GLI ESAMETRI GETTY E SELINUNTETesto e contesto

Colori compositi

€ 40,00

ISBN 978-88-6274-906-0

Contributi di:

Paola Angeli Bernardini, Claudia

Antonetti, Angela Bellia, Emanuele

M . C i a m p i n i , E t t o r e C i n g a n o ,

Sabina Crippa, Stefania De Vido,

M a r i a G r a z i a F i l e n i , C a t e r i n a

Greco, Clemente Marconi, Nicola

Serafini, Marisa Tortorelli Ghidini,

Olga Tribulato.

ISSN 261

1-4232

Edizioni dell’Orso

Fonti e Studi di Storia Antica

Collana fondata da SILVIO CATALDI

e diretta da

ELISABETTA BIANCO e GIANLUCA CUNIBERTI

In copertina:

Rielaborazione grafica dei frammenti 1-4 (recto) della lamella plumbea contenente gli esametri Getty.

The J. Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection, Malibu, California.

GLI ESAMETRI GETTY E SELINUNTE

Testo e contesto

a cura di

Claudia Antonetti

GLI ESAMETRI GETTY

E SELINUNTE

Testo e contesto

I cosiddetti ‘esametri Getty’ tramandano, incisi su una lamina plumbea di ignota

provenienza e donata al John Paul Getty Museum, un testo composito, databile

fra il V e il IV secolo a. C., di natura magico-catartica, destinato a essere riprodotto

sia oralmente sia per iscritto con inevitabili modifiche di cui sono testimoni gli

esemplari più tardi del genere giunti fino a noi. Dall’anno della sua prima

pubblicazione (2011) a opera di David Jordan e Roy Kotansky, l’interesse per

questo testo enigmatico e per la sua contestualizzazione – generalmente individuata

a Selinunte o nella Sicilia occidentale – si è considerevolmente esteso. Dopo

l’apporto decisivo del volume di studi edito nel 2013 da Christopher Faraone e

Dirk Obbink, quello che qui si pubblica è il lavoro d’insieme più cospicuo: esso

è il frutto di più incontri di studio sul tema e della ricerca interdisciplinare condotta

da studiosi delle Università di Venezia, Urbino, Napoli, New York con il supporto

della Soprintendenza ai Beni Culturali e Ambientali della Regione Sicilia e del

Parco Archeologico di Selinunte.

Collana fondata da

S

ILVIO

C

ATALDI

e diretta da

E

LISABETTA

B

IANCO

e G

IANLUCA

C

UNIBERTI

Silvio Cataldi (Torino) - Victor Alonso Troncoso (La Coruña)

Claudia Antonetti (Venezia) - Elisabetta Bianco (Torino)

Pietro Cobetto Ghiggia (Campobasso) - Gianluca Cuniberti (Torino)

Dominique Lenfant (Strasbourg) - Robert Weldon Wallace (Evanston)

I volumi pubblicati nella Collana sono sottoposti a un processo di peer review che ne attesta la validità scientifica.

Testo e contesto

a cura di

Claudia A

NTONETTI

dell’Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia.

© 2018

Copyright by Edizioni dell’Orso S.r.l. 15121 Alessandria, via Rattazzi 47 Tel. 0131 - 25.23.49 - Fax 0131 - 25.75.67 E-mail: info@ediorso.it

http://www.ediorso.it

È vietata la riproduzione, anche parziale, non autorizzata, con qualsiasi mezzo effettuata, compresa la fotocopia, anche a uso interno e didattico. L’illecito sarà penalmente persegui-bile a norma dell’art. 171 della Legge n. 633 del 22.IV.1941

ISSN 2611-4232

Claudia A

NTONETTI

Presentazione

IX

I

Gli esametri Getty: il testo e la sua interpretazione

1. Lingua e scrittura

Olga T

RIBULATO

Writing and Language in the Getty Hexameters

5

2. Stile, dizione, tradizione letteraria

Ettore C

INGANO

A fresh look at the Getty hexameters: style, diction, tradition and context

(Part one)

23

3. Oralità e scrittura

Nicola S

ERAFINI

Epea hiera: gli esametri Getty fra oralità e scrittura

55

4. Contiguità fra testi rituali

Sabina C

RIPPA

Testi rituali del Mediterraneo antico.

