Modern and Ancient Mythography and Ecdotics

New Di ec ions in G eco-Roman My hog aphy: Tex s, Con ex s and In e ex s 8 h Cel ic Con e ence in Classics, Uni e si y o Edinbu gh (25-28 June 2014) “Mode n and Ancien My hog aphy and Ecdo ics” Jo di Pàmias (Uni e si a Au ònoma de Ba celona) Ne eida Villag a (Uni e sidade de Lisboa) “The e is no hing smalle han a ull s op o a comma.” (Con e 2013, 9) 0. Ou lining he p oblem Mode n philology has been able o assess he signi icance o punc ua ion—dis inc io be ween pa s o he discou se—wi hin ex ual edi ing. A minimal in e en ion may ha e a c ucial ele anace o he meaning o a ex —and some imes wi h unp edic able consequences. Some cases a e well known, like he doc inal con o e sy o e he addi ion o he wo d ilioque in he Nicene C eed, which emain a p ima y cause o he schism be ween he Eas e n O hodox and Wes e n chu ches. In his pape i is ou goal o eassess he esul s and consequences ha mino in e en ions in o a ex may ha e o he ecep ion o G eek my h, ha is o say o e lec on he ela ionship be ween ecdo ics and my hog aphy. We a e well awa e ha he p oblem we a e dealing wi h, o a colossal magni ude, conce ns he ela ionship be ween ex and in ep e a ion—in o he wo ds i bea s on he s a us and limi s o philology. ! 2 In heo y-o ien ed No h-Ame ican and Anglo-Saxon c i icism he e m philology has become a o eign, e en pic u esque and old- ashioned e m. Al hough he “leas sexy ... o he b anches o lea ning associa ed wi h humanism”, as Edwa d Said would pu i , he Pales inian Ame ican schola con ended ha philology “is he mos undamen al and he mos c ea i e in e p e a i e me hod” and “ he abiding basis o all humanis ic p ac ice”. F om a ‘con inen al’ pe spec i e, on he o he hand, adi ional echniques o econs uc ing a ex wi h au ho ial in en has had a ce ain p eeminence since he ins i u ionalisa ion o philology in 19 h cen u y Ge many. Speaking o ou sel es, as disciples o P o . Cua e o, who pionee ed he s udy and edi ion o G eek my hog ape s in Pos -F anco Spain, we inhe i ed om him a s aigh philological app oach o ancien ex s—in o he wo ds, an in-dep h and humble a en ion o hose documen s ha ha e come down o us om An iqui y. Cua e o uses o quo e a p ecep o his eache Miquel Dolç: i you wish o be well acquain ed wi h an au ho , ansla e him; i you wish o be be e acquain ed wi h him, do a c i ical edi ion o his ex . Th oughou his pape we shall use an e en mo e eccen ic e m, a e m ha is also a om usual in academic English (and “gene ally unknown in he US”)—ecdo ics. In he Spanish usage, by con as , ecdo ics is aken as equi alen o ex ual c i icism. Bu he e ymological connec ion wi h ἐκδίδωμι and ἔκδοσις links i s meaning wi h he no ion o ‘issuing o h’ and ‘b inging o ligh ’ and hence o he concep o es ablishing an ac ual ex o publica ion. Thus, we will use his wo d o e e o hose issues conce ning o mal a ian s, o hog aphy, and, o be mo e exac , o ho ypog aphy and punc ua ion and g aphic p esen a ion o ex s. Fi s o all, i ough o be s essed ou ha ancien and medie al ex s we e sca cely, i a all, comple e wi h ! 