Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:04:23.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE GETTY HEXAMETERS AND GREEK TRAGEDY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2022

Luigi Battezzato*
Affiliation:
Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present article aims to show that several passages of Greek tragedy make use of language present in the Getty Hexameters, especially in contexts where incantations and protection of the city are mentioned. The Getty Hexameters were written on a lead tablet at the end of the fifth century BC in Sicily (Selinus or, more likely, Himera). The article argues that the composition of the text predates the lead tablet by several decades (section 2). It focuses on similarities in structure and language that involve Soph. fr. 535 (section 4), Aeschylus’ Oresteia (section 5), Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus (section 6) and Euripides’ Hecuba (section 8). It also suggests that Plato (section 7) and late antique poetry and prose (section 9) reuse some of the linguistic elements of the incantatory tradition of the Getty Hexameters.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Cambridge Philological Society

1. Introduction

A passage of Timaeus of Tauromenium (fourth/third century BC) discusses the importance of the myth and cults of Demeter and Persephone in Sicily. He claims that Carcinus, a fourth-century BC tragic poet (from Athens or possibly from Akragas),Footnote 1 knew the cults of Demeter and Persephone as practised in Syracuse, and was influenced by them in his poetry. This is the fragment of Carcinus quoted by Timaeus:Footnote 2

λέγουσι Δήμητρός ποτ' ἄρρητον κόρην
Πλούτωνα κρυφίοις ἁρπάσαι βουλεύμασιν
δῦναί τε γαίας εἰς μελαμφαεῖς μυχούς⋅
Demeter's daughter, her whom none may name,
By secret schemings Pluton, men say, stole,
And then he dropped into earth's depths, whose light
Is darkness (tr. Oldfather (Reference Oldfather1939))

The underworld is described by the striking oxymoronic phrase γαίας … μελαμφαεῖς μυχούς ‘earth's depths, whose light is darkness’. This could be seen as an original image created by an inventive poet. In 2011, David Jordan and Roy Kotansky published the text of a lead tablet from Sicily, dated to the fifth or fourth century BC, which uses the same oxymoronic image to describe the underworld. The text is generally known as the Getty Hexameters, from the name of the museum that houses the artefact. The Getty Hexameters mention Persephone and Demeter, and call the underworld a ‘place whose light is darkness’ (GH (= Getty Hexameters) 8–10):

8  †ͱοσσα† κατὰ σκιερῶν ὀρέων μελαναυγέϊ χώρωι
9  Φερσεφόνης ἐγ κήπου ἄγει πρὸς ἀμολγὸν ἀνάγκη[ι]
10  τὴν τετραβήμονα παῖς ͱαγίην Δήμητρος {ͱ}ὀπηδόν,
†…† the child, from the shadowy mountains in the black-lit place,
Leads from Persephone's garden by force to its milking
The four-footed attendant of holy Demeter…Footnote 3

The similarities with Carcinus in context and phrasing are striking. The text, of Sicilian origin, is linked to incantations and, according to many interpreters, mystery cults. Carcinus slightly adapts the language because of the different metrical context (μελαμφαεῖς is much easier to insert in iambs than μελαναυγής, suitable for dactyls). Carcinus’ text itself, by using the word ἄρρητον ‘unspeakable’, ‘secret’ in line 1, alludes to the taboo on Persephone's name: her name cannot be revealed to people who are not initiated into the mysteries (Pausanias 8.37.9). The adjective ‘unspeakable’ thus functions as an allusion to mysteries.Footnote 4 Several other tragic texts had already used this phrase (Eur. Hel. 518–19 μελαμφαὲς … ἔρεβος, Hec. 152 νασμῶι μελαναυγεῖ, Alc. 261–2 ὑπ' ὀφρύσι κυαναυγέσι | βλέπων πτερωτὸς Ἅιδας, and below, section 8). Only the similarity between the Getty Hexameters and one of these texts (Eur. Hec. 152 νασμῶι μελαναυγεῖ) has been discussed so far, and from a very different perspective. Some scholars suggest that the Getty Hexameters imitate Soph. fr. 353.2 TrGF and Eur. Hec. 152.Footnote 5 Others argue that both tragedy, in these two cases, and the Getty Hexameters simply use traditional poetic language.Footnote 6

This article aims to show that several other passages of Greek tragedy make use of language present in the Getty Hexameters, especially in contexts where incantations and protection of the city are mentioned. Tragedy incorporates and readapts many elements taken from earlier genres of poetry, from epic to lyric; the sung and spoken performances of choruses and characters often allude to these genres within the tragic setting.Footnote 7 Tragedy also often alludes to magical texts and performances.Footnote 8 The publication of the Getty Hexameters allows modern interpreters to perceive the background of many tragic passages and the allusion to magical practices that would otherwise have eluded attention.

The lead tablet on which Getty Hexameters are inscribed was donated to the Getty Museum in 1981 together with the lex sacra of Selinus, also on lead, and with ‘three curse tablets of the early 5th c. BCE’, also from Sicily.Footnote 9 Several complete editions of the Getty Hexameters have been published,Footnote 10 as well as studies on specific passages.Footnote 11

Preparing a new full diplomatic and philological edition of the text, including a critical apparatus and palaeographic notes, is beyond the scope of this paper. The line numbers used (from 1 to 50) are those provided in the edition printed in Faraone and Obbink (Reference Faraone and Obbink2013b).Footnote 12 The text of the relevant sections will be provided, when necessary, for the convenience of the reader. The translation, unless otherwise noted, is that of Janko (Reference Janko2015), occasionally slightly adapted.Footnote 13 Many points of text and interpretation are uncertain. For reasons of space, textual and interpretive problems will be discussed only when they affect the point discussed in this paper.

Section 2 will illustrate in brief the debate on the date and origin of the Getty Hexameters, arguing that the text was written in Sicily (Selinus or, more likely, Himera), and that the composition of the text predates the artefact (end of the fifth century BC) by several decades. Linguistic and epigraphic data suggest that it is highly unlikely that late fifth-century tragedy influenced the text of the Getty Hexameters as a whole. The main argument of the article (sections 39) does not depend on conclusion of this (more technical) section. Sections 39 can be read independently from section 2.

Section 3 offers a brief overview of the content of the Getty Hexameters.

Sections 46 and 8 discuss the interaction between the Getty Hexameters and Greek tragedy, focusing on similarities in structure and language that involve Soph. fr. 535 (section 4), Aeschylus’ Oresteia (section 5), Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus (section 6) and Euripides’ Hecuba (section 8). Plato (section 7) and late antique poetry and prose (section 9) reuse some of the linguistic elements of the incantatory tradition that reverberate in tragedy.

2. Context, date and language

2.1 Texts and copies

The Getty Hexameters are part of a constellation of texts. Several sections of the Getty Hexameters are transmitted, in identical or similar form, alone or in combination with other texts, in a number of other documents, spanning from the early fifth century BC to the fourth century AD, and coming from different part of the ancient world (Sicily, Crete, Egypt, Rome).Footnote 14

Richard Janko attempts to reconstruct the ‘archetype’ of all the extant texts, starting from the Getty Hexameters, the longest text.Footnote 15 It is however possible the Getty Hexameters (or their model) were written assembling pre-existing different shorter texts. This longer version is not necessarily the archetype of the shorter text.Footnote 16 The shorter texts may have different linguistic and dialectal characteristics from that of the Getty Hexameters. Moreover, it is clear that the text was heavily changed in some copies: lines 36–41 of the Getty Hexameters are written as prose, but clearly derive from a hexametrical text.Footnote 17 The present article will focus on the Getty copy as a specific version of a widespread group of similar texts.

2.2 Writing, the date of the tablet and the date of the text

The first editors, Jordan and Kotansky, suggest that the tablet was written in Sicily in the period 425–375 BC.Footnote 18 They argue that it could have come from Selinus, like many other similar inscriptions on lead. However, they point out that the use of the ‘half eta’ symbol ͱ to indicate aspiration has a parallel in Himera, not Selinus.Footnote 19

Jan Bremmer and others suggested 409 (the date of the destruction of Selinus by Carthage) as a terminus ante quem for the Getty tablet.Footnote 20 We have indications that Selinus was inhabited after 409, even if many limitations to civic life were in place.Footnote 21 The terminus ante quem of 409 is not relevant if Himera is the place of origin of the text or of the tablet.

The Getty tablet contains, as many scholars have noted, a series of mistakes that originate in writing, not in composition or oral transmission. The text itself stresses the importance of writing and copying. Right at beginning, it presents itself as ‘the meaning-filled letters of these sacred verses … inscribed on lead’ (τῶνδ’ ͱιερῶν ἐπέων ἀρίσημα … | γράμματα κασσιτέρωι κεκολαμμένα, 2–3),Footnote 22 and thus points to writing as the medium of transmission.

There are several mistakes in the writing of aspirations.Footnote 23 Different explanations have been put forward, which require a complex series of adaptation between different linguistic contexts and/or writing systems.Footnote 24 Two mistakes clearly suggest that the Getty tablet derives at least in part from a written transmission. The spelling ιαγίην in line 10 is very likely to derive from ͱαγίην: the half eta, indicating aspiration, was mistaken for an iota.Footnote 25 Olga Tribulato plausibly argues that the spelling ͱέπε’ (i.e. ἔπε(α) ‘words’) in line 7 is a copying mistake originating from a written text that read Ϝέπε’. She notes that the digamma is not used in texts from fifth-century Himera or Selinus.Footnote 26 It is however used in the late sixth-century lex sacra from Selinus and is attested until the mid-fifth century in that city.Footnote 27 This would be consistent with the hypothesis that the Getty Hexameters derive from a text written many decades before the end of the fifth century, at a time when digamma was in use; the sign was unfamiliar to a late fifth-century scribe and was wrongly transcribed.Footnote 28 We would thus need to posit an ‘original’ Ionic-Epic text without digamma; we must suppose that it was then transcribed in an area where the digamma was written (at least on some occasions) and the corresponding sound pronounced; and finally, we must suppose yet another transcription which mistakes the digamma (by now out of fashion, or not in use in the area) for an aspiration mark. This projects the text into a past that is very distant from the dating of the Getty tablet.

It seems likely that this text was in circulation, in some form, in the late sixth or early fifth century. This has important consequences not just for the dating of the composition but also for the relationship of the Getty Hexameters to tragedy.

2.3 Language

The Getty Hexameters use a mainly Ionic-Epic language, but several non-Ionic forms are also present. The ‘Doric’ forms include νιν (4),Footnote 29 σκιαρῶν (8), ἀκαμαντορόα (11), φρασίν (39). We also find instances of Atticism (13 [Ε]ἰνοδία{ι} δ’ ⟨ͱ⟩Εκάτɛ̄{ι}) and words that could be ‘Doric’ or Attic (34 βίαι, dative).Footnote 30

Tribulato convincingly suggests ‘that the original text employed an Ionic diction mixed with certain metrically guaranteed features adopted from Doric and perhaps consciously employed to gesture towards the linguistic context in which the text was produced’, and connects this with Himera, a city where, according to Thucydides (6.5.1), a dialect ‘between that of the Chalcidians and Doric’ (φωνὴ μὲν μεταξὺ τῆς τε Χαλκιδέων καὶ Δωρίδος ἐκράθη) was spoken.Footnote 31 Many scholars present the provenance from Selinus as a fact, but Himera, as Tribulato argued, is at least as likely as Selinus, if not more.Footnote 32

There is another passage in the Getty Hexameters which may suggest the mixing of different linguistic codes. At line 16 the tablet presents the word προμολεισα, corrected into προμολοῦσα in the editio princeps, a correction accepted by all subsequent editors.Footnote 33 This is a very strange mistake, since -οῦσα is a very common participle ending, correctly transcribed elsewhere in the tablet (12 πεπιθοῦσα, 14 ἐκκλάζουσα), and the error is unexplainable from a palaeographic or phonetic point of view. One could explain it more easily if the original had the form προμολοῖσα. This Aeolic/Pindaric participle form is common in lyric but unusual in other genres, and it could have prompted the scribe to assimilate the ending to that of participles in -εισα. Forms in -oισα, outside Aeolic poetry, occur in Alcman (e.g. PMG 1.61 φεροίσαις, 3.64 Ἀ[σ]τυμέλοισα and 65 ἔχοισα),Footnote 34 in the ‘quasi-hexametric’ poetry of Stesichorus of Himera (see e.g. frr. 19.19 ἐχοίσαι, 118.9 δ]ρακοῖσα, 211.17 ].λφεοῖσα in Finglass’ edition),Footnote 35 in Pindar and Bacchylides,Footnote 36 in kitharodic poetry,Footnote 37 in Eumelus (PMG 696.1 Μοῖσα and 2 ἔχοισα (Dindorf, on the basis of Μοῖσα: ἔχουσα MSS)), in Epicharmus fr. 80 (μοισικὰν ἔχοισα: the forms in -οισα are attested as variant readings and are probably the form that Epicharmus used here),Footnote 38 Rhinthon (fr. 6 Kassel-Austin ἔχοισα). The occurrence of these forms in non-Aeolic poetry are to be explained as borrowing from the Aeolic tradition.Footnote 39 The forms also occur in hexametric or elegiac epigraphical texts from many areas, including Attica (PMG 938e Μοῖσά μοι), Corinth,Footnote 40 Boeotia,Footnote 41 CreteFootnote 42 and Southern Italy.Footnote 43 These instances in hexametric or elegiac poetry are probably to be interpreted as influenced by the language of lyric poetry. Form in -oισα are of course regularly found in the Theocritean corpus (e.g. 20.39 μολοῖσα), where they may have been felt as part of the ‘Doric’ (Pindaric) elements.Footnote 44 Greek poetical languages regularly insert elements from different traditions into whatever literary language they adopt as primary.Footnote 45 This does not mean that the model of the Greek Hexameters was originally written (if an ‘original’ model ever existed) with the form in -οισα or that we should expect these forms to occur consistently in the poem. It simply means that at some point in time one occurrence of the participle was given this unique non-standard feature, which could have been perceived as a prestigious ‘Lyric’/‘Doric’/‘Stesichorean’ element. That unique form was then corrupted to προμολεισα.

2.4 Conclusions on date and place of origin

On the basis of these palaeographic and linguistic considerations, it is very likely that the tablet itself was written in Sicily (possibly in Himera or Selinus) at the end of the fifth or beginning of the fourth century BC. The text itself (or at least large sections of it) must have been composed some decades before it was inscribed on the Getty lead tablet; it was transmitted in writing, probably in different Greek-speaking contexts and using different alphabetic systems.