Note storico-metodologiche su contiguità e differenze

65

5. Modelli egizi

Emanuele M. C

IAMPINI

Egyptian patterns in the Getty Hexameters’ Historiola

77

6. La componente misterica

Marisa T

ORTORELLI

G

HIDINI

7. La cultualità e il contesto storico selinuntino

Claudia A

NTONETTI

Gli esametri Getty e Selinunte: contesto storico e intertestualità cultuale

109

II

Selinunte: il contesto storico archeologico letterario

8. Il mito di Eracle

Paola A

NGELI

B

ERNARDINI

Il mito di Eracle nella cultura selinuntina: un eroe per tutte le stagioni 135

9. La dea Ecate

Nicola S

ERAFINI

La dea Ecate a Selinunte: una messaggera della Malophoros

149

10. Il Tempio R e la sua dea

Clemente M

ARCONI

La dea del Tempio R

179

11. Novità dalla Malophoros

Caterina G

RECO

Nuove ricerche archeologiche nei santuari

di Demetra Malophoros e Zeus Meilichios a Selinunte

203

12. Musica, mito, performance

Angela B

ELLIA

La musica a Selinunte tra mito e performance: considerazioni

sulla scena musicale nella ‘piccola metopa’ della Triade Delia

231

13. La distruzione di Selinunte

Maria Grazia F

ILENI

La distruzione di Selinunte in Diodoro Siculo: tra ideologia e storia

253

14. Selinunte greca dopo il 409 a.C.

Stefania D

E

V

IDO

Selinunte greca dopo il 409 a.C.

Abbreviazioni e bibliografia generale

301

Il volume che ho il piacere di presentare alla comunità scientifica è il frutto di

un lungo lavoro di ricerca interdisciplinare condotto da studiosi delle Università

di Venezia, Urbino, Napoli e New York con il supporto della Soprintendenza ai

Beni Culturali e Ambientali della Regione Siciliana, del suo Centro Regionale per

l’Inventario, la Catalogazione e la Documentazione, e del Parco Archeologico di

Selinunte. Si tratta del lavoro d’insieme più cospicuo sui cosiddetti ‘esametri

Getty’ apparso dalla pubblicazione degli stessi a opera di D. Jordan e R. Kotansky

nel 2011 e dopo l’importante volume collettivo edito da C. Faraone e D. Obbink

nel 2013. Alcuni seminari di studio hanno scandito il lavoro in itinere: il

conve-gno “Selinunte nell’antichità: prospettive e ricerche” tenutosi all’Università di

Urbino il 17 e 18 ottobre 2012 e organizzato dal compianto Mario Luni e da Paola

Angeli Bernardini e il “Forum veneziano sugli esametri Getty da Selinunte” che

ho organizzato all’Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia il 19 e 20 novembre 2015.

Gli ‘esametri Getty’ tramandano, incisi su una lamina plumbea opistografa di

ignota provenienza e donata nel 1981 al John Paul Getty Museum, un testo di

natura magico-catartica composito e piuttosto oscuro, databile fra il V e il IV

se-colo a.C., destinato a essere riprodotto sia oralmente sia per iscritto con inevitabili

modifiche di cui sono testimoni gli esemplari più tardi del genere giunti fino a

noi. Il testo si definisce in incipit un’epode, cioè un poema incantatorio, e poiché

la diffusione antica e profonda di tali rituali è accertata in età tardo-arcaica e

clas-sica a Selinunte e a Imera, era legittimo il tentativo di valutarne l’‘efficacia’

all’interno di contesti storicamente determinati e conosciuti della Sicilia

occiden-tale. Il contesto esemplare su cui meglio poteva focalizzarsi la ricerca ci è

sem-brato quello di Selinunte, in quanto comunità che, pur avendo subito i traumi

della distruzione bellica operata dai Cartaginesi – non diversamente dalle

maggio-ri poleis della Sicilia centro-occidentale a partire dal 409 a.C. –, ha anche spemaggio-ri-

speri-mentato con successo le nuove esperienze di convivenza realizzatesi nel IV secolo

fra diverse popolazioni elleniche, anelleniche e soprattutto puniche.