3 punc ua ion ma ks. I is he mode n schola who is compelled o ake c ucial decisions and o gi e a de ini e o m o ancien na a i es. As philologis s, we s ongly suppo ge ing back o ex s. Bu as philologis s de o ed o he s udy o G eek my h and my hog aphy, we a e en i led o in es iga e he con ibu ion p o ided by his ex ual app oach owa ds he unde s anding o my hs. A close eading o my hog aphic na a i es equi es a deep knowledge o he li e a y ansmission o a gi en ex in An iqui y, which includes, as Albe Hen ichs pu i , an examina ion o “p oblems o au ho ship, da ing, composi ion o sou ce c i icism ha a e ypically encoun e ed by hose in e es ed in a gi en my hog aphical wo k [...] a majo my hog aphical componen [...] o a pa icula my h”. A philological my hog aphy en isages a commen a y on he ex as aimed a desc ibing he my hical s o y in connec ion o o he e sions and a ian s he eo and, i possible, a iden i ying i s sou ce o i s b anch o adi ion (a «sou ce-c i ical sc u iny» in he wo ds o Albe Hen ichs). Thus he my hical s o y shall be con ex ualized wi hin i s his o ical-li e a y ame. I is he esponsibili y o he philologis o s ay close o he ex in o de no o ea he my h away om i s ex ual ab ic. To do so, he will no yield o wha we migh call he “ emp a ions o in e p e a ion”. I he majo obs acle o my hog aphic esea ch is he my hology i sel , his is because he wen ie h cen u y was able o ecognize, wi hin my h, an au onomous o m o hough (Denk o m), wi h a meaning ha goes beyond he ex ual suppo by which a pa icula my h has su i ed. My h, acco ding o he amous p oposal o Claude Lé i-S auss, is no so much an objec as an ins umen o e lec ion. ! 4 D i en by his no ion, many schola s ha e a emp ed mul i a ious in e p e a ions wi hou aking in o accoun he aw ma e ial: ha is, he ancien ex s hemsel es. By con as , ou my hog aphic commen a y demands o be a philological one. I is he ask o he philologis o desc ibe my hs p io o, o ins ead o , in e p e ing hem. And ye . A emp ing a philological my hog aphy, gi en he plas ic and an alizing na u e o my h, is no such an easy unde aking, as he ollowing examples will show. 1. A go The i s case-s udy add esses he he c ea i e capabili y o my hog aphe s, bo h ancien and mode n, and mo e p ecisely he ac ha punc ua ion and ex ual in e p e a ion may p oduce new my hical a ian s o e en cha ac e s. The ex we a e dealing wi h is Hyginus’ abula 145. I s a s p o iding a genealogical ca alogue o he A gi e amily and a na a i e on Io. We will ocus on he sen ence on Pi an hus’ descendence. See on he handou (ma ked in bold): NIOBE SIVE IO. Ex Pho oneo e Cinna na i Apis e Nioba; hanc Iuppi e mo alem p imam comp essi ; ex ea na us es A gus, qui suo nomine A gos oppidum cognominaui . [2] ex A go e Euadne C iasus Pi an hus Ecbasus na i: ex Pi an ho <e > Calli hoe A gus A es o ides T iopas; hic <...> ex hoc <e > †Eu isabe† An hus Pelasgus Ageno ; ex T iope e O easide Xan hus e Inachus; ex Pelasgo La isa, ex Inacho e A gia Io. [3] hanc Iuppi e dilec am comp essi e in uaccae igu am conue i , ne Iuno eam cognosce e ... HANDOUT [Tex 1] ! 5 The sen ence has been in e p e ed in di e en ways. Indeed, he lack o punc ua ion signs in ancien ex allows i . Mos o he ansla o s assume ha A gos, A es o ides and T iopas a e h ee di e en sons. Bu o he schola s—among hem he mos ecen c i ical edi o o his ex —conside hem o be only wo: A gos A es o ides ( he son o A es o ) and T iopas. This mode n my hog aphic cons uc ion is suppo ed by a a ian o Phe ecydes o A hens, acco ding o which A gos is he son o A es o . Apollodo us co obo a es his genealogical e sion a e Asclepiades—o Phe ecydes i we accep he ex ual emenda ion. And