3. Structure of the text

The Getty Hexameters are structured according to a very clear pattern. We find four occurrences (with slight variations) of a line invoking Paean. These invocations divide the text into clearly marked sections which differ for content and style. This is the outline:

  • 1–5   the speaker asserts the efficacious power of the incantation

  • 6  invocation to Paean:

    Παιήων, σὺ δὲ πάντοσ’ ἀλέξιμα φάρμακα πέμπεις
    ‘Paeon – to every place you send protective drugs – ’
  • 7–22   Paean narrates a story about a goad, related to Persephone and Hecate

  • 23  invocation to Paean:

    ⸤Παιήων,⸥ σὺ γὰρ αὐτὸς {ͱ}ἀ⸤λ⸥έξιμα φάρμα⸤κα πέμπεις.⸥
    ‘[Paeon] – you send protective drugs yourself – '
  • 24–31  the text states that incantations will protect ships, people, animals and the city in general

  • 32  invocation to Paean:

    [Παιήων, σὺ δ]ὲ πάντοσ’ ἀκεσ{σ}φόρος ἐσσὶ καὶ ἐσθ[λός.]
    ‘[Paeon] – to every place you bring cures and are good.’
  • 33–48  Ephesia grammata

  • 49  invocation to Paean:

    [Παι]ήων, ͱο γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀλέξιμα φάρμακα πέ[μπει⋅]
    ‘[Paeon] – since he sends send protective drugs himself –’
  • 50  conclusion: Paean will protect against evil pharmaka.

Refrains are of course common in magical texts (e.g. Aesch. Eum. 328–32 = 341–6; Theocritus 2.17), but also in paeans.Footnote 46

Interpretations of the Getty Hexameters vary. Jordan and Kotanksy consider them the ‘traditional legomena of a rite of initiation into the worship of Demeter and Core’.Footnote 47 Similarly, Dirk Obbink thinks that this text is ‘poetry performed in a mystery context’ and calls it a ‘telestic song’.Footnote 48 William Furley argues that ‘the Getty narrative is nothing other than the sacred narrative of Dionysos’ birth’, and that its author is ‘an Orpheotelestēs’ who ‘appeals to Apollo Paian as the divine healer, who, according to myth, had even saved Dionysos as a child’;Footnote 49 the first line ‘introduces the hieros logos of mystery rites’.Footnote 50 Janko instead considers it ‘a late fifth-century hexametric incantation against witchcraft, into which an earlier spell is embedded; it was intended for civic rather than private use’;Footnote 51 Christopher Faraone and Radcliffe Edmonds also argue that the text is a civic incantation.Footnote 52

Explicit references to mystery cult are not present in the extant part of the text, and the references to Persephone (8) and to the Idean Dactyl Damnameneus (41) do not necessarily prove that this was used in a mystery context. The emphasis on the protection of the polis (25–31) indicates that this a text was part of a ritual aimed not at a single individual but at the community as a whole.Footnote 53

Ian Rutherford, focusing on the paeanic features, suggests that the Getty Hexameters can be ‘a paean-incantation, in fact the only example of this sub-genre to survive’.Footnote 54 One should add that the dactylic rhythm is very frequent in paeans.Footnote 55 Richard Janko and Carlo Martino Lucarini accept that this text is a paean in hexameters, comparable to the one composed by Socrates before his death.Footnote 56 The hypothesis that this text was felt to be a Paean-incantation is compatible with its status as amulet: the first three lines of the text allude both to the oral performance of the text (GH 1 ἐπαείδω ‘I sing’) and to the fact that the text is written down on lead (GH 2–3 τῶνδ’ ͱιερῶν ἐπέων ἀρίσημα … | γράμματα κασσιτέρωι κεκολαμμένα ‘the meaning-filled letters graved on lead’).

The structure and language of the Getty Hexameters is reflected in some passages of Greek tragedy, especially Aeschylus. This suggests that similar Paean-incantations were more widely used and known. Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides all use the language of magic and incantation as preserved in the Getty Hexameters. It is certainly possible in principle that the influence went both ways, and that magical texts occasionally imitated specific tragic phrases and epithets. The interaction of genres is however in the other direction: tragedy clearly alludes to the genre of magic/religious poetry in many passages;Footnote 57 magic texts do not need an allusion to the tragic genre for their literary and performative goals.

In what follows, to indicate an allusion to a genre or a sub-genre such as ‘incantations’ or ‘paean’ (as opposed to the instantiation of the genre in a specific text), we will speak of ‘genre intimation’. To indicate the use of language that evokes a specific genre, we will talk of ‘linguistic intimation’. To indicate an allusion to a specific text, identified by allusion to its wording, we will speak of ‘textual allusion’; the text alluded to will be called the ‘exemplar-model’ (‘modello-esemplare’ in Conte's influential terminology); ‘intertextuality’ will be used as a general term indicating all different kinds of relationship between texts (allusion, intimation, quotation, similarity).Footnote 58

4. Sophocles fr. 535 (Rhizotomoi)

Bremmer notes that lines 12–13

… [Ε]ἰνοδία{ι} δ’ ⟨ͱ⟩Εκάτɛ̄{ι} φρικώδεϊ φωνῆι
⸤βά⸥ρβαρον ἐκκλάζουσα θεὰ θεῶι ͱηγεμονεύ⸤ει⋅⸥
Hecate of the crossroads, screaming obscurely
In hair-raising voice, a goddess, leads the god

present similarities with Sophocles’ fr. 535, a choral passage from the play Rhizotomoi ‘Root-cutters’.Footnote 59 The play included a description of Medea's magic abilities.Footnote 60 The fragment runs as follows:

Ἥλιε δέσποτα καὶ πῦρ ἱερόν,
τῆς Εἰνοδίας Ἑκάτης ἔγχος,
τὸ δι' Οὐλύμπου <προ>πολοῦσα φέρει
καὶ γῆς ἀνιοῦσ’ ἱερὰς τριόδους,
στεφανωσαμένη δρυῒ καὶ πλεκταῖς
ὠμῶν σπείραισι δρακόντων

O Sun our lord and sacred fire, the spear of Hecate of the roads, which she carries as she attends her mistress in the sky and as she goes up the sacred crossroads of the earth, crowned with oak-leaves and the woven coils of savage dragons!Footnote 61

The similarities consist in the phrase ‘Hecate of the roads’, in the mention of torches (‘spear’) and the procession. It is unlikely that the widely attested epithet of the goddess was invented by Sophocles in this fragment.Footnote 62 Sophocles is likely to have imitated cultic language (‘linguistic intimation’); he clearly introduces an innovative metaphor (‘spear’) to describe a cultic object (‘torch’), but the metaphor is not present in the Getty Hexameters. Many texts connect torches with Hecate and mention her role as ‘attendant’ and the procession.Footnote 63 These considerations do not prove that the Getty Hexameters imitate the passage of Sophocles. Nor could one argue in the opposite direction. As one anonymous reader put it, ‘in a world where it is entirely plausible that there were processions in connection with Hecate of the crossroads, no link at a textual level is required’. It is legitimate to see ‘linguistic intimation’ to cultic language in Sophocles, but not a ‘textual allusion’ by Sophocles to the Getty Hexameters or vice versa.

5. The Oresteia of Aeschylus

The Oresteia provides some striking parallels for the language and genre of the Getty Hexameters (‘linguistic intimation’ of magic language in tragedy). Incantations and magic are often discussed in the trilogy, at crucial moments: in the Agamemnon the most striking passages occur in the third stasimon, in Clytemnestra's speech to Agamemnon (958–72), and in Thyestes’ curse, as reported by Aegisthus (1601–2); in the Choephori, in the second stasimon; in the Eumenides, in the incantation of the Furies in the first stasimon.Footnote 64 This section will show that the connection between the Oresteia and magic texts, in particular the Getty Hexameters, is stronger than simple linguistic intimation.

5.1 The Agamemnon

Let us start with the parodos of the Agamemnon. The chorus, just like the speaker of the Getty Hexameters, proclaims their authority (GH 1 οὐκ ἀτέλεστ’ ἐπαείδω ‘and the spells that I sing are not unfulfilled’; Aesch. Ag. 104–5 κύριός εἰμι θροεῖν ὅδιον κράτος αἴσιον ἀνδρῶν ἐντελέων⋅ ‘I have authority to tell of the auspicious departure of the commanders, | men invested with power–’).Footnote 65 The chorus here speaks in hexameters, suggesting a link with the epic and kitharodic tradition;Footnote 66 the Getty Hexameters form part of this tradition too.

There are similarities in content. The Getty Hexameters envisage a crisis situation: ‘a doom that brings death’ (26–7) threatens humans and flocks; the crisis can be meet by repeating ‘night and day’ (29) a prayer or incantation, saying ‘[better] so for the city’ (31); the sequence ends with an invocation to Paean at 32. This is the text (23–32):

⸤Παιήων,⸥ – σὺ γὰρ αὐτὸς {ͱ}ἀ⸤λ⸥έξιμα φάρμα⸤κα πέμπεις.⸥ –
κηληθ]μοῦ κατάκουε φ[ρ]ασὶν γλυκὺν ͱ[ύμνον ἐύφρων⋅
πᾶσιν δ’ ἀ]νθρώποισιν ἐπιφθέγγεσ{σ}θαι ἄν[ωγα,       25
ͱως δήμ]ωι κἀν εὐπολέμωι καὶ ναυσίν, ͱότα[ν κὴρ]
ἄφνω ἐπ’ ἀ]νθρώποις θανατηφόρος ἐγγύ[θεν ἔλθηι]
ͱως καὶ ἐπ]ὶ προβάτοις καὶ ἐπὶ τέχναισι βροτ[είαις.
ͱούτω δὴ φ]θέγγε{σ}σθαι ἐν ἐϋφρόνηι ἠδὲ κατ’ [ἦμαρ,
χρησμὸ]ν ἔχων ͱόσιον {σιον} στόματος θυ[ρέτροισιν ἐν αὐτοῖς⋅    30
“βέλτιον ἔ]σ{σ}τι πόλει⋅ τὰ γὰρ ἀρχῆς ἐστιν ἄριστα”.
Παιήων, σὺ δ]ὲ παντόσ’ ἀκεσ{σ}φόρος ἐσσὶ καὶ ἐσθ[λός.
[Paeon] – you send protecting drugs yourself –
[Kindly] hear in your mind the incantation's sweet song.
[I bid you] intone [it] for [all of the] people,     25
As in [folk] good at war and in ships, when [some doom]
[Comes suddenly] nigh bringing men to their deaths,
[As too both] for flocks and for mortal men's crafts,
Utter [what follows] by night and by day,
Keeping holy your [oracle in] the doors of your mouth:     30
‘[Better] so for the city: for order is best.’
[Paeon] – to every place you bring cures and are good.

Many supplements are uncertain, but the general sense seem to be well captured by Janko's text as presented above. An important point for the following discussion is the text of GH 31. Different supplements can be proposed. Kotansky suggests [χρήσιμα γ’ ἔ]στι πόλει and Furley λώιον ἔ]στι πόλε.Footnote 67 One can think e.g. of [βέλτιστ’ ἔ]σστι πόλει, [κάλλιστ’ ἔ]σστι πόλει, [εὖ τάδε γ’ ἔ]σστι πόλει, [εὖ νυ τάδ’ ἔ]σστι πόλει, [εὖ πάντ’ ἔ]σστι πόλει. Janko is in any case probably right to suppose that GH 31 is a direct speech, which must be ‘spoken night and day’ (29) by human beings who must pronounce or keep something ‘holy’ in their ‘mouth’ (30). Janko provides some modern comparisons for this type of repeated statement,Footnote 68 but we will see that the Oresteia offers ancient parallels.

In the parodos of the Agamemnon we find again a crisis that threatens the survival of the community (in this case, the army) that is at war (cf. GH 26 δήμ]ωι κἀν εὐπολέμωι: the text is uncertain but the mention of war is not). The army suffers from hunger (Ag. 188, 194), and the winds destroy ships and cables (Ag. 195 ναῶν <τε> καὶ πεισμάτων ἀφειδεῖς; cf. GH 26 ναυσίν). This crisis is announced earlier in the parodos, when the chorus mentions the omen (the pregnant hare killed by the two eagles: Ag. 109–20) and intones the famous refrain (Ag. 121 = 139 = 159):

αἵλινον αἵλινον εἰπέ, τὸ δ' εὖ νικάτω
Cry sorrow, sorrow, but may good prevail!Footnote 69

This refrain again recalls the hexameter (five dactyls, with the first eight syllables corresponding to the first part of the hexameter until the ‘feminine’ caesura in the third foot). The refrain thus frames, as in the Getty Hexameters, narrative sections that contain both the description of evils threatening a community, and possible remedies. The text also recalls GH 31 [βέλτιον ἔ]σ{σ}τι πόλει ‘[better] so for the city’. In fact, in the first section the prophet Calchas explains that ‘destiny’ is threatening the Trojan community and its animals (Ag. 128–30 πάντα δὲ πύργων | κτήνη πρόσθε τὰ δημιοπληθέα | Μοῖρα λαπάξει πρὸς τὸ βίαιον ‘in front of their walls | Destiny will violently plunder | all the mass of livestock the community possesses’). The loss of livestock (Ag. 129 κτήνη; cf. GH 28 προβάτοις) is of course disastrous for ancient societies, and we will see it mentioned again in the Oedipus Tyrannus (see below, section 6), in a context that also recalls the invocation to Paean of the Getty Hexameters. The prophet explains that the expedition on Troy is at risk because of the wrath of Artemis, a threat of famine and destruction to the Greek community (Ag. 134–7, 194). After the second occurrence of the refrain (139), the speech of the prophet resumes. Note that the Getty Hexameters too are structured as one or possibly two direct speeches of Paean, interrupted by addresses to Paean himself (above, section 3). The refrain ‘may good prevail!’ is a protective charm (repeated three times) for the Greek army, and the prophet stresses that the divinity that might help is Paean himself (Ag. 147–51), again in a passage that recalls the hexameter (seven dactyls in lines 148–9 and 150–1):Footnote 70

ἰήιον δὴ καλέω Παιᾶνα     147
μή τινας ἀντιπνόους Δαναοῖς χρονίας ἐχενῇδας ἀπλοίας  148–9
τεύξῃ, σπευδομένα θυσίαν ἑτέραν, ἄνομόν τιν', ἄδαιτον  150–1
So I call on the healer Paean:
Let her not cause any persistent adverse winds that hold back the Danaan ships
From sailing, bent on another sacrificial slaughter, one without music of feasting.

The phrase of line 147 follows a pattern that we find in lines C–D of the Phalasarna tablet (one of the magical texts that partly overlap with the Getty Hexameters):Footnote 71

Ζῆνα τ’ ἀλεξίκακον καὶ Ἡρακλέα πτολίπορθον,
Ἰατρὸν καλέω καὶ Νίκην καὶ Ἀπόλλω[να]

I call on Zeus the averter of ills, Herakles the sacker of cities, Iatros, Nike, Apollon.

The pattern ‘I call on X’ is often attested as a formula of invocation in classical Greek literature.Footnote 72 It clearly recalls the cultic setting that we find in the Phalasarna tablet.