In tale prospettiva si è organizzata la nostra ricerca: la prima parte del

volu-me raccoglie sistematicavolu-mente i contributi dedicati al testo nei suoi aspetti

epi-grafici, linguistici, stilistici, letterari, funzionali, cultuali e religiosi; la seconda

approfondisce il contesto paradigmatico scelto, quello di Selinunte, nella sua

storia archeologica, letteraria, religiosa e socio-culturale, in un’ottica di

transi-zione e trasformatransi-zione dalla Sicilia classica a quella greco-punica.

Mi sia concesso ringraziare in primis quanti hanno partecipato alla ricerca

realizzando in tal modo uno dei desiderata scientifici che da lungo tempo mi

stavano a cuore e poi quanti hanno contribuito alla pubblicazione dei risultati:

Nicola Serafini per una prima raccolta dei contributi, l’amico Pietro Cobetto

Ghiggia e il suo staff per l’ottima veste donata al volume e l’acribia esercitata

nel lavoro editoriale, il collega Ettore Cingano per aver generosamente

co-finanziato l’opera.

Claudia Antonetti

Venezia, 20 dicembre 2018

Writing and Language in the Getty Hexameters

1. Introduction

The few years since the publication of the Getty lamella in 2011 have

wit-nessed the appearance of many interpretations of the origin of the Getty

Hex-ameters (henceforth abbreviated as GH), their relation to similar ancient texts,

and the ‘archetype’ from which all these texts are supposed to descend. The

present contribution reviews these recent analyses in order to critically

recon-sider the assumptions concerning language, origin and contexts of the GH

which – in the wake of the enthusiasm which the discovery of this remarkable

text aroused in the scholarly world – have acquired the status of factual truths.

As this paper argues, neither the script nor the graphic peculiarities of the

lamella specifically point in the direction of Selinous, whose identification as

the place of origin has become a sort of dogma by now. The literary language

employed in the GH – epic Ionic with sporadic phonetic and morphological

Doric features – does not yield any clues that the text was composed in

Seli-nous rather than in any another city of the colonial West. The shape of some

letters, a few graphic mistakes and the Ionic-Doric mixture of the language may

instead support the hypothesis that the antigraph of the GH was produced

somewhere else in the colonial world.

2. The text: editions, content, context, and parallels

The GH are incised in three columns on an opisthographic lead lamella

be-queathed in 1981 to the John Paul Getty Museum by the American collector

Max Gerchik (Inv. 81. AI.140.2). The lamella was part of a lot which included

four other lead tablets identified as Selinuntine

1

_{. Although the text has}

circu-1 _{The most important of these other tablets contains the so-called lex sacra from Selinous} (JAMESON-JORDAN-KOTANSKY 1993=SEG XLIII, 630), which was given back to the Italian State in 1992. The other three contain defixiones, published by KOTANSKY-CURBERA 2004. These five tablets are just one example among many others of Italian archaeological material which has ended up at the P. Getty Museum through donations from private collections which took

advan-lated in the Anglo-American scholarly community since the 1980s, the editio

princeps saw the light only in 2011 (J

ORDAN

-K

OTANSKY

2011)

2

. Some

por-tions of the GH find parallels – more or less faithful and articulated – in other

texts from all over the Greek-speaking world and dated to between the 5th

century BC and the 4th century AD (see infra, 8-9).