also Apollonius Rhodius uses A es o ides as an epi he o he A gos who buil he ship. HANDOUT [Tex s 2 and 3] The A gos which Hyginus, Pe ecydes and Apollodo us e e o is A gos Panop es, Io’s wa che . All hese au ho s know also ano he A gos in he a gi e genealogy, an eponym he o, son o Zeus and Niobe, and some imes a he , o he imes g and a he o g and-g and a he o A gos Panop es. The A gos builde o he ship o he A gonau s belongs o a di e en adi ion bu sha es he pa e ni y and epi he A es o ides. The e o e, he name A gos and he pa onimic A es o ides migh ha e been equen ly nex o each o he and a some poin o he my hog aphical ein e p e a ion o his genealogy he pa onimic migh ha e los i s meaning and de eloped in o a new cha ac e — ha is o say, i c ea ed a new igu e, in e p e ed as A gos’ b o he . As ega ds T iopas, he e is no mode n ansla ion o commen a y ha assimila es him o A gos. Qui e su p isingly, howe e , he same passage o Phe ecydes which makes A gos he son o A es o ( . 66) also desc ibes him as ioph halmic: ! 6 Ἄργος ὁ Διὸς γαμεῖ Πειθὼ, τὴν Ὠκεανοῦ. τοῦ δὲ γίνεται Κρίασος, τοῦ δὲ Ἐρευθαλίων, ἀφ' οὗ Ἐρευθαλίη πόλις καλεῖται ἐν Ἄργει, καὶ Φόρβας. τοῦ δὲ γίνεται Ἀρέστωρ, τοῦ δὲ Ἄργος, ᾧ Ἥρη ὀφθαλμὸν τίθησιν ἐν τῷ ἰνίῳ καὶ τὸν ὕπνον ἐξαιρεῖται, καὶ ἐφιστᾷ φύλακα αὐτὸν τῇ Ἰοῖ. ἔπειθ' Ἑρμῆς αὐτὸν κτείνει. HANDOUT [Tex 3] In ac , Hesychius de ines he e m τριοπην as τριόφθαλμον as ound on he HANDOUT [Tex 4]. Thus, Τριόπας can be easily in e p e ed as a “ h ee-eyed” cha ac e —and indeed i has long been in e p e ed ha way. This an h oponym is widely a es ed in he Thessalian genealogy and also in Rhodes and Asia Mino . Bu i also appea s a iously connec ed o he A gi e genealogy in o he sou ces besides ou ex . Since Phe ecydes’ agmen depic s A gos as a igu e wi h h ee eyes, we sugges ha he an h oponym T iopas migh ha e been in oduced in his genealogical slo as a consequence o he image o a h ee-eyed A gos. In such a case, we would ha e again a spli ing o A gos and his epi he (T iopas) in o wo di e en cha ac e s. I ou p oposal is co ec , A gos, A es o ides, he son o A es o , and T iopas, he o he h ee eyes, would ha e been one and he same cha ac e which my hog aphe s, in he need o genealogical expansions, would ha e spli in o h ee. Be as i may, he di e en in e p e a ion o hese h ee wo d (A gos, A es o ides, and T iopas), as ound bo h in ancien ex s and in mode n e ellings, accoun o he c ea i e po en ial o my hog aphy. 2. The Lemian women ! 7 The second case s udy add esses a s o y on he Lemnian and och hony as ansmi ed by he scholia o Apollonius. O he my hog aphical sou ces p o ide simila accoun s o his episode. In all o hem he women o Lemnos a e said o ha e neglec ed Aph odi e’s cul , excep o one—a scholium o he Iliad a ibu ed o Asclepiades o T agilos, which says i we e he men who had neglec ed he cul . This i s mis ake ep esen s he ea lies s ep in a chain o e en s ha will e en ually lead o he killing o all he males in he island: Sch. A. R. 1.609–19a <ἔνθ' ἄμυδις>: αἱ Λήμνιαι γυναῖκες ἐπιπολὺ τῶν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης τιμῶν κατολιγωρήσασαι, καθ' ἑαυτῶν τὴν θεὸν ἐκίνησαν. πάσαις γὰρ δυσοσμίαν ἐνέβαλεν, ὡς μηκέτι αὐτὰς τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἀρέσκειν. τῶν δὲ πρὸς Θρᾷκας ἐχόντων πόλεμον καὶ παλλακὰς ἐκεῖθεν αἰχμαλώτους λαμβανόντων καὶ ἀποστραφέντων τὰς γνησίας