CC BY
2
DOI: 10.30842/ielcp2306901528042
M. N. Kazanskaya
Institute for Linguistic Studies, RAS / St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia. [email protected]; [email protected]
DORIEUS' EPIGRAM ON MILO OF CROTON (ATHEN. 10, 412F-413A)
The paper studies Dorieus' epigram on the renowned Greek wrestler Milo of Croton, about how he had carried a steer on his shoulders in Olympia and then sacrificed it at the altar of Zeus and ate the animal whole all by himself. Athenaeus preserves the epigram in his passage on extraordinary appetites of athletes, with reference to the historian Phylarchus who had cited the poem in his Histories (Athen. 10, 412f-413a). Nothing is known about the poet Dorieus, and this is the only text that has come down to us that is ascribed to him. The epigram (and the whole passage from Athenaeus) is regularly mentioned as source for the anecdote of Milo and the steer, but it has not received much scholarly attention as a poetic text (with the exception of a very short commentary in Page's Further Greek Epigrams). The paper presents an extensive linear commentary on the epigram. It is shown that it was a work of an extremely well-read and intelligent poet, whose references to Alexandrian scholarship show that he was either an Alexandrian himself, or at the very least well versed in Homeric scholarship of his time. He was not afraid to invent new expressions (as Bunnokov for the Altar of Zeus, v. 6), nor to engage in poetic experiment, as in the case of the highly unusual tmesis in v. 8. In his description of Milo, he visibly plays with the iconography of Moschophoros and Kriophoroi statues, inviting his readers to imagine a statue of the athlete with the steer on his shoulders.
Keywords: Dorieus, Milo of Croton, Athenaeus, Phylarchus, Hellenistic epigrams, steer, Moschophoros, Hermes Kriophoros, BunnoXiov, Altar of Zeus in Olympia, no^nq, tmesis, бошда, paradoxography.
М. Н. Казанская
Институт лингвистических исследований РАН / СПбГУ, Санкт-Петербург, Россия. [email protected]; [email protected]
Эпиграмма Дориея о Милоне Кротонском (Athen. 10, 412f-413a)
Статья посвящена эпиграмме Дориея о том, как Милон Кротонский после победы на одной из олимпиад поднял на плечи быка, принес его к алтарю Зевса, где принес в жертву, а потом съел его целиком. О Дориее ничего не известно, и кроме этой эпиграммы ни один его текст не сохранился. В статье предлагается построчный комментарий эпиграммы. Показывается, что поэт был прекрасно
знаком с александрийской филологией, что он тщателен в выборе слов и не боится поэтических экспериментов.
Ключевые слова: Дорией, Милон Кротонский, Афиней, Филарх, эллинистическая эпиграмма, бык, Мосхофор, Гермес Криофор, 0unn6Xiov, алтарь Зевса в Олимпии, подп4 тмесис, бошда, парадоксография.
In book 10 of Deipnosophistae Athenaeus cites some instances of athletes' extraordinary appetites, focusing in particular on one the most famous ancient wrestlers, Milo of Croton1. Referring to a treatise on athletic competitions (Пер! ayravrav) by Theodorus of Hierapolis, Athenaeus says that Milo was able to eat twenty minas of meat and twenty minas of bread a day, accompanying them by three measures (choai) of wine; and, probably referring to the same Theodorus, he recounts the anecdote of Milo carrying a four-year old bull on his shoulders to the stadium in Olympia, and then eating it all by himself in one day (Athen. 10, 412 e-f). He then cites an alternative account from Alexander Aetolus, according to which Alexander's own fellow Aetolian, Titormos, ate an ox in competition with Milo for breakfast (= Alex. Aetol. fr. 10 Lightfoot). The section concludes with a reference to the historian Phylarchus who had, apparently, recounted the same anecdote of the bull carried around the stadium in Olympia and then eaten by Milo, as Theodorus of Hierapolis, accompanying it by an epigram by an otherwise unknown poet Dorieus (Athen. 10, 412f-413a):
ФиХархо? 5e фпо^ ¿v xfl y' xrav icxopirav xov MiXrava xaupov кахафауе^ кахакАлбстха про хои Рюцои хои Дю?^ 5ю ка! noi^oai ei? ooxdv Дюргеа xov noi^v xaSe-
хою? env MiXrav, ox' апо x0ovo? ^рахо Рр10о?, хехраехп Sa^aXnv, ¿v Дю? eiXanivai?, юдои? 5е кх^о? хо пeXюpюv ю? veov c^va
^еукег 5i' oXn? койфа пау^уирею^. каъ 0адРо? ^ev, ахар хои5е nXeov ^vuoe баица 5
пp6с0ev Пеюаюи, ^eive, 0unnoXiou ov уар en6^neucev Pow aZuyov, ei? креа т6v5e
1 Milo of Croton was one of the most renowned athletes of antiquity: he won the Olympic games six times (first time as noo?, and then five times as nepioSoviK^^), and was victor six times at Delphi, nine times at Nemea, ten times at the Isthmian games (Sext. Afr. ad Ol. 52 p. Rutgers). Ancient sources on Milo are assembled in Mordze (1932); see also Ghisellini (1988: 48), Antonaccio (2014: 194-195), Decker (2000) with references.
kó^ok; návxa kot' ow ^oüvoc; éSaícaxó viv (Athen. 10, 412f-413a = 10, 4 Kaibel)2.
6 neicaíou A: nicaíou M P Mus 7-8 cf. Eustath. in Od. 206, 38: nepi Se MíXravo; xou Kpoxraviáxou ArapieW;, oxi ov énó^neuce Poüv si; Kpéa xóv5e KÓ^a;, návxa Kax' oüv ^oüvo; Saícaxó viv. 8 návxa Kax' oüv KÓya; coni. Wackernagel
"Phylarchus says in the third book of his Histories that Milo ate a steer before the altar of Zeus: and for that reason the poet Dorieus composed on him the following poem: 'Such was Milo, as he lifted the weight from the earth, a four-year old bullock, and carried this monstrous livestock on his shoulders lightly as a newborn lamb all around the assembly. And that in itself was stunning, but he accomplished an even greater wonder by the altar of Pisa: for that bull, yet untouched by yoke, that he had ceremoniously conveyed, having cut him up into pieces of meat, he ate him up all on his own'."
Athenaeus' introduction of the quotation by means of accusativus cum infinitivo construction (Sio Kai noi^oai si; arnov Arapisa tov noi^x^v xáSs) shows unequivocally that the poem had been cited by Phylarchus (or at the very least would have been mentioned by him), which would place the terminus ante quem for Dorieus at the end of 3rd century BCE: Polybius tells us that Phylarchus was contemporary of Aratus of Sicyon who died in 213 BCE 3 . Phylarchus had a reputation for sensationalism and exaggeration both in presenting historical facts (cf. Polybius' reproach for his love of xspáxsia4), and for including sensational and untrustworthy material in his Histories5. If Athenaeus' presentation
2 The text follows Olson's Teubner edition of Athenaeus (Olson 2020: 156-157). The short critical apparatus accompanying the text of poem is compounded by me (the manuscripts in the note on the variant readings neicaíou and riicaíou follow Olson's edition).