Immediately after the publication of the editio princeps several contributions

have proposed corrections or improvements to the text read by Jordan and

Ko-tansky. These are acknowledged in the text provided by F

ARAONE

-O

BBINK

2013 b and the new critical edition by J

ANKO

2015. The text in F

ARAONE

-O

BBINK

2013 b, 10-13, however is marred by inconsistencies: it does not have

a critical apparatus and prints forms without signalling that they are corrections

and not original readings of the lamella. The edition provided by J

ANKO

2015

was produced with the aim of overcoming the flaws in the texts published by

J

ORDAN

-K

OTANSKY

2011 and F

ARAONE

-O

BBINK

2013 b, particularly as

con-cerns the accurate attribution of corrections and alternative readings to the

scholars who had made them over the years. Consistently with the hypothesis

first advanced in J

ANKO

2013, this new critical edition prints readings which

are not attested by the lamella but derive from the other parallel texts, and this

without them being – in my opinion – preferable to those testified to by the

Getty lamella

3

_{. For these reasons, the edition in J}

_ANKO

_{2015 should be}

ap-proached with that by J

ORDAN

-K

OTANSKY

2011 at hand. The reference text

used in this paper remains the editio princeps, but alternative readings from

J

ANKO

2015 will also be discussed.

The GH contain what J

ORDAN

-K

OTANSKY

2011 (followed by O

BBINK

2013) have interpreted as a rite of initiation and other scholars as an amulet or

anthology of magical spells (F

ARAONE

2013 b), an Orphic or Apolline hymn

(E

DMONDS

2013; R

UTHERFORD

2013), or a paean with imbedded a more

an-cient incantation against witchcraft (J

ANKO

2013; J

ANKO

2015). It is beyond

the scope of this paper, and indeed beyond the expertise of its author, to address

the thorny interpretative issues of the text: we will here examine its content

only as a guide to the analysis of its language and epigraphy.

The parts of the GH that are considered to be ‘traditional’, because they are

paralleled by other texts, contain:

- the so-called ‘historiola’ about a pais who leads a goat out of Persephone’s

garden, in a context which also mentions Hecate Einodia (col. I, 8-21);

tage of antiquities looting in Italy and illicit international trade. It is regrettable that the recent volume edited by FARAONE-OBBINK 2013 under the auspices of the P. Getty Museum does not even mention this macroscopic issue.

2 _{References to the preliminary work done on the GH can be found in J}

ANKO 2013 and JANKO 2015.

3 _{See e.g. the correction of skiarîn in col. I, 8 into skierîn: for the former, transmitted by} the GH, see infra, 15.

- the Ephesia grammata (col. II, l. 14)

4

_;

- another reference to the goat, together with the first appearance of Tetragos (a

fig-ure known from other Greek magical texts but whose function in the GH is not

clear), a wind-swept coast, Tetragos again, and Damnameneus (col. II, 15-23);

- the eight broken verses of col. III, which mention Heracles the son of Zeus,

Phoebus, the Hydra, Persephone, Tetragos, and the wind-swept coast. An

in-vocation to Paean follows: there are four, slightly different, such inin-vocations

in the GH (signalled in italics in the editio princeps), which may have the

function of a refrain separating the various parts of the text. The last verse of

col. III, which need not be the end of the text, states that nobody can harm

Paean (or the person who owns the amulet?).

The lines which, as far as we know, are completely original in the GH are col. I,

1-7 and col. II, 1-13. These two parts share the invocation to Paean (col. I, 6 ≅ col.

II, 4), the first divine being mentioned in the text, and perhaps the central one

among the many which it evokes. Col. I, 1-5 opens with an admonition and

what appear to be the lamella’s ‘user’s instructions’: these lines lay emphasis

on the double function of the GH as both a written and oral text

5

_.

In col. II there are notable references to war, peace and ships (v. 7), flocks

(v. 9), and a city (v. 12). Some of the contributions in F

ARAONE

-O

BBINK

2013 a

hint at the possibility that this part of the incantation refers to a period of crisis

experienced by a city: perhaps Selinous just before its destruction by Hannibal

in 409 BC

6

_{. Line 12, which seems to instruct the reader on the words to be}

pro-nounced at day and night, has been interpreted as a hint to a ritual aimed at

di-verting danger from a city

7

_.

As can be gauged from this brief overview, the GH have a complex

struc-ture, the likely result of a multiple transmission process. A comparison with the

parallel texts is a necessary starting point for investigating both the evolution of

the part which, clustering around the Ephesia grammata, would appear to be a

popular magical text, and the questions of what poetic language may have

char-acterized the ‘archetype’ and how this may have been handled epigraphically in

the individual testimonia.