Calchas echoes incantatory and magical language (‘linguistic intimation’); but his invocation fails to avert disaster completely. The Danaan ships do manage to sail, after all, but only at the cost of an unholy/unmusical sacrifice (θυσίαν ἑτέραν, ἄνομόν τιν', ἄδαιτον).

Both the Getty Hexameters and the prophet in the Agamemnon call on Paean to save the community from a crisis; and in both cases the crisis involves Hecate/Artemis. The goddess that is threatening the Greek community in the Agamemnon is Artemis and she is identified with Hecate in a probable interpretation. Alan Sommerstein and Enrico Medda print the text transmitted by the manuscripts TF (Ag. 140–1):Footnote 73

τόσον περ εὔφρων ἁ καλὰ
δρόσοις ἀέπτοις μαλερῶν λεόντων
So very kindly disposed is the Fair One
To the unfledged seed of fiery lions.
ἁ καλὰ TF: καλὰ MV: Ἑκάτα Badham

Martin West prints Charles Badham's bold (and attractive) conjecture ‘so very kindly disposed is Hecate’.Footnote 74 Even scholars who do not print the correction accept that plausibility of the connection between Artemis and Hecate here.Footnote 75 Aeschylus (Supp. 677) and Euripides (Pho. 109–10) gave Artemis the epithet Hecate.Footnote 76 Already Stesichorus identified Iphigenia with Hecate (F 178 Finglass). The Catalogue of Women from the Hesiodic corpus calls Agamemnon's daughter ‘Iphimede’ and states that after her sacrifice she was made immortal and transformed into Artemis ‘of the roads’ (an epithet that is typical of Hecate: see above, section 4).Footnote 77 The connections between Hecate and the sacrifice of Iphigenia are very strong.

In the Agamemnon we thus find Hecate and Paean, as well as a refrain that imitates the auspice of GH 31 ‘[better] so for the city’: the chorus of the Agamemnon, in the context of Calchas’ invocation to Paean, express their hope that ‘good may prevail’ (τὸ δ' εὖ νικάτω). The refrain is taken up again by Agamemnon himself later in the parodos. The monologue in which he expresses his decision to sacrifice his daughter ends with the sentence (217) εὖ γὰρ εἴη ‘May all be well.’ Agamemnon echoes the refrain of the chorus, but the wish that ‘good may prevail’ is shown to be obviously void at this moment of crisis (202–4). This echo retrospectively calls into question the efficacy of Calchas’ initial appeal to Paean. The chorus voice their disapproval of Agamemnon's decision in the strongest possible terms (218–27). Not only that: the sacrifice of Iphigenia substitutes and represses the Paean that the prophet invoked at 147. Agamemnon, in a situation that inverts the pattern of purity of utterance described in GH 30 (χρησμὸ]ν ἔχων ͱόσιον {σιον} στόματος θυ[ρέτροισιν ἐν αὐτοῖς ‘keeping holy your [oracle in] the doors of your mouth’) and the invocation to Paean in GH 32 (Παιήων, σὺ δ]ὲ παντόσ’ ἀκεσ{σ}φόρος ἐσσὶ καὶ ἐσθ[λός ‘[Paeon] – to every place you bring cures and are good’), has his helpers gag his daughter, who used to sing a paean in her house. Compare Ag. 235–7:

στόματός τε καλλιπρώιρου
φυλακᾶικατασχεῖν
φθόγγον ἀραῖον οἴκοις.
And by putting a guard
On her fair face and lips to restrain
Speech that might lay a curse on his house.

Iphigenia is threatening to issue a ‘curse’ from her ‘mouth’, the very opposite of the ‘pure’ oracle that the ‘mouth’ mentioned in GH 30 must observe. The chorus then explicitly comment on the fact that Iphigenia used to sing a paean in her father's halls (Ag. 243–7):

ἐπεὶ πολλάκις
πατρὸς κατ' ἀνδρῶνας εὐτραπέζους
ἔμελψεν, ἁγνᾶι δ' ἀταύρωτος αὐδᾶι πατρὸς  245
φίλου τριτόσπονδον εὔποτμον
παιῶνα φίλως ἐτίμα.
Because often
At the rich banquets in her father's dining-chambers
She had sung, a pure virgin with pure voice,
Duly and lovingly performing her father's
paean for good fortune to accompany the third libation.

Iphigenia's suppressed paean thus substitutes Calchas’ invocation to Paean at 147: Paean is evoked by the prophet but not sung and remains inefficacious. The chorus does not sing a paean but a refrain to avert evils – but they strongly condemn as evil the sacrifice. Agamemnon echoes the refrain of the chorus when he decides to sacrifice his daughter. The sacrifice stops Iphigenia from performing an incantation against the house (φθόγγον ἀραῖον οἴκοις). The sacrifice evokes the paean sung by Iphigenia in the past and cancels the possibility of a paean by her. This sacrifice suggests the impossibility of singing a paean and of averting evil in the circumstances.

The Getty Hexameters offer ritual and linguistic parallels: the refrain invoking Paean as an incantation against evil (6, 23, 32, 49), the purity of the tongue (30) and the wish that ‘this is better for the city’ (31; cf. Ag. 121 = 139 = 159 ‘may good prevail’, 217 ‘may all be well’). The parodos is thus structured as an incantation that succeeds and fails at the same time: it manages to solve the crisis caused by adverse weather conditions but fails to achieve the prevalence of good that its incantatory refrain was aiming to achieve. The allusion to rituals for Paean and Hecate will not bring ‘good’ to Agamemnon: his echo of Calchas’ prayer is a self-defeating one.

It is impossible to indicate textual signs that prove a direct allusion in the text of the Agamemnon to a specific passage in the Getty Hexameters (‘textual allusion’). However, the linguistic, structural and cultic similarities (refrains, appeal to Paean, curses, Hecate/Artemis) suggest not simply a ‘genre intimation’ and ‘linguistic intimation’ but also an allusion to a magic text that had a very similar structure to the Getty Hexameters.

5.2 The Choephori

The chorus of the second play of the trilogy take up that wish, in another passage that explicitly mentions magic and the welfare of city. In the second stasimon, the chorus imagine that Hermes will help Orestes kill Aegisthus and Clytemnestra and become king of Argos. This is what the chorus imagine they will do after Orestes’ victory (Cho. 819–26)

καὶ τότ' ἤδη κλυτὸν
δωμάτων λυτήριον    820
θῆλυν οὐριοστάταν
†ὁμοῦ κρεκτὸν† γοήτων νόμον
μεθήσομεν⋅ “πόλει τάδ' εὖ⋅
ἐμὸν ἐμὸν κέρδος αὔξεται τόδ’. Ἄ-
τα δ' ἀποστατεῖ φίλων.”  825
And then at last, for the voyage
That will set the house free,
We will utter feminine strains to set the wind fair, the strains that are sung
By charmers to <shrill> accompaniment: ‘it is good for the city!
My gain, my gain is swelling here,
And destruction stands far from my friends.’ (text and translation Sommerstein (Reference Sommerstein2008), adapted)Footnote 78

Note how close the sentence at 823 πόλει τάδ' εὖ is to GH 31 [βέλτιον ἔ]σ{σ}τι πόλει (or [εὖ πάντ’ ἔ]σστι πόλει or other similar supplements).Footnote 79 The chorus is explicitly saying that the words they are going to pronounce are those of ‘charmers’, ‘magicians’, people who make incantations (γοήτων νόμον).Footnote 80 Their incantation-song sets a fair wind (οὐριοστάταν ‘steady and prosperous’; cf. οὔριος ‘with a fair wind’), i.e. the goal of the invocation to Paean in the parodos of the Agamemnon: the fair wind is produced by means of an incantation, as indeed in Empedocles and other magical rituals.Footnote 81 This appears to be a direct echo of the incantation language attested in the Getty Hexameters. We have an explicit reference (not an ‘intimation’ or allusion) to the language and words used by ‘magicians’, ‘charmers’, and, at that very moment, a sentence that is very close in wording and content to a sentence found in the Getty Hexameters. This is as close to a textual allusion as it gets; of course, it is possible that the sentence used in the Getty Hexameters (the ‘exemplar-model’) was also used in other, unknown, magic texts, and that the allusion is not to this specific text.

The chorus of the Choephori contains another striking echo of the language (‘linguistic intimation’) of the Getty Hexameters. During the lament for Agamemnon, the chorus express the following wish (Cho. 368–71):

πάρος δ' οἱ κτανόντες νιν οὕτως δαμῆναι,
<x -> θανατηφόρον αἶσαν
πρόσω τινὰ πυνθάνεσθαι     370
τῶνδε πόνων ἄπειρον.
But rather should his killers have been slain so,
<So that> someone far away
Would have learned of their deadly fate  370
Without experiencing these present troubles …

This echoes the phrase found in GH 26–7 ͱότα[ν κὴρ] | ἄφνω ἐπ’ ἀ]νθρώποις θανατηφόρος ἐγγύ[θεν ἔλθηι] ‘when [some doom] | [comes suddenly] nigh bringing men to their deaths’. κήρ is a virtually certain supplement by Burkert (no other suitable word would fill the lacuna so well).Footnote 82 As we will see (below, sections 6 and 7), the adjective θανατηφόρος is very rare in classical, especially poetic, texts: it occurs in a series of passages that seem to allude to the same context as the Getty Hexameters. Another passage in the Choephori that recalls the language of the Getty Hexameters occurs in the first stasimon. The Getty Hexameters state that, thanks to their incantatory powers (GH 4–5),

οὔ νιμ πημανέουσιν ͱόσα τρέφει εὐρεῖα χθὼν,
οὐδ’⟨ͱ⟩όσα πόντωι βόσκει ἀγάστονος Ἀμφιτρίτη⋅
No creature that the broad earth rears shall cause him harm,
No creature in the sea that roaring Amphitrite feeds at sea.

This of course echoes epic language (e.g. Il. 11.741 ἣ τόσα φάρμακα ἤιδη ὅσα τρέφει εὐρεῖα χθών, Hom. Hymn Ven. 5 ἠμὲν ὅσ' ἤπειρος πολλὰ τρέφει ἠδ' ὅσα πόντος) but is very close to Cho. 585–92:

πολλὰ μὲν γᾶ τρέφει
δεινὰ δειμάτων ἄχη.
πόντιαί τ' ἀγκάλαι
κνωδάλων ἀνταίων
βρύουσι⋅ βλάπτουσι καὶ πεδαίχμιοι
λαμπάδες πεδάοροι,     590
πτανά τε καὶ πεδοβάμονα⋅ κἀνεμόεντ' ἂν
αἰγίδων φράσαις κότον.
The earth breeds many beings
That cause terrible, fearful suffering,
And the bosom of the deep
Teems with hostile monsters;
Torches flaming on high,
Between sky and earth, do injury
To winged and footed creatures, and one might also speak
Of the windy wrath of hurricanes.

Note also the chorus’ mention of ‘torches flaming on high’ (590 λαμπάδες πεδάοροι; cf. GH 13 [λ]αμπάδας, Hecate's torches), and the similarity between 591 πεδοβάμονα ‘footed creatures’ and GH 10 τετραβήμονα (the ‘four-footed’ goat lead by the mysterious ‘child’).

These parallels show the pervasive presence of incantatory language (‘linguistic intimation’) in the Oresteia.

5.3 Incantatory language and the Oresteia

These parallels do not prove that the parodos of Agamemnon alludes to the Getty Hexameters specifically (‘textual allusion’). They however suggest that the Oresteia alludes (‘linguistic intimation’) to some phrases from this magical tradition, and to the ritual practices that accompanied them (cf. Ag. 121 = 139 = 159 τὸ δ' εὖ νικάτω and 217 τὸ δ' εὖ νικάτω with GH 31 [βέλτιον ἔ]σ{σ}τι πόλει, Ag. 147 ἰήιον δὲ καλέω Παιᾶνα with Phalasarna lines C–D Ζῆνα τ’ ἀλεξίκακον καὶ Ἡρακλέα πτολίπορθον, | Ἰατρὸν καλέω, Cho. 369 θανατηφόρον αἶσαν with GH 26–7 [κὴρ] | … θανατηφόρος, Cho. 823 πόλει τάδ' εὖ with GH 31 [βέλτιον ἔ]σ{σ}τι πόλει). Not only that: the parodos of the Agamemnon alludes to a magical/ritual text with paeanic refrains (in the tradition of the Getty Hexameters) (‘genre intimation’). In the Agamemnon, however, this paeanic incantation/prayer fails and is substituted by a sacrifice (in which the paean is suppressed). The Choephori specifically mentions the ‘song of people who make incantations’ (822 γοήτων νόμον) and seems to allude to a phrase of that is present in the Getty Hexameters (possibly a ‘textual allusion’). The tradition of incantation that was found in the Getty Hexameters thus allows us to see the poetic and magic–religious background of some crucial moments in the trilogy, and the actual use in incantatory texts of the language employed by Aeschylus.

6. The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles

Another striking similarity with the Getty Hexameters is found in the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. The prologue explained that ‘the city […] is grievously tossed by storms’ (22–3 πόλις … ἄγαν | ἤδη σαλεύει) since (OT 25–7)

φθίνουσα μὲν κάλυξιν ἐγκάρποις χθονός,
φθίνουσα δ' ἀγέλαις βουνόμοις, τόκοισί τε
ἀγόνοις γυναικῶν

a blight is on the buds that enclose the fruit, a blight is on the flocks of grazing cattle and on the women giving birth, killing their offspring.

In the parodos, the chorus describe the effects of the blight that affects the city: sickness, agricultural crisis, deaths. We already examined (section 5.1) the passage in the Getty Hexameters that envisages a similar crisis: ‘a doom that brings death’ threatens human beings and flocks (25–8); the city repeats ‘night and day’ (29) a prayer or incantation (31); the sequence ends with an invocation to Paean at GH 32. The chorus, in the second antistrophe of the parodos, call on Paean (OT 179–88):Footnote 83

Ὧν πόλις ἀνάριθμος ὄλλυται⋅
νηλέα δὲ γένεθλα πρὸς πέδῶι  180
θαναταφόρα κεῖται ἀνοίκτως⋅
ἐν δ' ἄλοχοι πολιαί τ' ἔπι ματέρες
ἀκτὰν παρὰ βώμιον ἄλλοθεν ἄλλαι
λυγρῶν πόνων ἱκετῆρες ἐπιστενάχουσι.  185
Παιὰν δὲ λάμπει στονόεσσά τε γῆρυς ὅμαυλος⋅
ὧν ὕπερ, ὦ χρυσέα θύγατερ Διός,
εὐῶπα πέμψον ἀλκάν.

Countless are their deaths, and the city is perishing, unpitied her children lie on the ground, carried off by death, with none to lament; and by the row of altars wives and white-haired mothers on this side and on that groan as suppliants on account of their sad troubles. Loud rings out the hymn to the Healer and the sound of lamentation with it! For these things, golden daughter of Zeus, send the bright face of protection!