γαμετὰς κατὰ τὴν τῆς θεοῦ ὀργήν, ἐψηφίσαντο αἱ γυναῖκες νύκτωρ τοὺς ἄνδρας ἀνελεῖν. καὶ οὐ μόνον τοῦτο ἐποίησαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς αἰχμαλώτους ἀνεῖλον, καὶ δεδοικυῖαι, μὴ οἱ παῖδες ἀνδρωθέντες τιμωρίαν πατρῶν ζητήσωσι λαβεῖν, πᾶν ὁμοῦ τὸ ἄρσεν γένος ἀνεῖλον. HANDOUT [Tex 5] As he Lemnian women neglec ed Aph odi es’ honou s e y o en, hey se he goddess agains hemsel es. Thus, she sen hem a pes ilence, so ha hey wouldn’ please hei men. As he men waged wa agains Th acia, hey ook young gi ls as cap i es om he e and ejec ed hei law ul wi es due o he goddess’ w a h. The women o ed by nigh o killing he men. And hey didn’ do jus ha , bu hey also killed he cap i es and, ea ing hei male ! 8 sons would demand jus ice o hei a he s when becoming adul , hey killed he en i e male popula ion. The scholias men ions he δυσοδμία as he punishmen sen o he women o hei misbeha iou owa ds he goddess. Bu , as i his pes ilence wasn’ enough o make he men ejec hei wi es, he goes on o ell ha Aph odi e’s w a h also caused he men’s in ideli y. We don’ know which was he scholias ’s sou ce, bu he clea ly elies on sou ces o he han Apollonius’ poem, as he includes de ails no ound in he A gonau ica. So he is p obably combining mo i es om di e en e sions. On he o he hand, mul iplica ion o mo i es and aul s a e ypical in G eek my hs and we do no need o seek cohe ence ac oss hem. Ne e heless, he ques ion as o who commi ed he i s c ime is no a mino issue in ancien G eece, as shown in He odo us’ p e ace. When inqui ing abou he causes o wa , he his o ian sc u inized he e y i s iolen ac ion which lead o he con lic (δι' ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι). In his ex he e is a ce ain ension wi hin he explana ion as owa ds whom Aph odi e’s w a h was di ec ed. Whe eas he i s sen ence clea ly s a es ha he women we e he i s o commi a aul , he pe iod παλλακὰς ἐκεῖθεν αἰχμαλώτους λαμβανόντων καὶ ἀποστραφέντων τὰς γνησίας γαμετὰς κατὰ τὴν τῆς θεοῦ ὀργήν (“ hey ook young gi ls as cap i es om he e and ejec ed hei law ul wi es due o he goddess’ w a h”), as edi ed by Wendel makes he men’s in ideli y a consequence o he di ine u o , which can be in e p e ed as i Aph odi es’ w a h was di ec ed o he males. Be ha as i may, i is c ucial o no e ha he o e all in e p e a ion o he passage es s on Wendel’s edi ion and his placing o a comma a e he ph ase κατὰ τὴν τῆς θεοῦ ὀργήν. Indeed, acco ding o his ! 9 punc ua ion, he di ine w a h causes he men’s in ideli y, as we jus poin ed ou . The syn agm, howe e , could also be ela ed o he ollowing pe iod. I we swi ch he punc ua ion o he passage and we place he comma be o e ha ph ase, he o e all meaning o he ex would change. In ha case, he women’s decision o kill hei husbands and a he s would ha e been caused by Aph odi e’s w a h. Le ’s d aw a en ion o he ac ha Hyginus’ ex includes bo h op ions (Hyg. Fab. 15): cuius i a ui i ea um Th essas uxo es duxe un e p io es sp eue un . a Lemniades eiusdem Vene is impulsu coniu a ae genus ui o um omne quod ibi e a in e ece un . HANDOUT [Tex 6] Thus, he place o he comma would also aise discussion on u he opics, such as he ole o he gods, in his case Aph odi e, conce ning human expe iences and mo i a ion. Qui e in e es ingly, he ambiguous in e p e a ion in he my hog aphical scholium o Apollonius is also o be ound in Apollonius’ poem i sel , as