3 Polyb. 2, 56, 1; cf. Gow, Page (1965: II, 364).
4 On the term xepaxeía in Polybius' criticism of Phylarchus, see Sacks (1981: 162-170); Eckstein (2013: 328-329).
5 Eckstein assembles an amusing gallery of anecdotes on human-animal interactions, including Milo and the bull, that Phylarchus had told (Eckstein 2013: 324-325), pointing out that their presence would contribute to
of Dorieus' quotation in Phylarchus is accurate, the historian would have quoted the poem to corroborate the anecdote.
Except for Athenaeus (citing Phylarchus) no other source mentions Dorieus: it has been suggested, purely on the coincidence of names, that he might be same as the glutton by name of Dorieus in one of the epigrams of Leonidas of Tarentum (also 3rd century BCE). This identification, apparently first suggested by A. Hecker, is repeated in several works on Hellenistic epigram6. Although absolutely impossible to prove, the suggestion seems to have a double appeal to modern scholars: (a) it would make Dorieus the contemporary of both Leonidas and Phylarchus, and (b) it would make Dorieus that Leonidas derides for gluttony the author of a poem on Milo's extraordinary appetite. While at our present state of knowledge it is not possible to identify the author of the poem quoted by Phylarchus (and from him, by Athenaeus)7, I would like to show that not enough attention has been given to the text itself, which has only received a brief commentary in Denys L. Page's Further Greek Epigrams. I will try to show that Dorieus' text,
Polybius' low opinion of Phylarchus as a historian: "It is not merely the far-fetched nature of these stories, though that is important; it is the inappropriateness of their inclusion in what purports to be a serious history".
6 Hecker formulated the identification of Dorieus the poet and Dorieus the glutton as a probability: "Caeterum non improbabile videtur Leonidam haec scripsisse in Dorieum poetam, cuius epigramma Milonis statuae inscriptum ex Phylarchi libris descripsit Athenaeus X, 413A" (Hecker 1852: 9); it was endorsed by Reitzenstein (1893: 150), and then by Gow, Page (1965: II, 364); the tentativeness of this suggestion is noted by Page (1981: 45): "there is not close point of contact, and the identification, though quite attractive in itself, remains a mere guess". Wilamowitz however rejected the identification, mocking the reasoning behind it: "Ist es nicht lächerlich, daß ein alter schlechter Einfall dauernd Glauben findet: da soll dieser Dorieus der Dichter sein, von dem Phylarchos (Athen. 412f.) Verse, vielleicht ein Epigramm (nötig ist es nicht), anführt, das von Milon erzählt, er habe einen Ochsen durch die ganze olympische Festversammlung getragen und hinterher aufgegessen. Also ist Milon ein Schlemmer, was er nicht war, und Dorieus, weil er von ihm erzählt, auch" (von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf 1962: 142 n. 3).
7 I agree with Wilamowitz in thinking that this identification Dorieus the poet with Dorieus the glutton is unlikely; as for the bearing of this identification on Dorieus' date, I will show that there is sufficient intratextual evidence to place Dorieus in the 3rd century BCE.
despite appearances, is in fact far from evident, and that the poet is engaging in a highly erudite play. The poem is deliberately deceptive, eluding categorization and shifting between genres. To highlight these points of shift, I will start by giving a linear commentary on the epigram, and then summarize what can be extracted from the text.
1 xoioq s^v MiXwv. The very first words of the text place us on an unfirm ground: the pronoun xotog would seem to suggest that the text concludes an account (description) of Milo, or, if one imagines an inscription, refers to a sculpted image that readers could look at. And this raises at once the question of whether this was the beginning of the poem, and also what kind of poem are we dealing with8. Athenaeus in his summary of Phylarchus gives no indication of whether this was a complete poem, nor does he mark its genre, designating the poem simply with the pronoun xaSs. Lloyd-Jones and Parsons (1983: 182) print the sign ® at v. 1, identifying it as the beginning of the poem. Page (1981: 45) admits to excluding at first Dorieus' poem from his Oxford edition of epigrams (Page 1975) because of the uncertainty whether it is a fragment of a longer elegy or an epigram; but seeing that the address 2,stvs in v. 6 suggests that it was in fact an epigram, Page ultimately included it in his Further Greek Epigrams9.
While Page treats the question of the poem's genre largely as an editor's problem, I would argue that Dorieus is in fact deliberately playing with his reader. The words xotog s^v suggest an account of a glorious figure from the past, as e.g. in the conclusion of
8 Naturally, Athenaeus is not obligated to quote the poem he is using for illustration in full: right before discussing Milo's eating of the bull at Olympia, Athenaeus recounts (412e) that Theodorus of Thasos had eaten a steer as well, citing Posidippus' epigram (120 Austin, Bastianini = 14 Gow, Page); the beginning of the quotation is difficult to interpret, and while Gow and Page (1965: I, 170; cf. their commentary on the epigram in II, 493) place the first two verses in cruces, Austin and Bastianini (2002: 154) note that beginning of the epigram is missing (Casaubona was the first to suggest this idea, "non interim affertur epigramma, sed quattuor hi tantum versus", quoted by Austin and Bastianini in their apparatus criticus).
9 "The lines may come from a relatively long poem, not epigram but elegy, and Dorieus was for that reason excluded from my Epigrammata Graeca; but the address to the reader, ^sivs, inclines the balance the other way, and as the lines tell a complete anecdote they may as well be included in a collection of epigrams" (Page 1981: 45).
Agamemnon's rebuke to Diomedes in Iliad 4: after recounting Tydeus' bravery in slaying fourty-nine of fifty Thebans, and contrasting it to perceived Diomedes' lingering, Agamemnon concludes,
xoio? e^v Tu5eu? Akralio^ alla tov uiov yeivaxo eio xepeia ^axfl, ayopfi Se t' a^eivra
(Il. 4, 399-400).
"Such was Tydeus the Aetolian: but he fathered a son (i.e. Diomedes himself — M. K.) who is worse than him in battle, and better <only> in public speeches".
It is also worth noting that Toio? without a corresponding oio? at the beginning of epigrams is untypical. It is fairly certain that the ancient reader, when first confronted with this text, would have been guessing whether he was dealing with an excerpt and had missed a depiction of Milo, or this was a complete text that started in medias res. The ancient reader, just as we, would have been redirected by the address £,eive in v. 6 towards second solution, identifying the genre of the poem as an epigram. But at the same time, the vocative £,eive opens a new question of who the speaker is, and of the context of their interaction. For the ancient epigram, the vocative £,eive is typically associated with epitaphs10, but nothing in the text of the poem points to a funerary context. I would suggest that £,eive here points to another type of situation, that of a guide giving a tour of his city to a tourist: the address ££ve (£,eive) and the corresponding Latin hospes (hospites) is attested for this pragmatic context11. Thus,
10 This is the only context highlighted by Dickey (1996: 149): "In poetic inscriptions on tombstones ^eve can be used (like 65ka or rcapirav 'traveler') as an address to an unknown reader". The foreigner may be asked to carry news of the death to the homeland of the dead person (as, famously, in Simonides' epitaph for Spartans fallen at Thermopylae), or the defunct (especially in later epigrams) may engage with him in a dialogue (series of questions and answers about his life (e.g. Antipater Sidonius 21 Gow, Page = Anth. Pal. 7, 164). See Bing (2009: 118-119, and chap. 7 passim).