4 _{In col. II, 14-23 the reference is to lines rather than verses since the layout of the text does} not follow the hexametric structure: the nine lines of this part correspond to seven hexameters. The GH are among the oldest witnesses of this popular magical spell.

5 _F

ARAONE 2013 a, 67, speaks of a ‘mixture or tension between the spoken and written word’. 6 _J

ANKO 2013, 37. For the ominous terminus ante quem of 409 BC, see FARAONE-OBBINK 2013 b, 5, who follow BREMMER 2013, 28. Selinous is suggested as the finding spot in all the other contributions on this text, beginning from the cautious endorsement of JORDAN-KOTANSKY 2011, 55, and ending with the speculations that the lamina must be connected with the rites per-formed at the Selinous sanctuaries of Demeter Malophoros and Hecate in JANKO 2013, 32; JOHNSTON 2013, 138, 150-151; JANKO 2015, 1.

7 _F

There are eight such parallel texts. Some have been known for some time,

others were published just before the GH, and one is still formally

unpub-lished

8

. The most relevant for investigating the origin of the Getty lamella are

the five texts which, together with the GH, are dated to between the 5th and the

4th centuries BC. The abbreviations with which reference shall be made to

these texts in the remainder of this paper are provided in italics within brackets.

The order in which the texts are described is roughly chronological: the date of

texts 1-3 and their chronological relationship with the GH is disputed.

1 (‘Himera’)

Fragmentary opisthographic lamella from Himera, excavated during the 1971

campaign (M

ANNI

P

IRAINO

1976). Early 5th century (M

ANNI

P

IRAINO

1976) or

perhaps second half of the century according to the edition of J

ORDAN

2000 b.

Written in an archaic script, without eta and omega; frequent mistakes; lines

volun-tarily disarranged. Dialect mostly Doric. Mention of: Ephesia grammata, milking,

Persephone’s garden, Tetragos, the wind-swept coast, an olbios.

2 and 3 (‘Selinous’)

Two fragmentary opisthographic lamellae from an anonymous private

col-lection, reported to have been found in Selinous (R

OCCA

2009, 23-43). Mid-5th

century. Script without eta and omega. The language shows some epic features

(e.g. ke) together with Doric phonetic traits. Mention of: shadows (=GH, col. I,

8), milking, someone who leads the goat, Tetragos, Ephesia grammata.

4 (‘Locri’)

Lamella from Locri Epizephyrii, dated to the first half of the 4th century

(C

OSTABILE

1999; J

ORDAN

2000 a, 96-101, with a much improved text).

Eleven lines of text. Script without omega; one case of eta for /e:/ (¢kt») and

one of epsilon (dal›saito); otherwise eta is used for /h/. Dialect generally

Doric, but two Ionic words (so…, ¢kt»). Mention of Ephesia grammata,

Tetragos, the coast, the olbios, Damnameneus.

5 (‘Phalasarna’)

Lamella from Phalasarna, dated to 300 BC (Z

IEBARTH

1899) or the late 4th

century (IC II, XIX, 7); improved edition in J

ORDAN

1992 (cfr. B

RIXHE

-8 _{More detailed descriptions of the dossier, including the later texts not tackled in this paper,} are available in BETTARINI 2012, BERNABÉ 2013 and JANKO 2015, 3.

P

ANAYOTOU

1995). The longest text after the GH: twenty-one lines, of which

the first nine and the last five have a different text from the GH. Lines 10-17

contain the traditional text with Ephesia grammata, the goat and Persephone’s

garden, Tetragos, the olbios, and Damnameneus. Script with eta and omega and

no sign for aspiration. Ionic dialect with occasional Doric features.

There is no consensus on the relative chronology of the GH, Himera and

Selinous. Palaeographically, the GH seem to be the most recent text of the

three, given that both Himera and Selinous employ archaic scripts. As concerns

language, all the six oldest texts of the dossier alternate between Ionic and

Doric: Locri contains the most Dorisms, while Phalasarna is the most Ionic of

the whole lot.