e en in his ex a ce ain ambigui y hinde s he in e p e a ion o he passage, as he objec o Aph odi e’s w a h and he i s c ime agains he cul i is no made al oge he clea : A.R. 1.609-616: Ἔνθ' ἄμυδις πᾶς δῆμος ὑπερβασίῃσι γυναικῶν / νηλειῶς δέδμητο παροιχομένῳ λυκάβαντι. / δὴ γὰρ κουριδίας μὲν ἀπηνήναντο γυναῖκας / ἀνέρες ἐχθήραντες, ἔχον δ' ἐπὶ ληιάδεσσι / τρηχὺν ἔρον, ἃς αὐτοὶ ἀγίνεον ἀντιπέρηθεν / Θρηικίην δῃοῦντες· ἐπεὶ χόλος αἰνὸς ὄπαζε / Κύπριδος, οὕνεκά μιν γεράων ἐπὶ δηρὸν ἄτισσαν. / ὦ μέλεαι ζήλοιό τ' ἐπισμυγερῶς ! 16 This ex is pa alleled by Asclepiades o T agilos (τέκνα): ἐπὶ σαυτῷ τὴν σελήνην καθαιρεῖς· ᾽Ασκληπιάδης φησὶ τὰς Θετταλὰς ἐκμαθούσας τὰς τῆς σελήνης κινήσεις προαγγέλλειν, ὡς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν μέλλοι κατάγεσθαι, τοῦτο δὲ πράττειν οὐ χωρὶς τῆς αὐτῶν κακώσεως· ἢ γὰρ καταθύειν τῶν τέκνων ἢ τὸν ἕτερον τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀπολλύειν· λέγεται γοῦν ἐπὶ τῶν κακὰ ποριζομένων. Δοῦρις δέ φησιν ἀστρολόγον προαγορεύοντα τὰς τῆς σελήνης ἐκλείψεις οὐκ εὖ ἀπαλλάξαι. (FGH 12F20 = . 20 Villag a = Pa oemiog aphi G aeci, I/p. 83 Leu sch) HANDOUT [Tex 12] ‘You pull down he moon agains you sel ’. Asclepiades says ha Thessalian women lea ned he mo emen s o he moon and announced hem, as i hey we e pulling i down and ha hey did ha no wi hou disg aces upon hemsel es, as hey ei he sac i iced hei child en o hey uined one o hei eyes. In ac his is said abou hose who b ing su e ings upon hemsel es. Dou is says ha an as ologis who p edic ed he moon’s eclipses didn’ a e well. Thus, he adi ion on he Thessalian so ce esses losing hei child en is al eady a es ed in he ou h cen u y BCE, i he Asclepiades men ioned by he Bodleian manusc ip o Zenobius is indeed he au ho o he T agodumena. On he o he hand, i is no ewo hy ha he scholias o Apollonius uses he e m οἰκείων, which is pa alleled by Pla o in se e al passages o he Go gias in he con ex o p o ec ing ! 17 iends and amily om injus ice. And his is jus he opposi e o wha Thessalian women do. Le ’s go back o he passage we a e dealing wi h. The ex is inse ed in he discussion be ween Callicles and Soc a es on wha is p e e able: o su e o o exe cise injus ice, and by which means can we ob ain he powe o no being a ic im o injus ice. In he pa ag aphs immedia ely p eceding ou ex , Soc a es is a guing ha he desi e o su i al should no dic a e he li e o he ac ions o a good man. This is a esponse o Callicles’ no ion on poli ics and he o ic as he mos desi able ac i i y because i p o ides he powe o p o ec onesel as well as ela i es and iends. Behind Soc a es’ c i icism uns he pla onic idea ha he only way o be a good poli ician is ying o help ci izens o be as good as possible, so ha hey become in u n a sou ce o goodness o he communi y. The e o e, i is ou claim ha Pla o is he e making use o he Thessalian wi ches as a pa allel o Soc a es’ speci ic concep ion o powe . These women ha e he g ea powe o pulling down he moon bu hey may also cause dea h o hei ela i es. Thus hei τέχνη is manqué. In he same way, says Soc a es o Callicles, i you hink you can seize he powe wi hou aking in o accoun hose who a e nea es o you and you ail o esemble he demos and o achie e iendship wi h i (513b: τι γνήσιον ἀπεργάζεσθαι εἰς φιλίαν τῷ Ἀθηναίων δήμῳ), you poli ical and he o ical τέχνη will ail, oo. Bo h aspec s belong closely oge he . The condi ion o acqui ing powe in a p ope way is posi ed explici ely a e he allusion o he Thessalian wi ches: εἰ δέ σοι οἴει ὁντινοῦν ἀνθρώπων παραδώσειν τέχνην τινὰ τοιαύτην, ἥτις σε ποιήσει μέγα δύνασθαι ἐν τῇ πόλει τῇδε ! 