1 Thus, most famously in Catullus 4, 1: Phasellus ille quem videtis, hospites..., "that yacht that you are looking at, o guests...", parodied in a poem on Sabinus the muleteer in the Catalepton (Sabinus ille quem videtis, hospites., Appendix Vergiliana, Catalepton 10, 1). For Greek, cf. Anth.
after seeing the address £,stvs in v. 6, Dorieus' reader is able to reconstruct, in retrospect, that the opening words Toto; s^v MiXrav in v. 1 must have belonged to a speech of guide, commenting on a depiction of Milo, probably a statue 12 . For a much more straightforward presentation of this kind, cf. an epigram by Alcaeus from Messene, also on a wrestler, Cleitomachus of Thebes, commemorating his entering the competition both in pancratium and in wrestling in the same Olympic games13:
Oiov opfi;, ra ^sivs, to xoXksov sIkovi
KXstro^axou, Toiav 'EXXa; ecsiSs piav apTi yap ai^aTosvTa xspwv ansXusTo rcuy^a;
SvTsa Kai yopyra ^apvaTO rcayKpaTira to TpiTov ouk ¿Kovicsv ercra^iSa;, aXXa naXaica;
arcrra; tou; Tpiccou; 'Ic9^o9sv siXs novou;. ^ouvo; 5' EXXavrav to5' Sxsi yepa; ercTarcuXoi 5e ©nPai Kai ysveTrap ecTe^sB' Ep^oKpaT^;
(Anth. Pal. 9, 588).
"That courage depicted in bronze that you see in this image of Clitomachus, o foreigner, such was the might that Greece observed: for he had only just untied the bloody fighting gear from the fist of his hands, and <already> he fought in the fierce pancratium; and the third time, he did not dirty <even> the point of his shoulders with dust, but wrestling without taking a fall he won triple exertions (i.e. contests) from the Isthmus. He alone among the Greeks holds this honor: and the seven-gated Thebes, and his father Hermocrates was crowned14".
2 xsTpasTn Sa^aX^v. The weight (Ppi9o;) that Milo picked up for his victory lap in Olympia was a four-year old bullock that had
Pal. 9, 588 cited below). V. V. Zelchenko drew my attention to this use of ^sivo; and hospes several years ago.
12 It will soon become evident that the statue was an imaginary one: in fact, the point of the epigram is that it is impossible to be sure of how it looked. There is thus no need to try and reconstruct the place where it might have stood. On the real statue of Milo by his fellow citizen, Dameas of Crotone, in Olympia, see n. 24 below.
13 Cleitomachus is mentioned by Pausanias in his passage on statues for Greek athletes (see Paus. 6, 15, 3-5).
14 The verb ecTe^sTo referes to cTs^avoucBai, term that designated a recognized and uncontested victory in the crown games (cf. Yanzina, Korneev 2020: passim); the custom of the athlete crowning his father in celebration of his own victory is attested elsewhere (cf. ibid. 915).
never been yoked (Pouv a^uyov v. 6). The word Sa^alq? ('yearling' or 'stirk') is used by Aristotle (H.A. 632a) as he discusses castration of cattle and differentiated from ^ooxo? ('weaner'), a term applicable to calves until they reach one year of age. The fact that Milo's bull is four years old is significant for the epigram: four years is not an important stage in the life of a Sa^alq? who would have become a grown bull at the end of second year. The adjective clearly refers to the four years between the Olympic games that Milo had used for his extraordinary power lifting routine that is mentioned in the proverb quoted by Quintilian: Milo quem vitulum adsueuerat ferre, taurum ferebat "that calf that Milo got accustomed to carrying, he later carried as a steer" (Quintil. I.O. 1, 9, 6)15. By using the adjective TeTpasrq?, Dorieus is hinting that Milo at some point in his career began training for the next Olympic games by picking up a newborn calf and carrying it around for a certain amount of time every day; as the calf grew, the weight that Milo had to lift would increase by day; by the time the next competition came around, he would have been accustomed to carrying a full-grown steer on his shoulders for significant stretches of time16. Dorieus seems to suggest that Milo took his training gear (the steer) with him to Olympia and, after showing off his strength by carrying it around
15 This has been correctly interpreted by Mordze (1932: col. 1674): "[Quintilian] berichtet dagegen, daß [Milo] seine Kraft durch systematisches Training steigerte: er trug jeden Tag ein Kalb auf den Schultern, so daß er auch noch zu schleppen vermochte, als es zum Stier geworden war".
6 For reference, newborn calves weigh around 25-30 kg and increase their weight at a rate of 0,75-1 kg per day. The weight of a mature modern bull starts at around 180 kg (average weight is 360 kg); it is probable that figures for ancient cattle were slightly smaller. I am grateful to D. M. Ivanov for helping me with searching for figures on calves' growth rates. The weight that an athlete is able to lift is dependent on his own physique and body mass. Modern athletes in the category over 105 kg lift over 200 kg (figures are lower for snatch, and higher for clean and jerk; currently the world record is 267 kg in clean and jerk for athletes in the weight category over 109 kg). Given Milo's appetite, it is safe to suppose that he was in the higher range of body mass. I am grateful to P.N. Kazansky for consulting me on modern Olympic weightlifting. For ancient records, besides the anecdote of Milo carrying his steer, and also an anecdote of his carrying his own statue to Olympia, we can mention Bybon's stone (143,5 kg) in Olympia with the inscription that Bybon had raised it with one hand.
the assembly, sacrificed the animal. The combination of the proverb cited by Quintilian (1, 9, 6) and Dorieus' xexpaéxnç Sa^à^qç present Milo's feat of carrying the bull as a result of long deliberate training; other sources either mention only the fact of lifting a bull at Olympia (see Luc. Char. 8), or actually present it as a one-off lifting of an extreme weight (for this reason, Galenus criticized Milo's feat as avoia)17.