3. Provenance and dating

Selinous is identified as the GH’s place of provenance on two grounds: the

fact that the other tablets in the Gerchik bequest are (probably) from Selinous,

and the fact that the script employs the ‘half eta’ sign, which as used in Magna

Graecia and sporadically also in Sicily from the end of the 5th century BC

on-wards

9

_{. Concerning this last piece of evidence, J}

_ORDAN

_-K

_OTANSKY

_{2011 take}

into account the possibility that the lamella could have been produced in

an-other Sicilian city (Himera?), but then inconsequentially conclude that the use

of half eta ‘in itself, however, does not imply that the script of the Getty tablet

is not Selinuntine, for Selinus has yielded no inscriptions at all from the period

to which we assign the tablet. (K.: there is accordingly no reason to reject the

possibility of her use of ¨ in these early years)’

10

_{. J}

_ANKO

_{2013 thinks that the}

GH come from Selinous and that they were copied from an older text, itself

probably from Selinous.

The next two sections of this paper focus on the epigraphic aspect of the GH in

order to show that neither epigraphy as a whole nor the graphic errors contained in

the text are compatible with a Selinuntine provenance and with the idea that their

antigraph must have been produced at Selinous. Section 5 will then argue that the

linguistic data too do not particularly point in the direction of Selinous.

The question of the provenance and language of the GH also affects the

problem of their dating. Based on the letter forms, which look more recent than

those of the Hipponion lamella, J

ORDAN

-K

OTANSKY

2011, 55, suggest the

be-ginning of the 4th century BC. But the hypothesis of a Selinuntine origin,

de-9 _{The contemporary Sicilian texts, quoted by J}

ORDAN-KOTANSKY 2011, 55, are a tetradrachm from Himera (KRAAY-HIRMER 1976, nr. 71, pl. 22, 410 BC), a lamella from Gela (IGDS I, 177, 450-400 BC) and another one from Palma di Montechiaro/Gela (IGDS II, 78, 4th century).

10_J

fended by most scholars, has forced them to reckon with a strict terminus ante

quem: 409 BC, the year of Selinous’ destruction. As already mentioned (supra,

7), there have been attempts to interpret some lines of the GH in the light of

these events. In principle, though, the Selinuntine provenance and a dating to

after 409 BC are not incompatible: the site of Selinous was definitely not

aban-doned after 409 BC, even though the city had been mostly razed to the

ground

11

_{. Diodorus (13, 75, 2-6) mentions that in 408 BC Hermocrates used}

Selinous as a base for his return to Syracuse, a plan which was later aborted.

The terms of the peace treaty between Dionysius I and Himilcar of 405 BC

in-cluded the return to Selinous of its former inhabitants (Diod. 13, 114, 1) and

military actions in Selinous’ chora throughout the 4th century are repeatedly

mentioned by Diodorus. On balance, the beginning of the 4th century seems a

more likely dating to me. This may still be compatible with Selinous, although

epigraphy does not suggest that the text was produced there (see infra, 11-16).

4. Writing and epigraphy in the GH

Among the seven older texts of the dossier (supra, 8-9), the GH are unique

for their innovative script. It employs eta and omega, while all the other texts

(with the exception of Phalasarna, which however dates to the end of the 4th

century) employ archaic varieties with epsilon and omicron to note /e:/ and /o:/.

Only Locri sporadically records initial aspirations with eta, but the GH are

unique in their use of the half-eta sign (¨), which is more common in the 4th

century than in the 5th

12

_.

The GH therefore are the most accurate text as concerns the phonetic

nota-tion of Greek. Such precision is reflected in the mise en page. By contrast to the

Selinous fragments, which are hurriedly incised, Himera, which is full of

mis-takes and purposely convoluted lines, and Locri, which again features several

mistakes, the layout of the GH is neat and the letters are carefully incised. It

may be no coincidence that the incipit opens with a reference to the ‘notable

signs’ (¢r…shma gr£mmata) incised (kekolammšna) on the metallic lamella

(kassitšrwi). Together with gr£mmata, the very rare adjective ¢r…shma

seems to draw attention to the graphic side of the GH, to their value and

read-ability: the text is incised remarkably well given the metallic support

13

.