Not only is the situation similar (death threatens humans and animals, and the city as a whole). The chorus speaks of a (180–1) γένεθλα … θαναταφόρα ‘children … carried off by death’: cf. the ‘doom that brings death’ of GH 26–7, κὴρ | … θανατηφόρος. In both texts this is followed by an invocation to Paean (for Soph. OT 186 Παιὰν δὲ λάμπει cf. GH 32 [Παιήων]). As Patrick Finglass points out, the ‘focus on Apollo, coupled with the paeanic refrain (153–5n.) and the explicit reference to the paean (187), suggests that the song should itself be characterised as a paean, a type of song with prominently apotropaic associations (4–5n.)’.Footnote 84 The two texts are also connected by metrical similarities. The parodos is predominantly in dactylic metres: the first strophic pair starts and ends with hexameters,Footnote 85 and the dactylic rhythm is present in the second strophic pair as well, mixed with iambs.Footnote 86 In particular, line 181 θαναταφόρα κεῖται ἀνοίκτως corresponds to the second part of a hexameter after the caesura at the third longum.

The word θανατηφόρος is not very common in classical and archaic Greek.Footnote 87 It occurs in poetry only in the Getty Hexameters and in the two passages of tragedy quoted above (Aesch. Cho. 369; Soph. OT 181), passages which have strong verbal and content similarities to the passage in the Getty Hexameters. It is not surprising that both Aeschylus and Sophocles, when describing a crisis that affects a whole community, both alluded to ritual practices that were in actual use in the Greek world. We have here in the Oedipus Tyrannus a strong ‘linguistic intimation’, accompanied by references to very similar ritual and religious practices.

7. Plato's Republic

Plato seems to echo the language of incantation (‘linguistic intimation’) in his myth of Er. When the souls of the dead emerge from the cycle of purification, they encounter a prophet of Lachesis who proclaims (Resp. 617d6–e3):

Ἀνάγκης θυγατρὸς κόρης Λαχέσεως λόγος. Ψυχαὶ ἐφήμεροι, ἀρχὴ ἄλλης περιόδου θνητοῦ γένους θανατηφόρου. [617e] οὐχ ὑμᾶς δαίμων λήξεται, ἀλλ' ὑμεῖς δαίμονα αἱρήσεσθε. πρῶτος δ' ὁ λαχὼν πρῶτος αἱρείσθω βίον ὧι συνέσται ἐξ ἀνάγκης.

The word of Lachesis, virgin daughter of Necessity! Transient souls, the start of another mortal cycle of the human race! A daimon will not be allotted to you, but you will choose a daimon. The one who draws the first lot is to make the first choice of a life, to which he will be bound by necessity. (tr. Halliwell (Reference Halliwell1988))

Necessity, as Proclus noted, speaks in a solemn and impressive style (note the absence of articles and verbs).Footnote 88 The similarities in content and language with the Getty Hexameters are notable, not simply for the use of the word θανατηφόρος. Both texts describe the afterlife, and both mention Ananke, ‘Necessity’. The Getty Hexameters speak of Persephone's garden (surely the world after death) and Ananke in the same line: Φερσεφόνης ἐγ κήπου ἄγει πρὸς ἀμολγὸν ἀνάγκη[ι] (‘a child leads out of Persephone's garden by necessity for milking’, 9). Plato obviously knows well the language of incantations and magic.Footnote 89 He here uses words that recall language used in actual magical texts.Footnote 90 Already Plutarch (Quaest. conv. 715c) noticed the connection between this passage of Plato and Empedocles’ mention of Necessity in connection with reincarnation;Footnote 91 Empedocles’ Sicilian origin, and his interest in magic, are obvious points of contact with the Getty Hexameters.

8. The Hecuba of Euripides and Carcinus

A passage from the Getty Hexameters presents many similarities with a passage from the Hecuba of Euripides. This is the text of lines 8–14:

†ͱοσσα† κατὰ σκιερῶν ὀρέων μελαναυγέϊ χώρωι
Φερσεφόνης ἐγ κήπου ἄγει πρὸς ἀμολγὸν ἀνάγκη[ι]
τὴν τετραβήμονα παῖς ͱαγίην Δήμητρος {ͱ}ὀπηδόν,    10
αἶγ’ ἀκαμαντορόα νασμοῦ θαλεροῖο γάλακτος
βριθομένη<ν>⋅ ͱέπεται ⟨δὲ⟩ θεαῖς πεπιθοῦσα φαειναῖς
⸤λ⸥αμπάδας⋅ [Ε]ἰνοδία{ι} δ’ <ͱ>Εκάτɛ̄{ι} φρικώδεϊ φωνῆι
⸤βά⸥ρβαρον ἐκκλάζουσα θεὰ θεῶι ͱηγεμονεύ⸤ει⋅⸥
†…† the child, from the shadowy mountains in the black-lit place,
Leads from Persephone's garden by force to its milking
The four-footed attendant of holy Demeter,     10
The goat that weighs heavy with rich milk's tireless flow.
She follows, obeying goddesses with torches ablaze.
Hecate of the crossroads, screaming obscurely
In hair-raising voice, a goddess, leads the god.

Bremmer focused on the similarity with Hec. 151–2, but in fact the whole sequence starting at 141 is of importance (Hec. 141–52):

ἥξει δ᾿ Ὀδυσεὺς ὅσον οὐκ ἤδη
πῶλον ἀφέλξων σῶν ἀπὸ μαστῶν
ἔκ τε γεραιᾶς χερὸς ὁρμήσων.
ἀλλ᾿ ἴθι ναούς, ἴθι πρὸς βωμούς,
[ἵζ᾿ Ἀγαμέμνονος ἱκέτις γονάτων,]    145
κήρυσσε θεοὺς τούς τ᾿ οὐρανίδας
τούς θ᾿ ὑπὸ γαίας. ἢ γάρ σε λιταὶ
διακωλύσουσ᾿ ὀρφανὸν εἶναι
παιδὸς μελέας ἢ δεῖ σ᾿ ἐπιδεῖν
τύμβωι προπετῆ φοινισσομένην    150
αἵματι παρθένον ἐκ χρυσοφόρου
δειρῆς νασμῶι μελαναυγεῖ.

145 del. Heimsoeth 147 γαίας Porson: γαῖαν mss. 150 τύμβωι recc.: τύμβου veteresFootnote 92

Odysseus will come almost at once to pull the filly away from your breast and hurry her from your aged embrace. Come, go to the temples, go to the altars, [sit as suppliant at Agamemnon's knees,] loudly invoke both the gods of heaven and those beneath the earth: for either prayers shall prevent your being orphaned of your child or you must live to see the maiden thrown forward on the tomb, crimsoned with the blood welling dark and gleaming from her gold-decked throat. (tr. Collard (Reference Collard1991) adapted)

Both Janko and Bremmer noted the verbal similarities but did not explore the importance of the context. There are several points of contact. Polyxena is compared to an animal lead away from the breast of the mother, a rather incongruous image if one thinks of the age of Hecuba. This is very similar to the image of the goat who has copious milk and is lead away from the garden; it also recalls the ‘goat rushing to the milk’ in the so-called Orphic Golden tablets.Footnote 93 Both the Hecuba passage and the Getty Hexameters envisage the necessity of prayers to avert evil and death. The adjective μελαναυγεῖ ‘“dark-shining” is a vivid description of the gleaming of a dark liquid, imitating the epic phrases μέλαν αἷμα (536–7n.), αἷμα κελαινόν (Il. 1.303), αἷμα κελαινεφές (Il. 4.140)’.Footnote 94 As Janko notes:

The non-traditional word μελαναυγής is first attested in Euripides’ Hecuba 152, νασμῶι μελαναυγεῖ. It is very striking indeed that νασμός occurs here in the very next line, as if its composer knew this passage of Euripides (the word does indeed seem like one of the latter's creations) – unless of course Euripides is creating a tragic variation on the phrasing of this very poem, a stream of blood instead of a stream of milk; for μελαναυγής seems more obviously applicable to a place in the underworld than to blood.Footnote 95

This works much better if it is Euripides who is offering a variation on the passage present in the Getty Hexameters. Blood alludes to death and the afterlife, and the ‘stream’ of blood recalls the filly/breast image of Hec. 142, and the milk of the goat in GH 11.

In fact, Euripides uses similar oxymoronic images already in the Alcestis, in another passage which recalls the language of the Getty Hexameters (Alc. 259–62):

ἄγει μ' ἄγει τις, ἄγει μέ τις (οὐχ
ὁρᾶις;) νεκύων ἐς αὐλάν,
ὑπ' ὀφρύσι κυαναυγέσι
βλέπων πτερωτὸς Ἅιδας.

Someone is taking, is taking me (don't you see him?) away to the court of the dead. It is winged Hades, glowering from beneath his dark brows. (tr. Kovacs (Reference Kovacs1994))

The adjective κυαναυγέσι (‘dark gleaming’), which describes the eyebrows of Hades, is a variation on μελαναυγέϊ (‘dark gleaming’) used in Hec. 152 in reference to the afterlife.Footnote 96 The form κυαναυγέσι transfers to the eyebrows the gleaming of Hades’ eyes. The repetition of ἄγει and the mention of the ‘hall of the dead’ recall the ‘garden of Persephone’ and the verb ἄγει of GH 9. The oxymoron for the description of Hades is frequent in tragic language: see Soph. Aj. 394a–5 Ἰὼ | σκότος, ἐμὸν φάος, | Ἔρεβος ὦ φαεννότατον ‘Io darkness, my light, o Εrebus, most bright for me’Footnote 97 and Eur. Hel. 518–19 μελαμφαὲς … ἔρεβος.Footnote 98 The ‘light’ of Erebos is in fact darkness.Footnote 99 As mentioned at the beginning of the article (above, section 1), the fourth-century BC tragic poet Carcinus alludes to this traditional language in his description of Persephone's journey to the Netherworld when he talks of γαίας … μελαμφαεῖς μυχούς ‘earth's depths, whose light is darkness’ (70 F 5.3 TrGF; tr. Oldfather (Reference Oldfather1939)).

The occurrence of so many similar phrases in reference to the oxymoronic ‘dark light’ of Hades or Erebos makes it likely that the adjective μελαναυγής, like μελαμφαής and κυαναυγής, was created in reference to Hades/Erebos, possibly in cultic poetry, and that the phrase in GH 8 μελαναυγέϊ χώρωι uses it in the original context.

As Scott Scullion notes (personal communication), Euripides uses these adjectives in a pointed oxymoronic way, whereas the Getty Hexameters seem to use μελαναυγέϊ in the straightforward meaning ‘black’, in contrast with the light of the ‘bright goddesses’ (GH 12 θεαῖς πεπιθοῦσα φαειναῖς) and their ‘torches’ (13 ⸤λ⸥αμπάδας). This would point to Euripidean effective manipulation of traditional magic and cultic language.

Polyxena, in the same scene, is compared to a ‘whelp’ (Hec. 205 σκύμνον) and to a ‘heifer reared in the mountains’ (205–6 οὐριθρέπταν | μόσχον), which will be killed and go to Hades.Footnote 100 This again recalls the goat coming ‘down from the mountains’ for milking mentioned in GH 8. Later in the play, the sacrifice of Polyxena is described in terms that clearly allude to the narration of the sacrifice of Iphigenia in the Agamemnon.Footnote 101 No ritual perspective is open for the chorus of Hecuba in the time frame of the play, which is set in a place where no divine cult is performed. For chronological and poetic reasons, it is unlikely that the Getty Hexameters reworked phrases from Euripides (and they definitely do not allude to Euripides). In Euripides the ‘linguistic intimation’ of texts on the afterlife is stronger in the Alcestis than in the Hecuba. On the other hand, Carcinus is clearly alluding to the language of mystery cults (‘linguistic intimation’) and possibly to the very phrase used in the Getty Hexameters (and other similar early texts?) (‘textual allusion’).

9. The Chaldaean Oracles, Synesius and Iamblichus

The phrase had a long and successful life in late antiquity. The adjective ‘dark-lit’, Bremmer notes, ‘occurs otherwise only in the Chaldean Oracles (fr. 163 des Places: with thanks to Radcliffe Edmonds) and the Orphic Argonautica (513)’.Footnote 102 Bremmer does not explore the relation between these texts and the Getty Hexameters, but it is easy to observe that these occurrences prove that the text of the Getty Hexameters was read and imitated in the Imperial age. We know for certain from an Egyptian papyrus, K, that the lines about the ‘dark-lit place’ were still copied in the second or even third century AD.Footnote 103 Several late antique passages appear to be clear textual allusions to the phrase found in the Getty Hexameters (and in other texts). The phrase about the ‘dark-lit place’ from the magic tradition is an exemplar-model for the Chaldaean Oracles, and that in turn (and in combination with the phrase from the magic tradition) is an exemplar-model for passages in Synesius and Iamblichus.

Fragment 163.1–3 from the Chaldaean Oracles runs as follows:

Μηδὲ κάτω νεύσηις εἰς τὸν μελαναυγέα κόσμον
ὧι βυθὸς αἰὲν ἄμορφος ὑπέστρωται καὶ ἀειδής,
ἀμφικνεφὴς ῥυπόων εἰδωλοχαρὴς ἀνόητος

Do not stoop below into the dark-gleaming world beneath which an abyss is spread, forever formless and invisible, dark all around, foul, delighting in images, without reason.Footnote 104

We should keep in mind the fact that the speaker of at least some Chaldaean Oracles is the goddess Hecate.Footnote 105 The Chaldaean Oracles are normally dated to the second century AD;Footnote 106 this fragment is transmitted by Synesius, On Dreams 7.5, as well as by Psellus, Damascius and Proclus.Footnote 107 The ‘dark-gleaming world’ is the sublunar world, from which the souls should be able to detach themselves, and the ‘abyss’ is Tartarus.Footnote 108 The adjective implicitly compares the sensible world with the afterlife. The Platonic image of the cave also contributes to the idea that the world is a ‘dark-lit place’, and that light only shines in the ideal world of the Forms.

Synesius comments on fr. 163 in the context of a discussion of the afterlife. He claims that ‘the oracles’ (i.e. the Chaldaean Oracles) tell that dreams are comparable to the images seen in the afterlife (7.2); he quotes Plato's Laws 653a and Heraclitus (7.3), and discusses the separation of soul and body at death and the importance of mystery cults for the soul (7.4). He then quotes the ‘sacred logoi’ (i.e. the Chaldaean Oracles again) and discusses Lethe and the descent of the soul towards the material world. He quotes again the Chaldaean ‘logos’ in chapter 9, this time in a form that clearly recalls that found in the magical tradition of the Getty Hexameters (Synesius, De insomniis 9.1):

ῥεψάσης μὲν κάτω ψυχῆς, ἔλεγεν ὁ λόγος ὅτι ἐβαρύνθη τε καὶ ἔδυ, μέχρις ἐγκύρσηι τῷ μελαναυγεῖ καὶ ἀμφικνεφεῖ χώρωι

when the soul descends, the logos says that it becomes heavy and plunges down, until it reaches the dark-shining and all-around-dark place.