sv Aïoç siXarcivaiç. The reference here, as noted by Gow (1981: 46), is to the banquet at the conclusion of the Olympic games18. The word siXamvn, chosen by Dorieus, is an old one, with an unclear etymology. Already in Homer it tends to appear in combination with another word for feast: aisi S' év Savrqai Kai si^aniv^ai napéaxai "he will always be present at feasts and banquets" (Il. 10, 217); év rq ^év pa yà^oi т' saav s&amvai xs "depicted on [the shield] were wedding feasts and banquets" (Il. 18, 490; cf. the same pairing in Od. 1, 226 and 11, 415); év Saixi Kai si^anivq xsBa^ui^ "in feast and flourishing banquet..." (Hes. fr. 274, 1 Merkelbach, West); cf. Theognis' famous promise that Cyrnus will be present at all the banquets (Boivqç Se Kai si^anivqai napéaa-q, Theogn. 239). It should be noted that Dorieus obliquely reproduces this practice of juxtaposing si^anivq with another word for feast in his choice of verb Saivu^ai in v. 8. We also find an attempt at popular etymology for this word in Homer, in the jingle si^aniva^ouaiv nivouai xs aiBona oivov... "they feast and drink scintillating wine" (Od. 2, 57; 17, 536). In poetry of Hellenistic and Roman times the word carries manifest epic connotations19, appearing alongside recognizably
17 àXXà vq Aia xœv ispoupyq^évœv eva xaopœv àvaBé^evoç xoïç œ^oiç о MiXœv éKeïvoç о Kpoxœviàxqç SieKÔ^iaé поте xà axàSiov. œ xqç râepPaXXornnç àvoiaç, œç ^qSè xoùxo yiyvœaKsiv ôxi npà Ppaxéoç xà Papûxaxov xoùxo aœ^a xoù xaopou Çœvxoç épàaxaZsv q yuxq xoù Çtpou, Kai noIÀâ y' àKonœxspov q о MiXœv, si' ys Kai Bsïv qSwaxo PaaxàÇouaa^ àlX' ô^œç oùSsvàç qv à^ia, napanXqaiœç xq MiXœvoç (Gal. Protr. 13). Galen then recounts the legend of Milo's death, noting éSqXœas Se Kai q xsXsuxq xàvSpàç ônœç qv àvôqxoç
18 Page (1981: 46) notes: "at the feast on the evening of the fifth day of the Games, when the victors were entertained". For a fuller discussion of both the banquet at the Prytaneum and procession see Miller (2004: 87, 124125).
19 Cf. Schmitt Pantel (1997: 271) on siXanivq: « Ce terme désigne un 'festin bruyant'. Il est employé dans une inscription métrique à Stratonicée à l'époque impériale. Un prêtre du sanctuaire de Lagina dit n'avoir rien
Homeric forms (e.g. euaSev eilanivn, Anth. Pal. 9, 644, 10; nspi aoi euaSov eilanivai, Anth. Pal. 16, 183, 2).
The exact meaning of eilanivn (especially as distinguished from other words for 'feast', Sai? and 9oivn) seems to have been discussed by Alexandrian scholars, as shown by one of the fragments of Aristophanes of Byzantium: eilanivn (var. lect. eilannv^)- soTi 9uoia Kai napaoKeu^ la^npoTspa Ti? "it is a sacrifice and a rather outstanding festive arrangement"20. In view of other references to Homeric scholarship in Dorieus' poem, it seems to be no coincidence that Dorieus chooses to use the expression sv Aio? eilanivai? in strict accordance with the definition endorsed by Aristophanes (whether it was Aristophanes' own or not): the situation that Dorieus is describing is both a 9uoia (as the athletes were expected to offer a sacrifice to Zeus) and a banquet to celebrate the end of the games.
3 Kxflvoq to rcsXwpiov wq vsov apva. From the stylistic point of view, the two parts of the comparison are in stark contrast. The word kt^vo? (not used in epic) was specifically associated with livestock (see Chantraine, DELG 1966-1980: 590 s.v. Ktao^ai). The adjective that qualifies it, nelropio?, is distinctly associated with epic style, here emphasizing the enormous weight, lifted by Milo. The words ©? vsov apva point not only to a light weight, but also to the gentleness of the animal (there is thus a double opposition to nelropio?).
épargné de sa dépense dans les banquets et les festins. Comme nous l'avons vu à propos du terme dais, il s'agit d'une citation homérique. Le terme eilapinè n'était pas utilisé pour nommer le banquet public à cette époque ».
2 Aristophanes seems to have based his definition of eiXanivn on an examination of Homeric contexts, in particular, of Il. 17, 535 where the sacrifice of bulls and smaller cattle is distinctly mentioned (Poùç iepeûovxeç Kai ôïç Kai niovaç aiyaç). The same definition of eiXanivn is repeated in Athenaeus: xàç Buaiaç Kai xàç Xa^npoxépaç napacKeuàç èkoIouv oi nalaioi eiXanivaç Kai xoùç xoûxœv ^exéxovxaç eiXanivacxaç, "for the ancient poets called sacrifices and outstanding feasts eiXanivai, and their participants eiXarnvacxai" (Athen. 8, 362e; the same definition appears in Eustathius' commentary, in Il. 17, 578 = IV, 95 van der Valk). It has been shown that Aristophanes' discussion of eiXanivn was taken independently by Athenaeus and Eustathius from Seleucus (see Slater 1986: 95, with references to earlier discussions).
But it should also be noted that the expression veov apva suggests that the statue that Dorieus is describing is related to the Kriophoros (Ram-bearer) type, fairly well attested for 7th-6th centuries BCE21. Statues of this kind represent a male figure, holding a ram, either on the shoulders or in the arms. The sculptural type was particularly associated with Hermes the Ram-bearer (Kpio^opo;), although not all such statues may be identified with the god22: to name a few, the bronze image of Kriophoros with a ram on his shoulders from Crete, ca. 620 BCE (Berlin 7477; see Boardman 1978: plate 45); the stone image of Ram-bearer from Thasos holding the ram in his hands as an offering, ca. 580 (see Boardman 1978: plate 69); a plaque from Athens depicting Hermes with a Ram on his shoulders, end of 5th century BCE (Athens, Mus. Nat. 54; see LIMC V(2): 224, Hermes 289); etc. A statue of Hermes Kriophoros with a lamb in his arms by Onatas of Aegina (6th century BCE) in Olympia is described by Pausanias23:
o 5e 'Ep^q; o tov Kpidv ^eprav rad Tfi ^acxalq Kai erciKsi^svo; Tfi Ks^aXfi Kuvqv Kai xiTrava ts Kai x^a^uSa evSsSuKra; ou Trav Oop^iSo; Sti avaBq^aTrav ecTiv, rad 5e ApKaSrav <Trav> eK Osvsou SeSoTai tm OvaTav 5e tov AiyivqTqv, cuv 5e aoTra KaXXiTeXnv epyacacBai Xeysi to erciypa^a, SoKsiv Se ^oi tou OvaTa ^aB^T^; q na; o KaXXiTeXn; ^v, "as for Hermes, the one that is carrying a
21 There are also some images of Hermes carrying a ram on vases: see Siebert (1990: 313-314), images 294-297 in his catalogue: two vases, both dating back to the end of 6th century BCE, depict Hermes with a ram on his shoulders (Paris, Louvre F151; Brussels, Musée Royal A1378).
22 The group of Kriophoroi images were studied by Veyries (1886) tends to identify most archaic Greek ram-bearers with Hermes. It is now recognized that ram-bearer images can be Hermes or a human dedicator: see Siebert (1990: 311) who emphasizes that not all statues of male figures carrying a ram may be identified with Hermes, and that some are kouroi. In his list of statues and images of Hermes Kriophoros (Siebert 1990: 311-314) he takes care to include only images that may be identified as Hermes, principally by wings on the figure's feet (the caduceus in his hand is practically never preserved).
