tab. Iliac. 1A Sadurska); for the Telegony, the Hellenistic-era summary in Proclus is the only testimony we can be sure is based directly on the poem, unless Pausanias' reference to the Thesprotis (8.12.5=Teleg. fr. 3) actually refers to the Telegony.

⁶⁸ John Philoponus, In Arist. An. post. 157.14–17 Wallies, reports that the poems could no longer be found.

⁶⁹ Arist. Poet. 1459a.30–b.7 (M. L. West 2003b: 118–19).

⁷⁰ Arist. Poet. 1460a.5–11.

⁷¹ Most famously Callim. Epigr. 28 (ἐχθαίρω τὸ ποίημα τὸ κυκλικόν, ‘I despise the cyclic poem’, etc.). See also Monro 1883: 328–34; Severyns 1928: 155–9; Fantuzzi and Tsagalis 2015b.

⁷² Hor. Ars P. 146–9.

⁷³ Anth. Pal. 11.130.

⁷⁴ Phot. Myr. cod. 239, 319.i.30–3 (Procl. Chrest. 20 Severyns), citing τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ πραγμάτων (‘the continuity of the material in [the Cycle]’).

⁷⁵ Livy 1.56.3 and Dion. Hal. 4.63.1 report the sixth-century Roman colonization of Circeii, probably already a cult site to Circe; Aesch. fr. eleg. 2 alludes to Circe's teaching of pharmacology to the native Italians (see also Plin. HN 7.15, 25.11); later allusions place Circe in Italy still more explicitly, e.g. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.310–13.

⁷⁶ Sammons 2013.

⁷⁷ Cyclus test. 1, 8 Bernabé (=Arist. An. post. 77b.2, Soph. el. 171a.10).

⁷⁸ Arist. Rhet. 1712a.12. M. L. West 2013: 23–6 speculates that Phayllus compiled the Epic Cycle, c.350–320 bce.

⁷⁹ Porphyrio sch. Hor. Ars P. 146 (=Antimachus test. 12a Wyss, 26b Matthews); ps.-Acro sch. Hor. Ars P. 136 (=Antimachus test. 12b Wyss).

⁸⁰ Cf. Matthews 1996: 21–2, 73, that these scholia are ‘essentially worthless’. Pseudo-Acro reports a variant theory that ‘cyclic’ referred to wandering poets, going around from city to city; no corroboration exists for this theory either.

⁸¹ Parke and Wormell 1956 give the text of all Delphic oracles with context and sorted by date; L. Andersen 1987 selects from these the oracles in hexameter, along with a concordance. Fontenrose 1978 gives another complete catalogue (240–416), without text, and adds oracles from Didyma (417–29).

⁸² Fontenrose 1978: 186–95; Bowden 2005: 21–4, 33–8. A few oracles may have been delivered in verse; others may have been rewritten as verse oracles – perhaps, as Bowden suggests, on the model of chresmologoi (see below).

⁸³ Fontenrose 1978: 21–2, 42–4, 233–8; Bowden 2005: 49–51.

⁸⁴ See Fontenrose 1978: 103–7 on these oracles.

⁸⁵ Fontenrose 1978: 145–65; Bowden 2005: 33–8.

⁸⁶ Bernabé 2004–7: iii.32–4 (Musaeus frs. 62–71), 143–52 (Epimenides frs. 40–5).

⁸⁷ See Appendix.

⁸⁸ Hdt. 7.140–3, etc. (oracles 94–5 Parke-Wormell, Q146–7 Fontenrose). Tzetz. Hist. 9.796–805 ascribes the ‘wooden wall’ oracle to Bacis. See further Fontenrose 1978: 124–8.

⁸⁹ IG II² 4968.12–23 (see below); Amphilytus in Hdt. 1.62; Hipparchus' dream in Hdt. 5.56; Bacis in Hdt. 8.20; satires of Bacis in Ar. Av. 967–8 and Lucian, De mort. Peregr. 30. Animal imagery in oracles spuriously attributed to Delphi: Hdt. 1.47, 1.55, 5.92b, 6.77 (tentatively assigned to Bacis by Fontenrose), 7.220; Paus. 4.20.1.

⁹⁰ Hdt. 8.20, 8.77; Paus. 9.17.5. Also in satires and forgeries of Bacis: Ar. Av. 967–79; Paus. 4.27.4 (apodosis only); Lucian, De mort. Peregr. 30. An extreme case is Teiresias' prophecy, Od. 11.100–37, with a string of five conditional and temporal clauses (see Peradotto 1990: 63–75). Few oracles attributed to Delphi, whether real or legendary, use conditionals: see Fontenrose 1978: 166–70.

⁹¹ Abaris, New Jacoby 34 F 1 (Philodemus, On piety, 4688–4707 Obbink); cf. Theogonies attributed to Musaeus and Epimenides.

⁹² Calchas on the omen of the snake and the birds, Il. 2.301–30; Teiresias on Odysseus' homecoming, Od. 11.100–37; Theoclymenus on the Suitors' fate, Od. 20.351–7. As an exception, cf. Calchas' lucid oracle at Il. 1.93–100.

⁹³ Clem. Al. Strom. 1.21.132.3–133.1.

⁹⁴ Parke 1985. Parke suggests an ascription to Musaeus or Bacis; Bernabé assigns it to Epimenides (fr. 45).

⁹⁵ Friedländer 1948: 7–64 gives a selection of fifty-nine hexameter inscriptions rewritten in Hellenistic orthography, with notes.

⁹⁶ Κεφαλᾶνας μεγαθύμōς ~ Il. 2.631: Κεφαλλῆνας μεγαθύμους; Διϝὸς ϙṓροιν μεγάλοιο ~ Hymn. Hom. 33.9: Διὸς κούρους μεγάλοιο.