Synesius seems to have known the phrase as attested in the Getty Hexameters. He imitates the Chaldaean Oracles (not the Getty Hexameters) in his first Hymn, lines 297–301:

ψυχά τ' ἀκλινὴς
καὶ κλινομένα
ἐς μελαναυγεῖς
χθονίους ὄγκους

Both the soul that is not inclined (towards the material world) and the soul that is inclined towards the dark-gleaming earthly material substance (sing the praise of the Lord).

Here Synesius glosses the phrase with the adjective χθονίους ‘earthly’, so as to make sure that the adjective is understood (as the riddling text of the Chaldaean Oracles implies) to refer to the world we live in, not the afterlife (as in the magical tradition).

One last Neoplatonic/Neopythagorean imitation of the phrase is found in Iamblichus, On the Pythagorean Life. Iamblichus claims that Pythagoras presented himself as a divine man and that other human beings, being unable to look directly at the gods, should look at him to understand the nature of the divine. Similarly (67),

when people cannot look directly at the sun, because of the brilliance of its rays, we find ways to show them an eclipse, with a deep container of water or a film of pitch or a black-backed mirror (ἢ καὶ διὰ τετηκυίας πίσσης ἢ κατόπτρου τινὸς μελαναυγοῦς), sparing their weak eyesight. (tr. Clark (Reference Clark1989))

Pythagoras himself is the ‘black-shining’ mirror that allows humans to see the gods.Footnote 109 This passage clearly alludes to Plato's cave myth (humans cannot look at reality), to Plato's comparing imitation with mirrors (Resp. 596d–e) and to the myth of Er (Pythagoras himself descended from heaven).Footnote 110 Pythagoras thus can provide humans with access to the divine, and help them avoid descending into base types of life.

These passages show how the phrase describing the ‘black-shining places’ survived for a long time in poetry and prose that discussed the fate of the soul and mystery cults. It is likely that both the author of Chaldaean Oracles fr. 163 Des Places and Synesius knew the version of the text attested in the Getty Hexameters and in papyrus K.

10. Conclusions

The complex allusions of tragedy to magic texts (‘linguistic intimations’) suggest that some linguistic elements that surface in the Getty Hexameters (esp. GH 8 μελαναυγέϊ χώρωι, 26–7 ͱότα[ν κὴρ] | [ἄφνω ἐπ’ ἀ]νθρώποις θανατηφόρος ἐγγύ[θεν ἔλθηι], 31 [βέλτιον ἔ]σ{σ}τι πόλει) where known and imitated in Greek tragedy and by Plato.

The Getty Hexameters, though, are not (as far as we know) an authoritative, stable text, nor were they attributed to a real (Pythagoras)Footnote 111 or fictional (Orpheus? Musaeus?) author. Sections of the texts that surface in the Getty Hexameters were being used and adapted in various forms in the classical age. Some tragic and philosophical texts allude to the (until recently unknown) sub-genre to which the Getty Hexameters belong (incantation-paean in hexameters) (‘genre intimation’) and to specific phrases (‘linguistic intimation’ and, possibly, in one case, ‘textual allusion’) used in this sub-genre. The tragic performance presents itself as reperforming (or attempting to reperform) on stage the incantation rituals that it alludes to. It is in the nature of the tragic text to englobe discourses and speech-genres belonging to different traditions; it is also in its nature to stress the ritual failures of chorus and characters.Footnote 112 It is unlikely that the ‘short story’ about the goat of GH 8–14 alludes to/depends on the text of the Hecuba (no ‘textual allusion’ here). The similarities in language probably derive from a phrase used of Hades/Erebos in the Getty Hexameters, a phrase which was known to Euripides, and that was going to be in continuous use from (at least) the fifth century BC to the fourth century AD, resurfacing in authors who discussed the afterlife and mystery cults. This new antecedent of tragic texts shows how dense the web of allusions (‘genre intimations’, ‘linguistic intimations’, ‘textual allusions’) in the works of the tragic authors is, and how much richer the interpretation becomes whenever we acquire new material that expands our knowledge of genres, ritual practices and language in classical antiquity.

Footnotes

This paper was presented in Oxford, Lyon and Pisa. The final version was written during my period as Visiting Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford, in the 2019–2020 academic year. I would like to thank L. Prauscello, D. Colomo, E. Cingano, G. B. D'Alessio, S. Scullion and the people who offered suggestions and corrections at the oral presentations, as well as the anonymous readers for the journal. This does not imply that all the people involved agree on the interpretation suggested here. I alone bear responsibility for any remaining errors of fact or judgement.

1 See Snell and Kannicht (Reference Snell and Kannicht1986) ad 235.

2 See Carcinus 70 F 5.1–3 TrGF; Timaeus 566 F 164 Jacoby, from Diodorus Siculus 5.5.1.

3 Text and translation from Janko (Reference Janko2015). I print τετραβήμονα, as in the tablet (see the editions of Faraone and Obbink (Reference Faraone and Obbink2013b), Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2018) and Furley (Reference Furley, Bortolani, Furley, Nagel and Quack2019)), not the correction τετραβάμονα (Janko (Reference Janko2013) 47–8; the form with alpha is found in a fifth/sixth-century AD curse tablet from Antioch: see Hollmann (Reference Hollmann2003) 76. I thank D. Colomo for drawing my attention to this document. Janko reads {ͱ}Ὄσσα at 8 as a proper name of the ‘child’ (‘Ossa’); this is extremely unlikely, as no other similar names are indicated, but no clearly convincing alternative has been suggested. The text is probably corrupt.

4 On the secrecy of the name and mystery cults see Kannicht (Reference Kannicht1969) and Allan (Reference Allan2008) ad Eur. Hel. 1306–7, with further references. On the mysteries of Demeter (Eleusis and others) see esp. Sfameni Gasparro (Reference Sfameni Gasparro1986); Burkert (Reference Burkert1987) 4–5, 73–4 and passim; Parker (Reference Parker2005) 327–68; Bremmer (Reference Bremmer2014) 1–20, 166–79, with further references.

5 See esp. Bremmer (Reference Bremmer2013); Janko (Reference Janko2013) 55 agrees with Bremmer that ‘the striking parallels with Sophocles’ Rhizotomoi [fr. 353.2] and Euripides’ Hecuba strongly suggest that the poet who composed these spells was familiar with some Attic tragedies of the latter half of the fifth century’. However, Janko (Reference Janko2013) 47 also considers the possibility that ‘Euripides [in Hec. 152] is creating a tragic variation on the phrasing of this very poem’.

6 Bettarini (Reference Bettarini2012) 115: ‘patrimonio poetico comune’, quoted with approval by Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2019) 30.

7 See e.g. Herington (Reference Herington1985); Swift (Reference Swift2010); Weiss (Reference Weiss2018), with further references.

8 See e.g. Faraone (Reference Faraone1985), (Reference Faraone1994); Graf (Reference Graf1997) 22, 8, 98, 194; Dickie (Reference Dickie2001) 29–31, 35–9, 55–8, 61, 65, 80, 87–8, 93–4; Faraone (Reference Faraone2008); Mueller (Reference Mueller2011); Curti (Reference Curti2012), with further references. These texts also discuss the definition of ‘magic’, a complex problem that cannot be tackled in this paper. On magic in Greece see in general Graf (Reference Graf1997); Dickie (Reference Dickie2001); Parker (Reference Parker2005) 116–35; Collins (Reference Collins2008); Ogden (Reference Ogden2009); Kindt (Reference Kindt2012) 90–122; Edmonds (Reference Edmonds2019), with further references and extensive discussions.

9 Quotation from Jordan and Kotansky (Reference Jordan and Kotansky2011) 55, who also provide other details about these artefacts. See the next note for other editions of the Getty Hexameters. Janko (Reference Janko2015) 1–2 offers details about the acquisition process and the study of the Getty Hexameters before publication. On the sacred law see Jameson et al. (Reference Jameson, Jordan and Kotansky1993); Robertson (Reference Robertson2010); Iannucci et al. (Reference Iannucci, Muccioli and Zaccarini2015), with further references. On the curse tablets see Kotansky and Curbera (Reference Kotansky and Curbera2004). For collections and publications of other related inscriptions from the same area see Bettarini (Reference Bettarini2005a), (Reference Bettarini2005b); Rocca (Reference Rocca2009); Jordan et al. (Reference Jordan, Rocca and Threatte2014).

10 See Janko (Reference Janko2013), (Reference Janko2015); Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2018); Furley (Reference Furley, Bortolani, Furley, Nagel and Quack2019). Janko (Reference Janko2015) offers the most detailed report of readings and textual suggestions and is based on direct examination of the tablet (see Lapatin (Reference Lapatin2013); Janko (Reference Janko2015) 2 n. 7).

11 See esp. Bettarini (Reference Bettarini2012); Johnston (Reference Johnston2014); Caliva (Reference Caliva2016); the papers in Faraone and Obbink (Reference Faraone and Obbink2013a) and Antonetti (Reference Antonetti2018a) (esp. Tribulato (Reference Tribulato2018b); Cingano (Reference Cingano2018), on textual and linguistic problems), and the bibliographical references in these works and in those quoted in the previous note.

12 In other editions, line numbers start again at each column/side (esp. the authoritative editions of Jordan and Kotansky (Reference Jordan and Kotansky2011) and Janko (Reference Janko2015)). Starting the numbering again at each column/side is more accurate, in that an unascertainable number of lines have probably been lost at the end of each column. However, it is unfortunately unlikely that the missing lines will emerge soon or at all. The continuous line numbering system is easier and is used in many publications: Faraone and Obbink (Reference Faraone and Obbink2013a); Janko (Reference Janko2013); Caliva (Reference Caliva2016); Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2018); Furley (Reference Furley, Bortolani, Furley, Nagel and Quack2019)). It is in any case plausible that the Getty tablet included the lines printed as col. ii lines 21–2 in Janko (Reference Janko2015) 6; these lines survive in other texts (LΣΦ: see below for the sigla) and can be reconstructed at least in part; only traces of a few letters survive in the Getty tablet. This insertion does not change the line numbers, and Janko (Reference Janko2015) 6 thinks that line 42 (in the numbering adopted here) was the last line of the column.

13 The presentation of the text is simplified: papyrological underdots and the symbols used by Janko to indicate corrections are omitted. The papyrological ‘corner brackets’ ⸤ ⸥ indicate that the text is missing from the Getty tablet but is found in parallel texts. The text is often uncertain, and many supplements printed by Janko in the lacunae are to be considered exempli gratia, not certain.

14 See Jordan and Kotansky (Reference Jordan and Kotansky2011) 54 n. 3; Bettarini (Reference Bettarini2012) 111; Del Monaco (Reference Del Monaco2012) 131; Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2018) 25.

15 Janko (Reference Janko2013), (Reference Janko2015). Janko, even if he attempts at reconstructing an ‘archetype’, still uses the Getty text as a basis for the reconstruction, writing ‘col. i’, ‘col. ii’ etc.; these are the columns of the Getty Hexameters, though, not those of the archetype (which we cannot reconstruct in its materiality, unlike that of e.g. Lucretius: Timpanaro (Reference Timpanaro and Most2005)). Janko (Reference Janko1984) and (Reference Janko2016), following the lead of West (Reference West1975) and Lloyd-Jones (Reference Lloyd-Jones1975) 225, offered reconstructions of the ‘archetype’ of the Golden lamellae for the dead. Individual differences between these texts are pointed and crucial for understanding the meaning of each artefact in context: see e.g. Battezzato (Reference Battezzato2005); Ferrari (Reference Ferrari2004) 103, (Reference Ferrari2007) 118–21, 30, (Reference Ferrari2008) 1–8, 25–6.

16 Janko assumes separate ‘archetypes’, one in ‘Doric dialect’ and one ‘in a post-Homeric form of the epic dialect’, for different parts of the text (Janko (Reference Janko2013) 55–6).

17 See esp. lines 38–40: Janko prints the hexameters in separate lines in 2013, but as prose in 2015. See Janko (Reference Janko2015) 6, col. ii lines 18–20 and 21–2.

18 Jordan and Kotansky (Reference Jordan and Kotansky2011) 55.

19 Jordan and Kotansky (Reference Jordan and Kotansky2011) 55. See also Janko (Reference Janko2013) 32 n. 7 and Tribulato (Reference Tribulato2018b) 15 and n. 31. Janko (Reference Janko2013) 38 n. 30 considers the possibility that the text was from Himera, and copied in Selinus. Antonetti (Reference Antonetti2018b) 114–16 offers the most extensive and detailed discussion of the attestation of the ͱ symbol and concludes that it points to a Sicilian origin of the copy.

21 See e.g. Marconi (Reference Marconi2018) 188–9. It is true that Selinus could perhaps not be described as a polis after 409 (Janko (Reference Janko2013) 37), but someone could have copied an earlier text: a post-409 date for the tablet still allows the text to be earlier.

22 On the text of these lines see Cingano (Reference Cingano2018). I adapt Cingano's and Janko's translation of these verses.

23 See Bettarini (Reference Bettarini2012) 126–7; Janko (Reference Janko2013) 44–5; Tribulato (Reference Tribulato2018b) 11; Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2018) 24–8.

24 Bremmer (Reference Bremmer2013) 28.

25 This error is discussed by Bettarini (Reference Bettarini2012) 112 n. 9; Janko (Reference Janko2013) 48; Tribulato (Reference Tribulato2018b) 12. Tribulato stresses that this mistake implies a written transmission of the text.

26 See Tribulato (Reference Tribulato2018b) 16.

27 Bettarini (Reference Bettarini2005b) 63–4. See also Jameson et al. (Reference Jameson, Jordan and Kotansky1993) 46; Dimartino (Reference Dimartino2015) 139, 141, 159.

28 See Tribulato (Reference Tribulato2018b) 12–14.

29 Written νιμ in the tablet, because of assimilation to the first consonant of the following word, πημανέουσιν.

30 Some of these forms can be seen not as specifically Doric but as ‘common’ Greek forms: see the excellent discussions by Bettarini (Reference Bettarini2012); Janko (Reference Janko2013) 46–56; Lundquist (Reference Lundquist2016) 440–2; Tribulato (Reference Tribulato2018b) 14–20, with further references.