3 A copy of Onatas' Hermes Kriophoros was identified in 1895 by Babelon and Blanchet in a bronze statuette preserved in the Cabinet des Médailles in Paris (no. 313 in their catalogue; I have only been able to consult a later edition of the catalogue, where it carries the same number and identification: Babelon, Blanchet 1924: 212). Dorig (1977: 15-21) has argued this identification extensively.
ram under his arm, and wearing a helmet on his head, and a chiton and chlamys, he is not one of Phormis' offerings, but was presented by the Arcadians of Pheneus. The inscription says that Onatas of Aegina made it, and together with him, Calliteles: it seems to me that Calliteles was either pupil or son of Onatas" (Paus. 5, 27, 8).
Pausanias also mentions a statue of Hermes Kriophoros with a ram on his shoulders by Calamis (5th century BCE) in Tanagra in Boeotia, and even describes an associated apotropaic rite involving an ephebe carrying a lamb on his shoulders around the walls of
Tanagra24:
e? Se tou 'Ep^ou Ta iepa tou Te Kpio^opou Kai ov npo^axov Kalouoi, tou ^ev e? t^v eniKl^oiv leyouoiv ra? o 'Ep^fl? o^ioiv anoTpeyai vooov loi^roSn nepi to Teixo? Kpiov rcepieveyKrov, Kai eni tout® Kala^i? enoinoev ayal^a 'Ep^ou ^epovTa Kpiov eni Trav ra^rav o? S' av eivai Trav e^Prav rcpoKpi9fi to eiSo? KallioTo?, outo? ev tou 'Ep^ou Tfi eoprfi nepieioiv ev kukI® to Teixo? exwv apva eni Trav ra^rav, "the temple dedicated to Hermes the Ram-bearer and the one that they call the Protector. Concerning the former epiclesis they say that Hermes averted a pestilential illness from the city by carrying a ram around its walls; to commemorate this, Calamis created an image of Hermes carrying a ram on his shoulders; and <also in commemoration> during the festival of Hermes, whoever of the ephebes is chosen as the most handsome, goes around the walls, carrying a lamb on his shoulders" (Paus. 9, 22, 1).
But more significantly still, there is the famous Moschophoros (Calf-bearer) statue from the Athenian Acropolis (Acr. 624), dating from ca. 560 BCE: the male figure holds a calf on his shoulders
24 On this statue, see Siebert (1990: 313, no. 293) who surmises that Pausanias' account would suggest that Hermes was presented in motion, as the Kriophoros from the Cahn collection; see also Dorig (1965: 226-229). Pausanias connects the rite to the legend of Hermes protecting the city: it is probable that the rite of carrying a sacrificial animal around a territory to protect it from harm was very ancient one (and that the legend of Hermes the protector was actually invented to explain it): cf. Roman suovetaurilia which, according to Cato the Elder, involved leading a grown animal (suovetaurilia maiora) or carrying a suckling (suovetaurilia lactentia) around the grounds to protect them, sive circumagi sive circumferenda uti censeas (Cato, De agr. 141, 1). I thank V. P. Kazanskiene for suggesting this parallel to me.
(there are bumps on the animal's forehead, indicating the place where his horns will bud, which places its age at under two months). Although the Moschophoros statue is unique (among preserved sculptures), there may have been a variation on the Kriophoros type, involving a calf instead of a ram25, and it is possible that the whole anecdote of Milo's power lifting routine might have been born of a sculpture of a calf-bearer, rightly or wrongly associated with his name26. Returning to Dorieus' poem, it should be noted that, given the elusiveness and subversiveness of the text, we cannot automatically assume that a statue of a man carrying a full-grown bull (KTqvo; to nsXropiov) ever existed. It is much more probable that this is an ekphrasis of an imaginary statue, and that Dorieus is playing with his reader, inviting him to imagine a statue that would transgress in an exaggerated manner the well-known iconographical type of archaic and classical sculpture27.
25 Veyries (1886: 4) considered the Moschophoros statue an image of Hermes; however, there is nothing specifically linking it to the god, and Siebert (1990: 311) states specifically that Moschophoros cannot be considered an image of Hermes.
26 Similarly, it has been reconstructed that Milo's statue in Olympia (presenting the athlete with a pomegranate in his hand and standing on an unusual base) was the source of other anecdotes about Milo's extraordinary capacities. Pausanias tells us that Milo could hold a pomegranate with such force that no one could wrestle it from him, and yet without crushing the fruit; and that he could stand on an oiled disk, and no one could make him lose his balance (Paus. 6, 14, 6-7), and Philostratus in the Life of Apollonius of Tyana (4, 28) says that there was a statue of Milo with these characteristics in Olympia. Scherer suggested that Philostratus was building off Pausanias, whereas Pausanias' account of Milo's prowess was an interpretation of the statue in Olympia: "dubitari autem non potest, quin Pausanias ex habitu statuae, quam Olympiae viderat, narratiunculam illam aut ipse sibi finxit aut ab interprete suo audierit" (Scherer 1885: 24). Scherer's reconstruction is largely accepted (cf. Mordze 1932: 1675; Herrmann 1988: 144 n. 39; Decker 2000: 191). For the reconstruction of the statue (with comparison with preserved sculptures with similarposture), see Ghisellini (1988: 45-49).
27 It is worth noting that there was some variation in the size and age of the animal in Kriophoros statues. Cf. Dong's analysis of the copy of Onatas' Hermes Kriophoros: "The ram is no longer shown as a thin little animal which the god proudly and almost playfully shows off on his raised left arm. The ram here is larger, heavier and rounded out more fully. The animal rests more heavily on the left arm, which is bent almost at a right
4 8i' o^n? коСфа navnyvpswq. Prose renderings of the anecdote about Milo and the bull state clearly that he carried the animal around the stadium: cf. ка! xouxov пер^еука? хо axd5юv... (Athen. 10, 412f, summarizing Theodorus of Hierapolis); т6v xаupov ара^о? ф8ре1 5ia хои аха5юи цеоои (Luc. Char. 8); 51ек6цю8 похе хо axd5юv (Gal. Protr. 13). However, Dorieus' choice of word паv^yupl? might be pointing to the procession through Altis to the Altar of Zeus (cf. Miller 2004: 124-125; see also below, on поцпеию in v.7). The adverb койфа highlights the fact that Milo carried this enormous weight as if it were light. In sculptural terms, it would suggest that the (imaginary) statue described by Dorieus presented the athlete standing tall and square (cf. the posture of Moschophoros and of the Kriophoroi listed above), and possibly even with one leg advanced, suggesting movement: cf. the Cahn Kriophoros is presented in motion (see Siebert 1990: 312 and 313, on no. 279 and no. 293, respectively).