11 _{See too De Vido, infra, 283 ff.}

12 _{In post-5th century Sicily the half eta is employed in a contract recorded on a lead tablet} from the area of Syracuse, dated between the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 3rd century BC (IGDS II, 42). In Magna Graecia, it features in 4th-3rd century documents from Locri, Rhe-gium, Heraclaea, Croton, Metapontum and Tarentum.

Since knowledge of Selinous’ epigraphy towards the end of the 5th century

is patchy, it is not possible to discard the possibility that a text employing eta,

omega and half eta may have been engraved at Selinous. Yet, as already

dis-cussed, these signs do not particularly suggest Selinous, being more compatible

with other areas of the Western colonial world, for instance Himera (where ¨ is

attested, differently from Selinous). This does not mean that the GH were

pro-duced in Himera, but only that we have better epigraphic parallels from other

Sicilian cities than from Selinous.

4.1 The notation of aspirations

Further evidence comes from the use of half eta in context. Even when it is

employed erroneously, this sign features in all the three columns of the GH,

both in ‘traditional’ parts and in unparalleled ones: seven times in col. I, six in

col. II, and two in col. III

14

_{. Of these fifteen ¨, three are non-etymological:}

- ¨špe(a) in col. I, 7 (‘original’ part);

- ¨ophdÒn in col. I, 10 (‘traditional’ part);

- ¨alšxima in col. II, 4 (‘traditional’ part).

In four other cases, the writer omitted ¨ in words which have etymological

/h/ (below the omission is noted with the smooth breathing):

- Ôsa (col. I, 5: ‘original’ part);

- œpetai (col. I, 12) and 'Ek£tei (col. I, 13: both in ‘traditional’ part);

- ™k£toio (col. III, 5: ‘traditional’ part)

15

_.

The distribution of correct and incorrect usages, and omissions, does not

de-pend on the part of the text in which they occur. Nor is it possible to apply a

phonological criterion to explain the mistakes. True, the omissions in three

cases concern words beginning with /e/, but incorrect usages occur before three

different vowels. All the instances of non-etymological use are preceded by a

word ending in /s/: however, this is most probably due to chance, given that in

Greek there are no examples of non-etymological initial aspiration introduced

because of a preceding /s/

16

_.

If the GH were an entirely original text, omissions or mistakes in the use of

the aspirate would first require a phonological explanation, because they would

betray the writer’s tendency to omit /h/ in his pronunciation, and only

secon-14 _{In the editio princeps there are five occurrences of ¨: see however J}

ANKO 2015, 6, who cor-rectly restores the sign in Ød£twn of col. II, 18, whereas JORDAN-KOTANSKY 2011, 59, errone-ously print { in its place.

15 _{Before 'Ek£tei {¨} must be restored: thus correctly JANKO 2015, 4.}

16 _{Cases of final /s/ lenition before a word beginning with a vowel are attested in Greek, but} writing does not give any clue as to the transformation of the /s/ into the initial aspiration of the following words: see LEJEUNE 1972, 271. Cases of aspiration of intervocalic /s/ (e.g. in Laconian forms such as nik£haj < nik£saj) are signalled by the graphic omission of sigma, something which does not happen in the GH.

darily a graphic explanation (pronunciation causes uncertainty as to where the

aspiration should be noted in writing)

17

_{. However, the GH certainly have}

an-other text behind and this complicates the matter: one must reckon both with

the writer’s pronunciation of the phoneme /h/ and the graphic system(s)

em-ployed by the antigraph and the copy. Moreover, since the Getty lamella was

produced in a period of transition in the history of the Greek alphabet, we may

be dealing here with two graphic systems, which treat the notation of initial

as-piration in different ways: one without noting it, the other by writing it.

The most economic solution would be to think that the writer copied from

an antigraph which did not have a sign for aspiration: when he had to introduce

the aspiration into the new copy, he made some mistakes. In my view, however,

this hypothesis clashes with iag…hn of col. I, 10 in which the erroneous iota is

best explained by assuming that it arose from a bad interpretation of a sign

al-ready featuring in the antigraph, namely ¨ (< hag…hn)

18

_.