31 Tribulato (Reference Tribulato2018b) 19. On the dialect of Himera see Tribulato (Reference Tribulato2018a).

32 Bremmer (Reference Bremmer2013) 28 stresses that Selinus is the only Sicilian city where we find a sanctuary of Hecate next to a temple of Demeter. However, the connection between Hecate and Persephone is found in many Greek texts, as Bremmer himself points out: Eur. Ion 1048 Εἰνοδία θύγατερ Δάματρος, with Martin (Reference Martin2018) ad loc., Phaethon fr. 781.268 ὦ πυρὸς δέσποινα Δήμητρος κόρη Kannicht, with Diggle (Reference Diggle1970) on line 268 of his edition; see also the Homeric Hymn to Demeter 51–89, with Richardson (Reference Richardson1974) ad loc.

33 Tribulato (Reference Tribulato2018b) 14 considers this one of the ‘mistakes concerning vowels which however are purely accidental’.

34 See Hinge (Reference Hinge2006) 43–6.

35 See Willi (Reference Willi2008) 68; Finglass in Finglass and Davies (Reference Finglass and Davies2014) 44.

36 Many instances in Pindar: see e.g. Pyth. 8.4 and 9.32 ἔχοισα. For Bacchylides see 19.13–14 Snell–Maehler λαχοῖσαν (the forms in -ουσα are normal: see Maehler (Reference Maehler2004) 12).

37 Cassio (Reference Cassio, Bertolini and Gasti2005) 22–3, 34–8.

39 See Cassio (Reference Cassio, Bertolini and Gasti2005) and the lists and discussions in Favi (Reference Favi, Passa and Tribulato2019) 167–71; Wachter (Reference Wachter2001) 340–1.

40 Hansen (Reference Hansen1983) 187, n. 352 ].υμνεοισα (ε]ὐμενέοισα suppl. Jeffery) (Corinth, seventh century BC); see Cassio (Reference Cassio, Bertolini and Gasti2005) 24. Probably hexametrical.

41 Prauscello (Reference Prauscello2019) 75–8 discusses an example found in CEG 114.4, an epigram in elegiacs from Kopai, Boeotia, dated to the first half of the fifth century BC.

42 Tribulato in Willi (Reference Willi2019) 86 quotes an epigram from Polyrrhenia, Crete, dated to the second/first century BC (SEG 16, 532).

43 Favi (Reference Favi, Passa and Tribulato2019) 167 n. 75 discusses Μοισᾶν, an instance found in a vase from Satùro, near Tarentum.

44 On these forms see Hunter (Reference Hunter1999) 26, with further references.

45 See in general Cassio (Reference Cassio2016).

46 See Käppel (Reference Käppel1992) 66–7; Rutherford (Reference Rutherford2001) 21, 69–72 and passim; Finglass (Reference Finglass2018) on Soph. OT 153–5.

47 Jordan and Kotansky (Reference Jordan and Kotansky2011) 54.

48 Obbink (Reference Obbink2013) 175 and 8.

51 Janko (Reference Janko2015) 1.

52 Faraone (Reference Faraone2013) and Edmonds (Reference Edmonds2013). Faraone also suggests that the Getty Hexameters could be a sort of anthology, with rubrics marked by the Paean invocation. The focus of this article is not on whether this was ‘an anthology’ to begin with, but on whether the person who composed the text as we have it meant it to be used in ritual. As showed above (section 2), it is unlikely that the person who composed the text was also the person who inscribed it onto the Getty tablet.

53 For arguments against the hypothesis that the tablet is connected with mystery cults see Edmonds (Reference Edmonds2013).

54 Rutherford (Reference Rutherford2013) 167–8. He also explores other possibilities: ‘a hexametric ritual text’ or an early instance of Kreuzung der Gattungen ‘between the genres of ritual historiola and incantation paean, resulting in something that would have been recognized as a hybrid’.

55 See below, n. 85.

56 On Socrates’ paean in hexameters see the first line Δήλι' Ἄπολλον χαῖρε, καὶ Ἄρτεμι, παῖδε κλεεινώ, a hexameter, reported by Diogenes Laertius 2.42 = Käppel (Reference Käppel1992) 395 (Paian 52) (Käppel states, without argument, that the text is a forgery), and Janko (Reference Janko2015) 1 and Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2018) 33. Faraone (Reference Faraone2011) 224–5 interprets Socrates’ paean as 4da followed by a run of dactyls. It is impossible to disprove this, as we do not have the rest of the poem, but ancient authors normally quoted the first line of a poem to identify it; Diogenes Laertius could easily have stopped at Ἄρτεμι if that was the end of the first line, or quoted more words if the line was longer. Furley (Reference Furley, Bortolani, Furley, Nagel and Quack2019) 52 claims that ‘the appeal to Paieon by no means makes the Getty text a paean, as Rutherford has argued in FO [= Rutherford (Reference Rutherford2013)]; rather, this is “Orphic” Apollo, the magical healer, who also plays a conspicuous role in the later Greek magical papyri’. The hypothetical ritual role of Apollo in a Dionysiac or Orphic context does not however rule the possibility that the text is a paean: it would simply make it a paean performed in a different context.

57 See above, n. 8.

58 See Conte (Reference Conte1986) 31; Hinds (Reference Hinds1998) 41–2; Morrison (Reference Morrison2020) 18–21, with further references.

59 See Bremmer (Reference Bremmer2013) 28 and Janko (Reference Janko2013) 50 (‘this is as striking as the parallel with Euripides’ Hecuba’).

60 See Lloyd-Jones (Reference Lloyd-Jones1996) 268–9; Radt (Reference Radt1999) 410.

61 Text and translation from Lloyd-Jones (Reference Lloyd-Jones1996), adapted: I capitalised the epithet Εἰνοδίας in the Greek text and printed ἀνιοῦσ’ (Wilamowitz) instead of ναίουσ’ (MS) (see Radt (Reference Radt1999) ad loc.).

62 For other occurrences of this epithet for Hecate see Johnston (Reference Johnston1990) 23–4, 7; Zografou (Reference Zografou2010) 109–22; below, n. 75 ; and e.g. Eur. Hel. 569–70 (Με.) ὦ φωσφόρ’ Ἑκάτη, πέμπε φάσματ' εὐμενῆ. | (Ελ.) οὐ νυκτίφαντον πρόπολον Ἐνοδίας μ' ὁρᾶις. On the equivalence between Hecate and Einodia see also Kannicht (Reference Kannicht1969) and Allan (Reference Allan2008) ad loc., who also lists passages where Hecate is said to carry torches: Ar. Thesm. 858, with Austin and Olson (Reference Austin and Olson2004) ad loc. (the most exhaustive collection of evidence), Lys. 443. In Soph. Ant. 1199 the ‘Einodia goddess’ (epithet only) is coupled with Pluto: this is probably a reference to Hecate (so e.g. Griffith (Reference Griffith1999) ad loc.), but it may also refer to Persephone, often linked to or equated with Hecate: see Martin (Reference Martin2018) on Eur. Ion 1048 Εἰνοδία θύγατερ Δάματρος (above, n. 32). For Artemis and Hecate see also Theocritus 2.33–6. Finglass and Davies (Reference Finglass and Davies2014) 502 on F 178 Finglass offer a very useful survey of the evidence.

63 See e.g. the Homeric hymn to Demeter 52 ἤντετό οἱ Ἑκάτη σέλας ἐν χείρεσσιν ἔχουσα, with Richardson (Reference Richardson1974) ad loc.; Ar. Ran. 1361–2.

64 See Faraone (Reference Faraone1985); Garvie (Reference Garvie1986) on Cho. 819–24; Griffith (Reference Griffith1995) 101 n. 26; McClure (Reference McClure1996), (Reference McClure1999) 80–92; Curti (Reference Curti2012); Medda (Reference Medda2017) on Ag. 360–1 (παναλώτου, attested in magical papyri), 699–700 (τελεσσίφρων, attested in magical papyri), 958–72, 1020–1, 1409–10, 1417–18, 1601–2. See esp. Ag. 1019–21 τὸ δ' ἐπὶ γᾶν πεσὸν ἅπαξ θανάσιμον | πρόπαρ ἀνδρὸς μέλαν αἷμα τίς ἂν | πάλιν ἀγκαλέσαιτ' ἐπαείδων; ‘But once the black blood of death | has fallen on the earth in front of a man, | who by any incantation can summon it back again?’ (tr. Sommerstein (Reference Sommerstein2008)); cf. Eum. 649.

65 Translation from Sommerstein (Reference Sommerstein2008).

66 Cf. Raeburn and Thomas (Reference Raeburn and Thomas2011) on Aesch. Ag. 104–59; Medda (Reference Medda2017) i.47–9 and ii.71, 77–8, including the linguistic and metrical comment on Ag. 104–5 (epic influence); Fraenkel (Reference Fraenkel1918) 321–3 = (Reference Fraenkel1964) i.202–3; D'Alessio (Reference D'Alessio, Rutherford and Hunter2009) 142–3 (kitharodic influence).

68 Janko (Reference Janko2013) 35. Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2018) 28 rightly asks for ancient parallels. Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2018) 27–8 suggests that the object of φθέγγεσθαι in GH 29 is lost in the preceding lacuna and that we should read (note the quotation marks in the Greek text printed by Lucarini): [“Παιήων”] φθέγγεσσθαι ‘cantare il peana’. However, Παιήων is nominative, where we would expect a metrically impossible accusative; the insertion of quotation marks is unhelpful for a text that was meant to performed orally, and Lucarini fails to indicate parallels for this syntax (a single word in the nominative as ‘citation form’). Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2018) 27–9 also suggests reading τὰ γὰρ ἀρχή ἐστιν ἀρίστων ‘queste cose infatti sono principio di cose ottime’ at the end of GH 31 but a conjecture introducing the hiatus ἀρχή ἐστιν (without the common epic shortening of eta) is not especially likely.

69 Here and below, text and translation of the Oresteia are taken from Sommerstein (Reference Sommerstein2008), with occasional adaptations. The commentaries by Fraenkel (Reference Fraenkel1950), Denniston and Page (Reference Denniston and Page1957) and Medda (Reference Medda2017) offer detailed discussion of the textual and interpretive problems of these passages, with ample bibliography. It is impossible to discuss these problems here. On embedded speeches in the parodos of the Agamemnon see the perceptive remarks of Uhlig (Reference Uhlig2019), who stresses how the choral voice blends with that of Calchas in the second and third repetition of the ritual refrain.

70 The metre is: iamb choriamb baccheus || 7dactyls | 7dactyls |. See West (Reference West1990b) 483; Medda (Reference Medda2017) i.388, ii.73. On protective magic see Edmonds (Reference Edmonds2019) 116–48, esp. 143–4 on the Getty Hexameters.

71 See Jordan (Reference Jordan1992) 194, whose text and translation I print. For the overlap see GH 33–42, and Janko (Reference Janko2015).

72 See Aesch. (?) PV 91 τὸν πανόπτην κύκλον ἡλίου καλῶ, Soph. Phil. 1324 ὅμως δὲ λέξω⋅ Ζῆνα δ' ὅρκιον καλῶ, OC 1389–92 τοιαῦτ' ἀρῶμαι, καὶ καλῶ τοῦ Ταρτάρου | στυγνὸν τὸ πρῶτον ἔρεβος, ὥς σ' ἀποικίσῃ, |καλῶ δὲ τάσδε δαίμονας, καλῶ δ' Ἄρη| τὸν σφῷν τὸ δεινὸν μῖσος ἐμβεβληκότα, Eur. Hel. 969 ὦ νέρτερ' Ἅιδη, καὶ σὲ σύμμαχον καλῶ, Or. 1225–6 ὦ δῶμα ναίων Νυκτὸς ὀρφναίας πάτερ, | καλῶ σ' Ὀρέστης παῖς σὸς ἐπίκουρον μολεῖν, Sophron fr. 41 Kassel–Austin ἐξ Ἑστίας ἀρχόμενος καλέω Δία πάντων ἀρχαγέταν.

73 See Sommerstein (Reference Sommerstein2008) and Medda (Reference Medda2017) ad loc.

74 See West (Reference West1990b) ad loc. and (Reference West1990a) 177–8.

75 See Medda (Reference Medda2017) ad loc. See also Friis Johansen and Whittle (Reference Friis Johansen and Whittle1980) on Aesch. Supp. 676; Mastronarde (Reference Mastronarde1994) on Eur. Pho. 109–10. These commentators quote fifth-century epigraphic evidence for the epithet ‘Artemis Hecate’ (e.g. IG xiii.8.359, from Thasos). As one of the readers points out, however, arguing against Badham's conjecture, ‘the specific context here is relation to young animals/humans, and this is much more Artemis’ concern than Hecate's’.

76 On the many connections between Hecate and Iphigenia, Hecate and Artemis, Artemis and Iphigeneia see the excellent and detailed discussion in Finglass and Davies (Reference Finglass and Davies2014) on F 178 Finglass.

77 See Ἄρτεμιν εἰνοδί[ην in fr. 23a.26 Merkelbach and West (Reference Merkelbach and West1967) = 19.26 Most (Reference Most2007) 70–1 = 15.26 Hirschberger (Reference Hirschberger2004) 96, 213–14, with Hirschberger's comments ad loc.

78 Sommerstein prints κλυτὸν (Bamberger) in 819 (’ς πλόον Sier, Sommerstein). For the text of 825 see the following note.

79 The manuscript text of the line is μεθήσομεν⋅ πόλει τάδ' εὖ 2ia. This text is printed by Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Reference Wilamowitz-Moellendorff1914) and Page (Reference Page1972); it requires the addition of a syllable in the corresponding line of the antistrophe: 835 Γοργοῦς λυγρᾶς <τοῖς> (Blomfield) ἔνδοθεν. Sier (Reference Sier1988), West (Reference West1990b), Sommerstein (Reference Sommerstein2008) and Brown (Reference Brown2018) leave the antistrophe unchanged and print Kirchhoff's conjecture πλεῖ in the strophe, which yields μεθήσομεν⋅ πλεῖ τάδ' εὖ ‘It's smooth sailing’ (in Sommerstein's translation) ia cr. This is not impossible in terms of metre and language/imagery, but the MS reading's emphasis on the polis is welcome: see 302, 431 and esp. 864, where the chorus say that Orestes will hold ἀρχὰς … πολισσονόμους ‘the governing rulership of the city’, and 1046 where they claim that ἠλευθέρωσας πᾶσαν Ἀργείων πόλιν ‘you [Orestes] have liberated the entire city of Argos’. Objections against the addition of τοῖς in 835 are weak. Garvie (Reference Garvie1986) on Cho. 833–6 claims that ‘the Medusa story applies essentially to Clytaemnestra, and the point is weakened by the generalising plural, if at any rate it includes Aegisthus’. However, the plural may well refer to Clytemnestra alone, as in 419 τῶν τεκομένων (lit. ‘parents’), and in its vagueness softens a direct mention of matricide. For generic plurals, in reference to a single individual, see Garvie (Reference Garvie1986) on Cho. 51–4, 215, 382–5, 418–19, 689.