5 ВацРо? ^sv, атар xoCSs rcXsov ^vuos 8аСца. The placement of 9ацРо? and 9аица at the beginning and at the very end of this hexameter appears deliberate. The term 9аица was obviously associated with Herodotus 28 , but also with the tradition of paradoxography. Furthermore, there are traces of a discussion of semantics of 9ацРо? (9ацР8ю) and 9аица (9au^dZo^ai) in the ancient scholia and lexicographers, placing them in the same semantic field, however, 9ацРо? visibly referring to a stronger emotion (closer to awe)29. In one scholium on the Iliad from the Venetus A (remounting to Aristonicus) we find a discussion of the
angle. It snuggles up to Hermes' left flank, 'gentle as a lamb'" (Dôrig 1977: 17).
28 On 0aù^a as part of reception of Herodotus in antiquity, see Priestley (2014: chap. 2; and especially 75-78, about Herodotus' influence on paradoxographical tradition).
9 E.g. Ba^PaXéov- ^opepov, Bao^acxov (Hsch. 0 74); 0â^poç 0aù^a. eKrcXn^iÇ (Hsch. 0 74); cépaç- ti^. 0aù^a. 0â^poç, eKrcXn^Ç ai5œç (Hsch. c 312). The noun 0â^poç was connected with the verb and the isolated participle Ta^œv: cf. Ta^œv 0a^p^caç, éKrcXayeiç, rç 0ao^âcaç. ecu 5emepoç àopicToç èk toù e0anov Kai eTa^ov Kai Ta^œv (schol. in Il. 16, 12); tô èKnX^TTO^ai, à^' oû Kai Tâ^oç. Kai Ta^œv 5'
àvopoucev ÂxiXXeùç, Kai tô, Te0nnoTeç rçme veppoi, àvTi toù éKrcXayévTeç. Kai eiç tô 0â^poç (Etym. Gud. p. 261 de Stephani); Ta^œv. 0a^p^0eiç. èKnXayeiç. rç 0au^âcaç (Zon. Lex. p. 1715).
verb Bau^aZo^ai in Il. 2, 320 as insufficient for the degree of awe that would have been experienced by the spectators at the sight of snake turned to stone (Il. 2, 317-319, cf. below, on v. 8):
^si; S' ¿ctoots; Bau^aZo^ev: oti avTi tou ¿ZsnXnTTO^eBa, oux evioTs TiBnciv avTi yiXofi tou 9sacac9ai, "<it is shown that> Bau^aZo^sv is used for eZsпXnтт6цe9a (we were astounded), and not as sometimes <Homer> places the verb instead of a simple 9sacac9ai (look at)" (schol. A in Il. 2, 320a).
It seems that Dorieus as well acutely aware of the discussion surrounding Ba^Po; and Bati^a in Homer: he places the two words in the same verse, levelling out their semantics (Ba^Po; and touSs nXsov... Bau^a, where Ba^Po; designates Milo's carrying the steer, and Bati^a anticipates that he will also eat the animal). Incidentally, we find reflections of the same discussion in other Hellenistic poets: e.g., when Apollonius Rhodius contaminates and transforms two Homeric formulas Bati^a iSscBai "wonder to see" (Il. 5, 725; 10, 439; 18, 83; 18, 377; Od. 6, 306; 7, 45; 8, 366; 13, 108; etc.) and ^sya 9a%a (Il. 13, 99; 15, 286; 20, 344; 21, 54; Od. 19, 36) into ^sya Ba^Po; iSscBai "a great awe to behold" (Apoll. Rhod. 1, 220), using the expression to characterize Boreads' wings.
6 npoaBsv nsioaiou... BunnoXiou. One of Athenaeus' main manuscripts (Marcianus 447, ms. of late 9th - early 10th century) gives the reading nsicaiou, while the remaining manuscripts give Ocaiou; Olson (2020: 157) prints nsicaiou (probably as the lectio difficilior30 ). The choice of the epithet, while frequently used to simply refer to Olympia (cf. LSJ 1996: 1407, s.v. nica), in this particular case may carry not only topographical, but also chronological associations: Olympic games were initially organized by Elis, however, a century later (in 676 BCE) Pisa took over; this lasted for around a century, until Elis occupied Pisa and took back control over the games. Given Dorieus' accuracy in his choice of words, as seen in other cases, by choosing the epithet nicaio; he may be referring to the antiquity of the Altar of Zeus.
30 The spelling nsica for T (the long vowel in nica is due to digamma, cf. Myc. pi-swa) is frequent in inscriptions of Roman times: e.g. SEG 23:113, 15, and many of the inscriptions cited by Gouw (2009).
The altar itself is designated by a hapax 9unnoliov31: this word occurs only here in Greek literature32, and was probably coined by Dorieus. It was derived from the compound 9unnolo? "(priest) offering / celebrating sacrifices", which is well attested since the classical age (e.g. Aesch. Pers. 202; Eur. I.T. 1359; I.A. 746), as well as its cognates 9uonols®, 9u^nolia). The word is an extraordinarily apt designation for the Altar of Zeus which, as Pausanias tells us, was not a typical altar. It was conical in shape and was made up of ashes of previous sacrificial offerings; according to the figures given by Pausanias, by his time it was around seven
meters high33:
nenoi^Tai Se iepeirav Trav 9uo^evrav tm Aii ano Tfl? Te^pa? Trav ^npwv, Ka9anep ye Kai ev nepya^® [...] tou Pra^ou Se tou ev 'Olu^nia KpnniSo? ^ev Tfl? nproTn?, npo9uoera? Kalou^evn?, noSe? nevTe Kai ei'Kooi Kai eKarov eoTi nepioSo?, tou Se eni Tfl npo9uoei nepi^eTpo? enaKTou noSe? Suo Kai TpiaKovTa^ to Se uyo? tou Pra^ou to ou^rcav e? Suo Kai ei'Kooiv av^Kei noSa?. auTa ^ev S^ Ta iepeia ev ^epei tm Karra, Tfl npo9uoei, Ka9eoTnKev auToi? 9ueiv tou? ^npou? Se ava^epovTe? <e?> tou Pra^ou to uynleoTarov Ka9ayiZouoiv evTau9a, "it has been made from the ash of the thighs of the sacrificial victims sacrificed to Zeus, as is also the altar at Pergamon [...] Of the first level of the altar, called npo9uoi?, the perimeter is 125 feet; and of the level above the npo9uoi?, the perimeter is 32 feet; and the total height of the altar rises to 22 feet. It is customary to sacrifice the victims in the lower part, on the npo9uoi?; but they carry the thighs to the very top of the altar and burn them there" (Paus. 5, 13, 8-10).
Given the singular character of this altar, it is worth noting that Dorieus picked with outmost care (or possibly, even created) a rare word to designate it - 9unnoliov, as both the place of sacrifice, but
31 As noted by Page (1981: 46), Athenaeus' summary of Phylarchus ^aupov кахафауе^ кaxaкA,l9ëvxa про хои Рюцои хои Дю<;) shows beyond any doubt that both he and Phylarchus understood 9unп6Xюv as the altar.
32 See LSJ (1996: s.v. 9unп6^юv). Page (1981: 46) only notes that 9unп6Xюv is not found elsewhere, but does not comment on the reasons for the coinage.