18 ἀνόμοιον ὄντα τῇ πολιτείᾳ εἴτ' ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον εἴτ' ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, οὐκ ὀρθῶς βουλεύῃ. Each τέχνη has i s limi s and i s equi al: bo h he magic τέχνη and he poli ical τέχνη can show hei ‘da k side’ and a e likely o ail i hose who p ac ice hem do no ake in o accoun he closes ones ( he δῆμος o he poli ician o he φίλτατοι o he Thessalian so ce ess). As a consequence, he pa allels o he Pla onic ex wi h o he my hog aphic pieces in i e us o make a p oposal ega ding ecdo ics. Ou sugges ion is o swi ch he ull s op a e σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις, as we eckon ha his syn agm e e s o he ela i es whom he wi ches lose. Acco ding o ou in e p e a ion, he ansla ion o he whole passage would un as ollows: See i his bene i s you and me, so ha he same hing doesn’ happen o us, my excellen man, as hey say happens o he Thessalian women wi h hei closes ones when hey pull down he moon. We will be seizing his powe in he ci y. Bu i you hink anyone will pass on o you some c a which will make you powe ul in his ci y when you a e unlike his poli ical sys em, be e o wo se han i , hen I hink you a e planning w ongly, Callicles. 4. Conclusions As a conclusion, he deba e so a encou ages e lec ions in he ollowing wo di ec ions. In he i s place, he in ima e bond be ween ecdo ics and my hog aphy has become clea . Bu con a y o ou assump ion a he beginning o his pape , namely ha a philological my hog aphy should desc ibe he my hical na a i e p io o, o ! 19 ins ead o , in e p e ing i , we ha e now eached he opposi e conclusion. Del ing in o he meaning o he Thessalian ick o he Lemnian c ime has u ned ou o be he p e equisi e o esol ing he punc ua ion o he ex o he Go gias and he scholia o Apollonius. In o he wo ds, a me ely ex ual analysis does no p o ide he equi ed ools o es ablish he my hical na a i e and desc ibe i s o m and con en . On he con a y, he in e p e a ion o he my hical and eligious cons i uen s o he s o y appea s o be a p econdi ion o endea o he “sou ce-c i ical sc u iny” a o ed by Albe Hen ichs. Indeed, om he s ic ly poin o iew o ex ual c i icism, a ull s op be o e, o a e , he ph ase σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις, and be o e, o a e , κατὰ τὴν τῆς θεοῦ ὀργήν, a e equipollen a ian s, since we a e no able o make a choice on he basis o an in insic alue o each o hem. I we examine he ex o he manusc ip s as i s ands, he e is no clea e idence as o which punc ua ion would Pla o o he scholias o Apollonius ha e p e e ed. Bu mode n ypog aphic con en ions compel he edi o o make ecdo ic decisions conce ning o ho ypog aphy and punc ua ion. As a mode n my hog aphe , he classical schola has o di e in o ancien my hology and o be able o gi e mode n o m o ancien my hs, which may mean o ec ea e hem —o ou cou o c ea e hem (as he i s example has shown). Thus, in o de o acqui e he ools necessa y o e alua ing and aking an ecdo ic decision, a p elimina y ask has o be accomplished— ha is, an in es iga ion on he my hological, eligious, o philosophical meaning o he na a i e piece wi hin i s con ex . He e is whe e philological my hog aphy opens up o o he , mo e o less ela ed his o ical and an h opological disciplines. To ake up he dis inc ion d awn a he end o ou in oduc ion and o pu i he o he way ound, ! 