80 Some interpreters eliminate γοήτων ‘charmers’ from the text, because many read γοητῶν, genitive from γοητής, ‘wailer’ (see e.g. Page (Reference Page1972): ‘aegre iubilantibus congruit’). It is not clear why Garvie (Reference Garvie1986) ad loc. claims that a ‘melody of sorcerers’ does not carry conviction. γοήτων is printed, among others, by Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Reference Wilamowitz-Moellendorff1914) and West (Reference West1990b). Mention of charmers is perfectly appropriate in a wish for the future, and especially so in connection with λυτήριον: see Burkert (Reference Burkert1962) 50 n. 71 = (Reference Burkert and Graf2006) 185 n. 72; Sier (Reference Sier1988); Brown (Reference Brown2018) ad loc.

81 On winds and magic see Od. 10.19–27, Empedocles 31 A 1 DK = P16 in Laks and Most (Reference Laks and Most2016) 340–1 = Diog. Laert. 8.60, Empedocles 31 B 111.3–5 DK = D43.3–5 in Laks and Most (Reference Laks and Most2016) 388–9; Kingsley (Reference Kingsley1995) 217–32; Faraone (Reference Faraone1999) 39; Collins (Reference Collins2008) 57.

82 The supplement is strengthened by comparison with the scholion 8.70a in Erbse (Reference Erbse1969–88), which glosses the δύο κῆρε τανηλεγέος θανάτοιο ‘the two fates of woe-bringing (?) death’ of Il. 8.70 as τὰς θανατηφόρους μοίρας ‘the Moirai that bring death’ (the scholion then refers to Aeschylus’ Psychostasia: see Taplin (Reference Taplin1977) 431–3; West (Reference West2000) 345–7 = (Reference West2013) 347–50; Radt (Reference Radt2009) 375; Davies (Reference Davies2016) 25–31, with further references to modern discussions).

83 Text and translation from Lloyd-Jones (Reference Lloyd-Jones1994) (here and in the quotation of OT 179–88 that follows in the main text).

84 Finglass (Reference Finglass2018) 208, on Soph. OT 151–215.

85 Finglass (Reference Finglass2018) 209, ‘Metrical analysis’, interprets it as follows: 6da || 2ia 6da || - D - 4da 6da 6da |||. Finglass quotes with approval Haldane (Reference Haldane1963) 55, who notes that the dactylic runs are ‘a favourite [metre] of the paean’. On dactyls in paeans see also Käppel (Reference Käppel1992) 77, Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2018) 33 and n. 17, and the extensive discussion of Faraone (Reference Faraone2011), who compares inscriptional paeans in dactyls, including Sophocles’ Paean PMG 737 (b) i.1 (ὦ) Φλεγύα] κούρα περιώνυμε μᾶτερ ἀλεξιπό[ν]ο[ιο] θεοῦ (on which see Käppel (Reference Käppel1992) 366–7 (Paian 32); Furley and Bremer (Reference Furley and Bremer2001) i.261–2, ii.219–21; Rutherford (Reference Rutherford2001) 39), with the dactylic parodos of the Oedipus Tyrannus. Furley and Bremer (Reference Furley and Bremer2001) ii.280–9 offer a detailed discussion of the paeanic features of the parodos.

86 For the metrical analysis see Finglass (Reference Finglass2018) 209: 2ia 2 ia an an^ || 4da xD2- ia an an^|| ia 4da 4da ia ia|||.

87 These are the number of occurrences (checked on the TLG website): × 1 in Aeschylus, × 1 in Sophocles, × 1 in Plato, × 1 in Xenophon (Hell. 2.3.32, in the speech of Critias against Theramenes: εἰσὶ μὲν δήπου πᾶσαι μεταβολαὶ πολιτεῶν θανατηφόροι), × 1 in the Aristotelian corpus ([Pr.] 865a9: φάρμακα … θανατηφόρα), × 10 in Theophrastus in reference to φάρμακα and snakes; often in Aelianus and later writers in this connection.

88 Procl. in Resp. vol. ii p. 269 lines 9–14 in Kroll (Reference Kroll1899–1901); the rest the commentary on this passage (until 273 line 5 Kroll) is also full of useful stylistic and philosophical observations.

89 See Faraone (Reference Faraone, Dijkstra, Kroesen and Kuiper2010), with further references.

90 For speculations about possible cosmological links between Plato's text (esp. Resp. 10) and the Getty Hexameters see Kotansky (Reference Kotansky and Whitmarsh2016) n. 33.

91 See 116 DK = D23 in Laks and Most (Reference Laks and Most2016) 374–5; cf. also B115 DK = D10–D11 in Laks and Most (Reference Laks and Most2016) 366–9. For a discussion of these passages see esp. Trépanier (Reference Trépanier2017), with further references. See also Empedocles’ mention of a ‘joyless place’ in connection with a ‘meadow’: 121 DK = D24 in Laks and Most (Reference Laks and Most2016) 374–5.

92 Text and apparatus from Battezzato (Reference Battezzato2018), slightly adapted.

93 See F 485.3–5 with Bernabé (Reference Bernabé2005) 46–9 ad loc., with extensive bibliography; 486.3–5, 487.4, 488.10; Ferrari (Reference Ferrari2004) 98–102 = (Reference Ferrari2007) 146–50.

94 Battezzato (Reference Battezzato2018) ad loc.

95 Janko (Reference Janko2013) 47.

96 Lucarini (Reference Lucarini2018) 30 n. 5 rightly notes that adjectives ending in -αυγής are often extemporary creations by poets. Lucarini does not discuss κυαναυγής nor the Alcestis passage.

97 Translation from Finglass (Reference Finglass2011).

98 Kannicht (Reference Kannicht1969) ad Eur. Hel. 518–22 inclines towards an interpretation of the second part of these compound adjectives ‘simply as a suffix to a colour term’ (Dover on Ar. Ran. 1331 Ὦ Νυκτὸς κελαινοφαὴς ὄρφνα).

99 Erebos is of course ‘dark’: Od. 20.356 Ἔρεβόσδε ὑπὸ ζόφον. Aristophanes, in his ‘Orphic theogony’ in Av. 693, calls it μέλαν ‘black’: Χάος ἦν καὶ Νὺξ Ἔρεβός τε μέλαν πρῶτον καὶ Τάρταρος εὐρύς (and cf. Hes. Th. 123).

100 On the text of lines 205–10 see the discussion in Battezzato (Reference Battezzato2018) ad loc.

101 See Battezzato (Reference Battezzato2018) on 526, 544–5, 558–61.

102 Bremmer (Reference Bremmer2013) 25.

103 K is the siglum used in Janko (Reference Janko2015). For more detailed information see Jordan (Reference Jordan1988) (who dates the document to the third–fourth century AD); Daniel and Maltomini (Reference Daniel and Maltomini1990) 193–204, no. 49, lines 65–73 (dated to the second–third century AD). Cf. fr. 830 a in Bernabé (Reference Bernabé2005) 351–3. On its provenance see Bernabé (Reference Bernabé2013) 28 n. 9. A conjecture by Hermann introduced a similar phrase, μελαμφαέων τε βερέθρων (‘and of the dark-gleaming pits’), in the text of a hymn for Isis, dating to the first century BC or first century AD, and found in Andros (IG xii.5.739; the phrase occurs in line 43). This phrase would refer to Hades. However, Peek (Reference Peek1930) 45 defends the transmitted text μελάμφαρόν τε (linked to another word in the text); Peek's text is reproduced without detailed textual discussion by Totti (Reference Totti1985) 6 and Bricault (Reference Bricault2005) 363 and 366.

104 Translation from Majercik (Reference Majercik1989) 111 (Majercik (Reference Majercik2013), presented as a ‘second edition’, is in fact a reprint of the first edition). See Des Places (Reference Des Places1971) 106; Lewy (Reference Lewy and Tardieu1978) 294–300.

105 See Des Places (Reference Des Places1971) 10; Majercik (Reference Majercik1989) 1, 4; Johnston (Reference Johnston1990) 1–4, esp. 1 n. 2 (frr. 38, 53, 58, 72, 146–8, certainly spoken by Hecate); Johnston (Reference Johnston, Cancik, Schneider and Salazar2007) 188. On Hecate in the religious and philosophical world of the Chaldaean Oracles see Lewy (Reference Lewy and Tardieu1978) 83–98.

107 See Des Places (Reference Des Places1971) 106.

108 See Lewy (Reference Lewy and Tardieu1978) 294–300. Majercik (Reference Majercik1989) 201–2 identifies both the kosmos of line 2 and the bathos which lies under the cosmos with ‘matter’; Des Places (Reference Des Places1971) 106 n. 1 identifies the bathos with ‘matter’.

109 A lacunose passage from Euripides’ Hypsipyle (fr. 752f3–4 ὡς ἐνόπτρου | [κελαιν]οφαῆ τιν' αὐγάν) mentions the ‘[…]-shining gleam of a mirror’; the adjective is lost in the lacuna and could be [κελαιν]οφαῆ (cf. Ar. Ran. 1331 and the Getty Hexameters), but other supplements are possible: ἠλεκτρ]ο- (cf. Hipp. 741), φοινικ]ο- (cf. Ion 162), γλαυκ]ο-, χρυσ]ο- λευκ]ο-, κελαιν]ο- (see Diggle (Reference Diggle1994) 350; Collard et al. (Reference Collard, Cropp and Gibert2004) and Kannicht (Reference Kannicht2004) ad loc.). On mirrors in Neoplatonism and the connection of the motif of mirrors with Pl. Ti. 71a–d (the liver as mirror) see Sheppard (Reference Sheppard2003).