33 See also Miller (2004: 89), who mentions that, while due to its organic nature, the рйцо^ cannot be located, traces of the earlier altar may be preserved.
also the result of sacrificial offerings of olden days (BunnoXiai); as a result, the word expresses succinctly what Pausanias described in a whole phrase, nsnoi^Tai ispsirav t&v Buo^evrav T© Aii and Tq; Ts^pa; t©v ^np®v, and it might also evoke obliquely the unique designation of the first level of the Altar of Zeus as npoBuci;. It is also possible that Dorieus was influenced by Apollonius' descriptions of make-shift altars by the Argonauts on their journey:
Sv9' oiy' 'EKpacira Pra^dv 9ecav AnoXXravi,
sica^svoi napa 9iva, BunnoXin; t' e^eXovTo, "there they built an
altar to Apollo insurer of debarkation, setting it on the shore, and
concerned themselves with sacrifices" (Apoll. Rhod. 1, 966-967).
Pra^dv S' au xepaSo; rcapsv^vsov. a^i Se ^uXXoi;
cTsya^svoi Spuivoici BunnoXin; e^eXovTo,
MnTepa AivSu^inv noXunoTviav ayKaXeovTs;..., "and they piled an altar from pebbles. And, crowning themselves with oak leaves, they busied themselves with sacrifices, calling to the much revered Dindymian Mother." (Apoll. Rhod. 1, 1123-1125)
7 srco^rcsuasv Pofiv a^uyov. Vv. 7-8 are cited by Eustathius (in Od. 206, 38), but his quotation does not differ from Athenaeus' text, and it is fairly certain that his source was Athenaeus himself (see Olson 2022: 293-462 for the large list of citations from Athenaeus in Eustathius). The banquet in honor of the victors was preceded by a procession (no^n^) around the Altis, which involved a hecatomb being led to the altar of Zeus and slaughtered there (cf. description in Miller 2004: 124-125). The verb no^nsura, chosen by Dorieus, would suggest that Milo carried his steer as part of the no^n^, and then sacrificed it with a hecatomb; naturally, only the thighs would be burnt as an offering to Zeus, the rest of the steer would have been roasted.
7-8 si? Kpsa tovSs / Koyag navTa KaT' otiv ^ofivog ¿SaiaaTO viv. The expression si; Kpsa shows beyond doubt that the verb KonTra is used here of cutting34. Normally the cutting up of the
34 Incidentally, Solinus' rendering of the anecdote about the steer with the unparallelled detail that Milo slayed the animal with one stroke of his fist
(etiam hoc proditur quod ictu nudae manus taurum fecit victimam eumque solidum qua mactaverat die absumpsit solus non gravatim, Solin. 76) may reflect Dorieus' text, but with a misunderstanding (Koya; taken in the sense "to strike").
sacrificed bull would be the task of a ^dysipo;35; however, Dorieus omits both the presence of the cook (so that Milo is made to butcher the animal himself), and the cooking of the meat altogether. This simplification of the realia, however, allows Dorieus to create what is one of the most extraordinary tmeses in Greek poetry. Page notes that the tmesis by ouv between the verb is reminiscent of Herodotus36, understanding koto as pertaining to the second verbal form (KaTsSaicaTo). Wackernagel, however, preferred koto to go with Koya;, which even made him suggest an emendation for the transmitted text:
"In all these passages, rav (ouv) immediately precedes the verb; in the epigram of Dorieus, we should certainly read TovSs | navTa KaT'ouv ^ofivo; eSaicaTO viv ('even this [ox] he [Milo of Croton] cut up and ate all on his own') - as at Herodotus 2. 172.3, quoted above - rather than the transmitted TovSs | Koya; navTa kot' ouv ^ofivo; eSaicaTO viv" (Wackernagel 2009: 616 = Wackernagel 1924-1928: II, 174).
I would suggest that both interpretations are right, and that Dorieus is in fact engaging in elaborate play with contemporary Homeric scholarship by placing koto so that it can go both with Koya; (in anastrophe, it would have to be stressed koto37) and with eSaicaTo, creating a (highly artificial!) and koivou construction. We know that Homeric scholars sought stylistic effects in Homer's use of tmesis (their term for the phenomenon is mspPaTov), in particular, (a) in contexts of violent separation (or cutting up), and
35 See Schmitt Pantel (1997: 334-336) on the role of ^dysipo;, and the two ways of preparing the sacrificial meat (by roasting on spits, and by cooking in cauldrons).
36 Page (1981: 46): "the placing of ouv between the pre-verb and the verb is a mannerism of Herodotus"; as a typical trait of Herodotus' style, it is noted by Powell (1960: 388 s.v. rav.IX), Denniston (1954: 429), the LSJ (1996: 1272, s.v. ouv II.2). There is, however, a fair amount of tmeses with ouv in Hellenistic and later poetry (see Harder 2012: II, 518 on Aet. 64, 5). For a study of tmeses with ouv in Herodotus, see Priestley (2009: 120-148; type 1 in her classification of Herodotean tmeses).
3 We find some exceptions to this rule (especially for the preverb Sid): see, e.g., the bT scholium on Il. 15, 522 that notes specifically that there is no change in accent of Sia, despite its placement behind the verb Td^fl: ouk avacTpe^sTai Se ^ Sid, iva ^ cuvs^rcecfl Tfi Aia araanKfl.
(b) in contexts of devouring38. Thus, the scholia note, with regard to the tmesis iva Ta^ Sia naoav "he severs [the bull's] neck completely" (Il. 17, 522): Kai to ^ev eoxi Siaxa^^, xfi Se SiaKonfl xfi? le^sra? ^e^i^nxai to yivo^svov, "the right order is Siaxa^^, but the poet, by cutting up the word, created an imitation of the action" (schol. bT in Il. 17, 522a)39. And only some twenty lines later, with regard to what became one of the stock examples of tmesis in ancient scholarship, xi? ts lerav Kaxa xaupov eSnSro? "as some lion that had devoured a steer" (Il. 15, 542), the scholia explain: ^ SiaKon^ xfi? le^era? xov ei? nolla Sieonao^evov napeoxnoe xaupov, ou xou ^expou anaixouvxo?- napfiv yap ^avai 'xaupov KaxeSnSro?', "the cutting up of the word represents the steer torn apart into many pieces, whereas the meter did not require it: for it was possible to say xaupov KaxeSnSro?" (schol. T in Il. 17, 542). It is significant that the scholiast follows up with parallels from Anacreon involving tmesis of verbs of violent separation (Sia Se Seip^v sko^s ^eonv "he severed the neck right in the middle", Anacr. 441 PMG).
While Homer's expression lerav Kaxa xaupov eSnSro? is a rather evident (though obviously apt) analogy to Milo singlehandedly eating his steer, Dorieus, building on remarks of Homeric scholars, experiments with the limits of tmesis by creating a double tmesis, with two verbs sharing one preverb, that incorporates two types of mimetic tmesis - tmesis of violent division (Koya?... Kaxa), and the tmesis of devouring (Kaxa... eSaioaxo). It is worth noting that the emphatic and rare placement of the monosyllabic pronoun viv at the end of the pentameter (cf. Page 1981: 46) contributes to the effect of the double tmesis, suggesting that the steer was eaten to the very last little piece.