20 in e p e a ion should p ecede—o un pa allel o—desc ip ion o my h: “One canno s ep ou side he he meneu ic ci cle”. In he second place, he ex o Pla o p omp s ano he e lec ion conce ning he s a us o my hog aphy as a li e a y gen e and as a scien i ic discipline. Using a philosophic ex as a sou ce o econs uc ing my hologic adi ions on magic poses a majo challenge—namely ha ing o ace he limi s and scope o my hog aphy. My hog aphic handbooks ha e long been conside ed as ypically Alexand ian bookish a i ac s and been desc ibed as Hellenis ic and Impe ial collec ions p oduced in a “wo ld o lib a ies, o icial ex s, and ins i u ionalized esea ch”. Bu he epoch-making olume by Robe Fowle (2000) de o ed exclusi ely o he ea ly my hog aphe s has o ced schola s o an iqui y o e hink hei no ions on my hog aphy as a clea -cu li e a y gen e, i s scope and ules, and abo e all i s pe iodiza ion. And ye , no wi hs anding he blu y limi s o my hog aphy as a gen e, we a e en i led o ask whe he he Pla onic allusion o he Thessalian wi ches is o be conside ed a my hog aphic na a i e. The pa allel ex s ha we ha e p o ided while discussing he passage o Go gias can help o elucida e his ques ion. To he ex en ha Asclepiades T agilensis is conside ed a my hog aphe (he akes numbe 12 in Jacoby’s collec ion and Wendel would ank him as no less han he i s my hog aphe ), i is aken o g an ed ha Asclepiades’ . 20 belongs o he my hog aphical gen e. On he o he hand, he analysis o he ocabula y in he o he wo pa allels encou ages us o ake hem as pieces o my hog aphy, as shown by μεμύθευται (in he scholia o Apollonius) and ἱστορία (in Olympiodo us: ἡ δὲ ἱστορία ἐστὶν αὕτη), a wo d ha is widely used o in oduce my hog aphic na a i es bo h in he scholia and in schola ly li e a u e. The ac ha he Pla onic ! 21 allusion is embedded in a philosophic discou se should no p e en us om acknowledging i s simila i ies o hese my hog aphic pa allels, and om assigning i o he same adi ion. Le us no a oid he c ucial issue: he ques ion a s ake is ul ima ely he e y s a us and concep o my h. A clea -cu dis inc ion be ween a my hog aphical na a i e and an allusion embedded in a philosophical ex would assume ha we a e in possession o a subs an i e no ion o he objec my h— ha is, a kind o adi ional s o y de ined by cha ac e is ics peculia o i . The esea ch o some specialis s in G eek my h, howe e , du ing he las decades o he las cen u y, aised he suspicion ha his no ion is un ounded. Acco ding o hese c i ics, he mode n concep o my h has no equi alen in ancien G eece. My h would hus be no hing bu a mode n cons uc ion, p ojec ed on o G eek an iqui y only a e he ac : his kind o adi ional ale seen as an “indigenous” G eek ca ego y has los i s consis ency. Acco ding o ou pe spec i e, my hog aphy should ack my hical na a i es wi hin wha e e ex ual a i ac migh ha e caugh hem in i s ne . Gi en he pe sis ence o my hs in all gen es in An iqui y (wi h he well known and ye con o e sial excep ion o scien i ic ex s), any my hical allusion, e e ence, o ew i ing should be suscep ible o my hog aphic analysis. To pa aph ase Ma cel De ienne’s dic um, my h is a “poisson soluble dans les eaux de la my hog aphie”.