110 On imitation and mirrors see Halliwell (Reference Halliwell2002) 118–47; Cain (Reference Cain2012).

111 Janko (Reference Janko2016) 127 suggests that the ‘archetype’ of the Orphic Golden Leaves was written by Pythagoras.

References

Works cited

Allan, W. (2008) Euripides: Helen, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Antonetti, C. (ed.) (2018a) Gli esametri Getty e Selinunte. Testo e contesto, Alessandria.Google Scholar
Antonetti, C. (ed.) (2018b) ‘Gli esametri Getty e Selinunte. Contesto storico e intertestualità culturale’, in Antonetti (2018a) 109–30.Google Scholar
Austin, C. and Olson, S. D. (2004) Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battezzato, L. (2005) ‘Le vie dell'Hades e le vie di Parmenide. Filologia, filosofia e presenze femminili nelle lamine d'oro “orfiche”’, SemRom 8, 6799.Google Scholar
Battezzato, L. (2018) Euripides: Hecuba, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bernabé, A. (2005) Poetarum epicorum Graecorum testimonia et fragmenta. Pars ii: Orphicorum et orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta. Fasciculus 2, Munich and Leipzig.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernabé, A. (2013) ‘The Ephesia Grammata: genesis of a magical formula’, in Faraone and Obbink (2013a) 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettarini, L. (2005a) ‘Una nuova defixio di Selinunte?’, ZPE 151, 253–8.Google Scholar
Bettarini, L. (2005b) Corpus delle defixiones di Selinunte. Edizione e commento, Alessandria.Google Scholar
Bettarini, L. (2012) ‘Testo e lingua nei documenti con ΕΦΕΣΙΑ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΑ’, ZPE 183, 111–28.Google Scholar
Bremmer, J. N. (2013) ‘The Getty hexameters: date, author, and place’, in Faraone and Obbink (2013a), 21–9.Google Scholar
Bremmer, J. N. (2014) Initiation into the mysteries of the ancient world, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bricault, L. (2005) Recueil des inscriptions concernant les cultes isiaques. Volume i, Paris.Google Scholar
Brown, A. (2018) Aeschylus: Libation bearers, Liverpool.Google Scholar
Burkert, W. (1962) ‘ΓΟΗΣ: zum Griechischen “Schamanismus”’, RhM 105, 3655.Google Scholar
Burkert, W. (1987) Ancient mystery cults, Cambridge, MA and London.Google Scholar
Burkert, W. (2006) Mystica, Orphica, Pythagorica, ed. Graf, F., Göttingen.Google Scholar
Cain, R. B. (2012) ‘Plato on mimesis and mirrors’, Philosophy and Literature 36, 187–95.Google Scholar
Caliva, K. (2016) ‘Speech acts and embedded narrative structure in the Getty hexameters’, ARG 17, 139–64.Google Scholar
Cassio, A. C. (2005) ‘I dialetti eolici e la lingua della lirica corale’, in Bertolini, F. and Gasti, F. (eds.), Dialetti e lingue letterarie nella Grecia arcaica, Pavia, 1344.Google Scholar
Cassio, A. C. (2016) Storia delle lingue letterarie greche, 2nd edn, Florence.Google Scholar
Cingano, E. (2018) ‘A fresh look at the Getty hexameters: style, diction, tradition and context (Part one)’, in Antonetti (2018a) 23–51.Google Scholar
Clark, G. (1989) Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean life, Liverpool.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collard, C. (1991) Euripides: Hecuba, Warminster.Google Scholar
Collard, C., Cropp, M. and Gibert, J. (2004) Selected fragmentary plays. Volume ii, Warminster.Google Scholar
Collins, D. (2008) Magic in the ancient Greek world, Malden, MA and Oxford.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. (1986) The rhetoric of imitation: genre and poetic memory in Virgil and other Latin poets, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Curti, M. (2012) ‘Echi letterari di pratiche magiche in Eschilo’, Eikasmos 23, 6785.Google Scholar
D'Alessio, G. B. (2009) ‘Defining local identities in Greek lyric poetry’, in Rutherford, I. and Hunter, R. (eds.), Wandering poets in ancient Greek culture: travel, locality and pan-Hellenism, Cambridge, 137–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, R. W. and Maltomini, F. (1990) Supplementum magicum. Volume i, Opladen.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2016) The Aethiopis: neo-neoanalysis reanalyzed, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Del Monaco, L. (2012) ‘Ασκι Κατασκι. Ephesia Grammata da Locri Epizefirii’, ZPE 183, 129–39.Google Scholar
Denniston, J. D. and Page, D. L. (1957) Aeschylus: Agamemnon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Des Places, É. (1971) Oracles chaldaïques. Avec un choix de commentaires anciens, Paris.Google Scholar
Dickie, M. (2001) Magic and magicians in the Greco-Roman world, London.Google Scholar
Diggle, J. (1970) Euripides: Phaethon, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Diggle, J. (1994) Euripidea: collected essays, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dimartino, A. (2015) ‘La lex sacra di Selinunte. Analisi paleografica e prospettive storico-religiose di una laminetta iscritta’, in Iannucci, Muccioli and Zaccarini (2015) 135–63.Google Scholar
Edmonds, R. G. (2013) ‘The Ephesia Grammata: logos Orphaïkos or Apolline alexima pharmaka?' in Faraone and Obbink (2013a) 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, R. G. (2019) Drawing down the moon: magic in the ancient Greco-Roman world, Princeton.Google Scholar
Erbse, H. (ed.) (1969–88) Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem: scholia vetera, 7 vols., Berlin.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. A. (1985) ‘Aeschylus’ ὕμνος δέσμιος (Eum. 306) and Attic judicial curse tablets’, JHS 105, 150–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraone, C. A. (1994) ‘Deianeira's mistake and the demise of Heracles: erotic magic in SophoclesTrachiniae’, Helios 21, 115–35.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. A. (1999) Ancient Greek love magic, Cambridge, MA and London.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. A. (2008) ‘Mystery cults and incantations: evidence for Orphic charms in Euripides’ Cyclops 646–48?’, RhM 151, 127–42.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. A. (2010) ‘A Socratic leaf charm for headache (Charmides 155b–157c), Orphic gold leaves, and the ancient Greek tradition of leaf amulets’, in Dijkstra, J., Kroesen, J. and Kuiper, Y. (eds.), Myths, martyrs, and modernity: studies in the history of religions in honour of Jan N. Bremmer, Leiden, 145–66.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. A. (2011) ‘An Athenian tradition of dactylic Paeans to Apollo and Asclepius: choral degeneration or a flexible system of non-strophic dactyls?’, Mnemosyne 64, 206–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraone, C. A. (2013) ‘Spoken and written boasts in the Getty Hexameters: from oral composition to inscribed amulet’, in Faraone and Obbink (2013a) 57–70.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. A. and Obbink, D. (2013a) The Getty hexameters: poetry, magic, and mystery in ancient Selinous, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraone, C. A. and Obbink, D. (2013b) ‘Greek text and translation of the Getty Hexameters, in Faraone and Obbink (2013a) 10–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favi, F. (2019) ‘Epicharmus and choral lyric poetry: a reappraisal of old and new evidence’, in Passa, E. and Tribulato, O. (eds.), The paths of Greek: at the crossroads between literature, linguistics and epigraphy, Berlin and Boston, 149–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, F. (2004) ‘Sotto il velame. Le formule misteriche nelle lamine del timpone piccolo di Thurii’, SCO 50, 89105.Google Scholar
Ferrari, F. (2007) La fonte del cipresso bianco. Racconto e sapienza dall'Odissea alle lamine misteriche, Turin.Google Scholar
Ferrari, F. (2008) ‘Per leggere le lamine misteriche’, Prometheus 34, 126, 97–112.Google Scholar
Finglass, P. J. (2011) Sophocles: Ajax, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Finglass, P. J. (2018) Sophocles: Oedipus the King, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finglass, P. J. and Davies, M. (2014) Stesichorus: the poems, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E. (1918) ‘Lyrische Daktylen’, RhM 72, 161–97, 321–52.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E. (1950) Aeschylus: Agamemnon. Edited with a commentary by Eduard Fraenkel, Oxford.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E. (1964) Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, 2 vols., Rome.Google Scholar
Friis Johansen, H. and Whittle, E. W. (1980) Aeschylus: The suppliants, 3 vols., Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Furley, W. D. (2019) ‘Magic and mystery at Selinus: another look at the Getty Hexameters’, in Bortolani, L. M., Furley, W. D., Nagel, S. and Quack, J. F. (eds.), Cultural plurality in ancient magical texts and practices: Graeco-Egyptian handbooks and related traditions, Tübingen, 4261.Google Scholar
Furley, W. D. and Bremer, J. M. (2001) Greek Hymns: a selection of Greek religious poetry from the arcaic to the Hellenistic period, 2 vols., Tübingen.Google Scholar
Garvie, A. F. (1986) Aeschylus: Choephori, Oxford.Google Scholar
Graf, F. (1997) Magic in the ancient world, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Griffith, M. (1995) ‘Brilliant dynasts: power and politics in the “Oresteia”’, CA 14, 62129.Google Scholar
Griffith, M. (1999) Sophocles: Antigone, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. A. (1963) ‘A Paean in the Philoctetes’, CQ 13, 53–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliwell, S. (1988) Plato: Republic 10, Warminster.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (2002) The aesthetics of mimesis: ancient texts and modern problems, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, P. A. (1983) Carmina epigraphica Graeca saeculorum viii–v a. Chr. n., Berlin and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herington, J. (1985) Poetry into drama: early tragedy and the Greek poetical tradition, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. (1998) Allusion and intertext: dynamics of appropriation in Roman poetry, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hinge, G. (2006) Die Sprache Alkmans: Textgeschichte und Sprachgeschichte, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Hirschberger, M. (2004) Gynaikōn Katalogos und Megalai Ēhoiai: ein Kommentar zu den Fragmenten zweier hesiodeischer Epen, Munich.Google Scholar
Hollmann, A. (2003) ‘A curse tablet from the Circus at Antioch’, ZPE 145, 6782.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. (1999) Theocritus: A Selection. Idylls 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Iannucci, A., Muccioli, F. and Zaccarini, M. (2015) La città inquieta. Selinunte tra lex sacra e defixiones, Milan.Google Scholar
Jameson, M. H., Jordan, D. R. and Kotansky, R. D. (1993) A lex sacra from Selinous, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Janko, R. (1984) ‘Forgetfulness in the golden tablets of memory’, CQ 34, 89100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janko, R. (2013) ‘The hexametric incantations against witchcraft in the Getty Museum: from archetype to exemplar' in Faraone, Obbink (2013b) 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janko, R. (2015) ‘The hexametric Paean in the Getty Museum: reconstituting the archetype’, ZPE 193, 110.Google Scholar
Janko, R. (2016) ‘Going beyond multitexts: the archetype of the Orphic gold leaves’, CQ 66, 100–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, S. I. (1990) Hekate soteira: a study of Hekate's role in the Chaldean oracles and related literature, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Johnston, S. I. (2007) ‘Oracula Chaldaica’, in Cancik, H., Schneider, H. and Salazar, C. F. (eds.), Brill's New Pauly: Antiquity. Volume x: Obl–Phe, 188–9.Google Scholar
Johnston, S. I. (2014) ‘Goddesses with torches in the Getty Hexameters and Alcman fr. 94’, ZPE 191, 32–5.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. R. (1988) ‘A love charm with verses’, ZPE 72, 245–59.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. R. (1992) ‘The inscribed lead tablet from Phalasarna’, ZPE 94, 191–4.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. R. and Kotansky, R. D. (2011) ‘Ritual Hexameters in the Getty Museum: preliminary edition’, ZPE 178, 5462.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. R., Rocca, G. and Threatte, L. (2014) ‘Una nuova defixio dalla Sicilia (Schøyen Collection MS 1700)’, ZPE 188, 231–6.Google Scholar
Kannicht, R. (1969) Euripides: Helena, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Kannicht, R. (2004) Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Volume v: Euripides, Göttingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Käppel, L. (1992) Paian: Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung, Berlin and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindt, J. (2012) Rethinking Greek religion, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsley, P. (1995) Ancient philosophy, mystery, and magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean tradition, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kotansky, R. D. (2016), ‘Getty Hexameters, the’, in Whitmarsh, T. (ed.), The Oxford classical dictionary, Oxford, online at: https://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-8123.Google Scholar
Kotansky, R. D. and Curbera, J. (2004) ‘Unpublished lead tablets in the Getty Museum’, Mediterraneo Antico. Economie, Società, Culture 7, 681–91.Google Scholar
Kovacs, D. (1994) Euripides: Cyclops, Alcestis, Medea, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kroll, W. (1899–1901) Procli Diadochi in Platonis Rem publicam commentarii, 2 vols., Leipzig.Google Scholar
Laks, A. and Most, G. W. (2016) Early Greek philosophy. Volume v: Western Greek thinkers. Part 2, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lapatin, K. (2013) ‘Preface’, in Faraone and Obbink (2013a) v.Google Scholar
Lewy, H. (1978) Chaldaean oracles and theurgy: mysticism magic and Platonism in the later Roman empire, new edn by Tardieu, Michel, Paris.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. (1975) ‘On the Orphic tablet from Hipponion’, PP 30, 225–6.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. (1994) Sophocles: Ajax, Electra, Oedipus Tyrannus, Cambridge, MA and London.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. (1996) Sophocles: fragments, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lucarini, C. M. (2018) ‘Il nuovo peana misterico-pitagorico di Selinunte’, ZPE 205, 2437.Google Scholar
Lucarini, C. M. (2019) La genesi dei poemi omerici, Berlin and Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundquist, J. (2016) ‘ΦΡΑΣΙΝ in Attica and the prehistory of the epic tradition’, CPh 111, 434–47.Google Scholar
Maehler, H. (2004) Bacchylides: a selection, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Majercik, R. D. (1989) The Chaldean oracles: text, translation, and commentary, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majercik, R. D. (2013) The Chaldean oracles: text, translation and commentary, 2nd edn, Westbury.Google Scholar
Marconi, C. (2018) ‘La dea del Tempio B’, in Antonetti (2018a) 179–200.Google Scholar
Martin, G. (2018) Euripides: Ion, Berlin.Google Scholar
Mastronarde, D. J. (1994) Euripides: Phoenissae, Cambridge.Google Scholar
McClure, L. (1996) ‘Clytemnestra's binding spell (Ag. 958–974)’, CJ 92, 123–40.Google Scholar
McClure, L. (1999) Spoken like a woman: speech and gender in Athenian drama, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medda, E. (2017) Eschilo: Agamennone, 3 vols., Roma.Google Scholar
Merkelbach, R. and West, M. L. (1967) Fragmenta Hesiodea, Oxford.Google Scholar
Mikalson, J. D. (1989) ‘Unanswered prayers in Greek tragedy’, JHS 109, 8198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, A. D. (2020) Apollonius Rhodius, Herodotus and historiography, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Most, G. W. (2007) Hesiod: The shield, Catalogue of women, other fragments, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Mueller, M. (2011) ‘Phaedra's defixio: scripting Sophrosune in Euripides’ Hippolytus’, ClAnt 30, 148–77.Google Scholar
Obbink, D. (2013) ‘Poetry and the mysteries’, in Faraone and Obbink (2013a) 171–84.Google Scholar
Ogden, D. (2009) Magic, witchcraft, and ghosts in the Greek and Roman worlds: a sourcebook, 2nd edn, Oxford.Google Scholar
Oldfather, C. H. (1939) Diodorus of Sicily. Volume iii: Books iv (continued) 59–viii, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Page, D. L. (1972) Aeschyli tragoediae, Oxford.Google Scholar
Parker, R. (2005) Polytheism and society at Athens, Oxford.Google Scholar
Peek, W. (1930) Der Isishymnus von Andros und verwandte Texte, Berlin.Google Scholar
Prauscello, L. (2019) ‘Greek lyric Kunstsprache between pan-Hellenism and epichoric influence: two case studies’, in Willi (2019) 55–84.Google Scholar
Radt, S. L. (1999) Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta (TrGF). Volume iv: Sophocles, 2nd edn, Göttingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radt, S. L. (2009) Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta (TrGF). Volume iii: Aeschylus, 2nd edn, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Raeburn, D. and Thomas, O. (2011) The Agamemnon of Aeschylus: a commentary for students, Oxford.Google Scholar
Richardson, N. J. (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford.Google Scholar
Robertson, N. (2010) Religion and reconciliation in Greek cities: the sacred laws of Selinus and Cyrene, Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
Rocca, G. (2009) Nuove iscrizioni da Selinunte, Alessandria.Google Scholar
Rutherford, I. (2001) Pindar's Paeans: a reading of the fragments with a survey of the genre, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rutherford, I. (2013) ‘The immortal words of Paean’, in Faraone and Obbink (2013a) 157–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfameni Gasparro, G. (1986) Misteri e culti mistici di Demetra, Roma.Google Scholar
Sheppard, A. (2003) ‘The mirror of imagination: the influence of Timaeus 70e ff.’, BICS 46, 203–12.Google Scholar
Sier, K. (1988) Die lyrischen Partien der Choephoren des Aischylos: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Snell, B. and Kannicht, R. (1986) Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta (TrGF). Volume i: Didascaliae tragicae, catalogi tragicorum et tragoediarum, testimonia et fragmenta tragicorum minorum, 2nd end, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Sommerstein, A. H. (2008) Aeschylus: Oresteia. Agamemnon, Libation-bearers, Eumenides, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Swift, L. A. (2010) The hidden chorus: echoes of genre in tragic lyric, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taplin, O. (1977) The stagecraft of Aeschylus: the dramatic use of exits and entrances in Greek tragedy, Oxford.Google Scholar
Timpanaro, S. (2005) The genesis of Lachmann's Method, trans. Most, G. W., Chicago.Google Scholar
Totti, M. (1985) Ausgewählte Texte der Isis- und Sarapis-Religion, Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Trépanier, S. (2017) ‘From Hades to the stars: Empedocles on the cosmic habitats of soul’, ClAnt 36, 130–82.Google Scholar
Tribulato, O. (2018a) ‘Il dialetto di Himera nel contesto dell'area dello Stretto’, Linguarum Varietas 7, 163–78.Google Scholar
Tribulato, O. (2018b) ‘Writing and language in the Getty Hexameters’, in Antonetti (2018b) 5–20.Google Scholar
Uhlig, A. (2019) Theatrical reenactment in Pindar and Aeschylus, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachter, R. (2001) Non-Attic Greek vase inscriptions, Oxford.Google Scholar
Weiss, N. A. (2018) The music of tragedy: performance and imagination in Euripidean theater, Berkeley.Google Scholar
West, M. L. (1975) ‘Zum neuen Goldblättchen aus Hipponion’, ZPE 18, 229–36.Google Scholar
West, M. L. (1990a) Studies in Aeschylus, Stuttgart.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M. L. (1990b) Aeschyli tragoediae cum incerti poetae Prometheo, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
West, M. L. (2000) ‘Iliad and Aethiopis on the stage: Aeschylus and son’, CQ 50, 338–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M. L. (2013) Hellenica: selected papers on Greek literature and thought. Volume ii: Lyric and drama, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. v. (1914) Aeschyli tragoediae, Berlin.Google Scholar
Willi, A. (2008) Sikelismos: Sprache, Literatur und Gesellschaft im Griechischen Sizilien (8.–5. Jh. v. Chr.), Basle.Google Scholar
Willi, A. (ed.) (2019) Formes et fonctions des langues littéraires en Grèce ancienne. Neuf exposés suivis de discussions, Vandœuvres.Google Scholar
Zeitlin, F. I. (1965) ‘The motif of the corrupted sacrifice in Aeschylus’ Oresteia’, TAPhA 96, 463508.Google Scholar
Zeitlin, F. I. (1970) ‘The Argive festival of Hera and Euripides’ Electra’, TAPhA 101, 645–69.Google Scholar
Zeitlin, F. I. (1996) Playing the other: gender and society in classical Greek literature, Chicago.Google Scholar
Zografou, A. (2010) Athanassia, Chemins d'Hécate. Portes, routes, carrefours et autres figures de l'entre-deux, Liège.CrossRefGoogle Scholar