A detailed study of the epigram on Milo and his steer preserved in Athenaeus shows that it was a work of an extremely well-read and intelligent poet. We may never know, whether Dorieus was a glutton or not, but we can tell that he was a person of great learning, and very probably an Alexandrian (or at the very least, someone
38 For an overview of all the contexts in which the scholiasts perceive mimetic purpose in Homer's use of tmesis, see Beck (2023: 82-86).
39 This particular tmesis may have been imitated by Callimachus: xa^oi S'ano ^fiKo? aoiSfl (fr. 57, 1 Pfeiffer = Aet. fr. 54h, 1 Harder).
intimately acquainted with Alexandrian scholarship of his time): incidentally, the parallels and allusions to Hellenistic poetry and scholarship in the poem support the traditional date of Dorieus' life as 3rd century BCE. His choice (or invention) of the word BunnoXiov for the Altar of Zeus (v. 6), and the reference to the nav^yuptç rather than the stadium (v. 4) suggest a first-hand knowledge of Olympia and its ceremonies. At the same time, he acts as a typical Hellenistic poet, playing with his reader. What at first appears to be an account of the olden days (xotoç s^v MiXœv, v.1), turns out to be a description of an imaginary statue of the Moschophoros type: however, instead of a calf, the reader is invited to imagine Milo with a full-grown steer on its shoulders. And in the last pentameter Dorieus engages in a poetic experiment, creating a unique double tmesis coupled with an unusual placement of the monosyllabic pronoun viv at the end of the line, prompting his readers to visualize how the eating of the steer might have looked like.
Bibliography
Antonaccio, C. M. 2014: Sport and Society in the Greek West. In: P. Christensen, D.G. Kyle (eds.) A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Malden MA, Oxford, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 192-208. Austin, C. Bastianini, G. (eds.), 2002: Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia. Milano: LED, Edizioni univesitarie di Lettere, economia, diritto.
Babelon, E. Blanchet, J. A. 1924: Le catalogue des médailles et antiques de la Bibliothèque Nationale : notice historique et guide du visiteur. I. Les antiques et les objets d'art. Paris : Ernest Leroux. Beck, B. 2023: Homer's Verbal Mimesis in the Iliad's Exegetical Scholia.
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63, 78-102. Bing, P. 2009: The Scroll and the Marble: Studies in Reading and Reception in Hellenistic Poetry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Decker, W. 2000: s.v. Milon [2]. Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike.
Bd. 8. Stuttgart; Weimar: J.B. Metzler, Sp. 191-192. DELG — Chantraine, P. 1968-1980: Dictionnaire étymologique de la
langue grecque. Paris: Klincksieck. Denniston, J. D. 1954: The Greek Particles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dickey, E. 1996: Greek Forms of Address from Herodotus to Lucian.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dörig, J. 1965: Kalamisstudien. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts 80, 138-265. Dörig, J. 1977: Onatas of Aegina. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Eckstein, A. M. 2013: Polybius, Phylarchus, and Historiographical Criticism. Classical Philology 108(4), 314-338.
Erbse, H. (ed.) 1969-1977: Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem. Vol. 1-7. Berolini: Walter de Gruyter.
Ghisellini, E. 1988. La statua di Milone di Crotone ad Olimpia. Xenia 16, 43-52.
Gouw, P. 2009: Griekse atleten in de Romeinse Keizertijd (31 v. Chr. - 400 n. Chr.). Amsterdam: Vossiuspers UvA-Amsterdam University Press.
Gow, A.S.F. Page, D.L. (ed.) 1965: The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigram. Vol. I-II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harder, A. (ed., comm.) 2012: Callimachus, Aetia: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Vol. I-II. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Hecker, A. 1852: Commentationes criticae de Anthologia Graeca. Pars I. Lugduni Batavorum : E.J. Brill.
Lloyd-Jones, H. Parsons P. (eds.) 1983: Supplementum Hellenisticum / indices confecit H.-G.-Nesselrath. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter.
LSJ — Liddell H. G. Scott, R. 1996: A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented by H. G. Jones, with the assistance of R. McKenzie and the cooperation of many scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Miller, S. G. 2004: Ancient Greek Athletics. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Mordze, A. 1932: s.v. Milon 2. Paulys Realenzyclopädie der Altertumswissenschaft XV.2, Sp. 1672-1676.
Olson, S. D. (ed.) 2020: Athenaeus Naucratites, Deipnosophistae. Vol. III.A: Libri VIII-XI. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter.
Olson, S. D. (ed.) 2022: Athenaeus Naucratites. Vol. V: Testimonia et indices. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter.
Page, D.L. (ed.) 1975: Epigrammata Graeca. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Page, D.L. (ed., comm.) 1981: Further Greek Epigrams: Epigrams before A.D. 50 from the Greek Anthology and other Sources, not included in 'Hellenistic Epigrams' or 'The Garland of Philip' / revised and prepared for publication by R.D. Dawe, J. Diggle. Cambridge; London; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Powell, E. J. 1960. A Lexicon to Herodotus. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
Priestley, J. 2009: Tmesis in Herodotus. Glotta 85, 118-178.
Priestley, J. 2014: Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture: Literary Studies in the Reception of the Histories. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Reitzenstein, R. 1893: Epigram und Skolion: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der alexandrinischen Dichtung. Giessen: J. Ricker.
Sacks, K. S. 1981: Polybius on the Writing of History. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press.
Scherer, Chr. 1885: De olympionicarum statuis: Dissertatio philologica. Göttingen: Officina academica Dieterichiana.
Schmitt Pantel, P. 1997: La cité au banquet : histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques. Rome: École française de Rome, Palais Farnèse.
Siebert, G. 1990. s.v. Hermes. Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. Bd. V.1. Zürich; München: Artemis Verlag, 285-387.
Slater, W. J. (ed.) 1986: Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Veyries, A. 1886. Figures criophores dans l'art grec, l'art gréco-romain et l'art chrétien. Paris: Ernest Thorin.
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. 1962: Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos. 2 Aufl. Hildesheim: Weidmann.
Wackernagel, J. 1924-1928: Vorlesungen über Syntax, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Bd. I—II. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Wackernagel, J. 2009: Lectures on Syntax, with Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic / ed. with notes and bibliography by D. Langslow. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yanzina, E. V. Korneev, O. V., 2020: [Етефауошбаг, ^xxàcBai, iepàv noieïv: Some features of the attitude of ancient Greeks towards athletic victories and defeats]. Indoevropeiskoe yazykoznanie i klassicheskaya filologiya [Indo-European linguistics and classical philology] 24(2),
Янзина, Э. В. Корнеев, О. В. 2020: Етефауошбаь, ^ттйсбаг, iepàv noieïv: о восприятии древними греками спортивных побед и поражений. Индоевропейское языкознание и классическая филология 24, 913—929.
