Alcaeus and the Iliad Giuseppe Lentini, Sapienza – University of Rome ©2011 We tend to interpret the whole body of archaic Greek poetry by relying on a basic opposition between epic and lyric 1 . There are differences however as to how the relationship and the contrast between these two genres need to be understood. According to B. Snell’s powerful and influential reconstruction, «when the strains of epic subsided, the lyric took its place»: in lyric a totally new spirit becomes apparent; the lyric poets abandon ‘Homeric’ anonymity and emerge as individuals 2 . I will not deal with all the problems posed by this very neat and too simplistic narrative about archaic Greek poetic genres 3 . I will only point out that even the chronological progression implied by Snell’s reading and generally shared by most scholars a few decades ago (first the epic of Homer; then lyric) has become itself very problematic. New interpretive models depict the creation of the Iliad and the Odyssey as a long process of evolution, which, starting at a very early date, may not have reached its ‘definitive period’ until the middle of the sixth century 4 . In this long process, moreover, the Homeric traditions had to coexist along with other (competing) epic traditions, and only towards the end of the archaic age they may have acquired the authority which our Greek sources in the classical period so promptly attribute to Homer 5 . This scenario forces us to see the relationship between Homer and lyric in a different light. First, it has become clear that lyric does not come after epic; rather the two genres seem to have been thriving together during the archaic age 6 . Second, we should not identify archaic epic sic et simpliciter with Homer (or archaic lyric with the lyric poets we know of, for that matter). As a consequence, we must exercise the utmost caution when assuming direct, text-specific, influence of the Iliad or the Odyssey on lyric poetry: similarities may be simply due to the common sharing of traditional material. Recently, the tendency of detecting the Homeric source for specific passages in early Greek poetry, once a respectable strand of research, has been harshly criticized 7 . A more promising alternative to it has been identified by some scholars in a more broadly conceived intertextuality, which, rather than employing a linear model of source vs. imitation, aims at investigating how single words, themes, larger story-patterns 1 Cf. Graziosi-Haubold 2009, p. 96. 2 Cf. Snell 1943, ch. 3 (the quotation is taken from p. 43). 3 For more thorough discussions and critiques of Snell’s and other similar reconstructions cf. Fowler 1987, pp. 4-10 and, more recently, Graziosi-Haubold 2009. 4 Cf. for example the influential evolutionary model by Nagy (Nagy 1996, ch. 2). 5 For this I refer the reader to Burgess 2001, with further bibliography. 6 On epic referring to lyric and the other way round cf. Graziosi-Haubold 2009, with further bibliography. 7 Cf. for example Burgess’ sarcasm against the tacit assumption among scholars «that identifying a Homeric source for a passage [in early Greek poetry] is a basic goal of research. Discovery of such “intertextuality” is made with much satisfaction, even celebration.… variance between a model and the passage alluding to it is not troubling but rather is welcomed, since it 'triggers' our recognition of the allusion with subtlety» (Burgess 2001, p. 117). According to Burgess, this kind of intertextuality can be seen operating in the Hellenistic and Roman eras, but is unlikely to originate in an oral/aural context. 1