At least three mistakes in the rendering of aspirations in the GH may have

been induced by the fact that the words containing them were rare terms:

ÑphdÒj and ›katoj are poetic, while ¢lšximoj is a hapax

19

. The omission in

`Ek£th may also be due to uncertainty as to its etymology

20

. If, as argued here,

the engraver of the GH was copying from an antigraph already provided with

aspirations, it follows that at least some, if not all, of these mistakes were

al-ready present in the antigraph, perhaps as a result of uncertainty as to the use of

the new ¨ sign, which did not feature in the archetype. This would suggest,

therefore, that the antigraph of the GH was an intermediate text and not the

ar-chetype itself.

The non-etymological ¨ in œpea of col. I, 7 requires a different explanation.

œpoj is a relatively common word in Greek, and it is therefore improbable that

incorrect aspiration depends on the writer’s uncertainty over its pronunciation.

It is more likely that ¨ was inserted because the writer misunderstood what he

read in the antigraph, namely digamma

21

_{. Given that in the GH there are no}

other cases of hypercorrect ¨ in words which had initial /w/ and which could

17 _{In texts from Sicily and Magna Graecia which use ¨, especially Hellenistic ones, there are} sev-eral omissions of the sign (e.g. in the Locri tablets), which suggest that /h/ had a feeble articulation.

18 _{Other arguments against the hypothesis of a psilotic ‘archetype’ are advanced by B} ETTARINI 2012, 126-127.

19 _J

ANKO 2015, 4, comments ‘sed verbum erat olim ÐphdÒj, cfr. CHANTRAINE, 1968, s.v.’. Against this etymology, see BEEKES 2010 s.v.

20 _{The origin of Hecate’s name is debated. It could be an Anatolian name, adapted into} Greek and secondarily connected to words derived from ˜k£j ‘far’ (< *swe-?) or ˜kèn ‘delib-erately’ (< *weḱ- ‘want’).

21 _{In inscriptions from Selinous digamma is lost after the 6th century, though it is still attested} in the lex sacra, probably out of conservatism. See BETTARINI 2005, 63-64.

have been written with digamma, the conclusion is that the antigraph probably

employed digamma only in #špea

22

_.

The motivation behind this unique case of written digamma has to do with

both linguistics and literary history. If the hexameter in col. I, 7 is to be read

kaˆ t£d' ™fènhsaj œpe' ¢q£nata qnhto‹sin, as in the editio princeps,

ob-served digamma in œpe' is necessary to lengthen the last syllable of the second

person aorist ™fènhsaj. If, on the other hand, the hexameter is best interpreted

as kaˆ t£de fwn»saj œpe' ¢q£nata qnhto‹sin, observed digamma is not

necessary, since the last syllable of the participle fwn»saj is long. Be that as it

may, the writing down of digamma must owe to the model of epic lines in

which observed digamma was necessary to lengthen the preceding syllable, e.g.

in the formulaic hexameter Ój min ¢me…bomenoj œpea pterÒenta proshÚda

œpea occupies the same portion of the line: it is well-known that in Homeric

diction /w/ tends to persist in conservative parts

23

_{. This kind of imitation may}

depend on local recitations of the epic poems. Unlike in the Homeric

Kunstsprache, based on East Ionic and East Aeolic, in most Greek varieties

ini-tial /w/ was still pronounced at the beginning of the 5th century and it may have

been written down in local copies of the poems

24

_.

If the above hypothesis is correct, the person who incised the GH was

copying from a text written in a script which still employed #. From this, and

from what was noted above, three conclusions follow:

(1) As many scholars have already suspected, neither the Getty lamella as a

whole nor its ‘original’ parts (col. I, 7 is an original part) can be the first

speci-men of the hexameters

25

_{. This provides further evidence against the hypothesis}

that some parts of the Getty lamella may have been composed specifically at

Selinous just before its destruction.

(2) The person who incised the Getty lamella was not acquainted with the

letter digamma: had he been, he would have copied it out correctly. This may

be evidence in favour of a later dating of the Getty lamella, produced when the

local scripts – those from Doric Sicily included – had ceased to use digamma.

(3) The antigraph cannot have employed an East Ionic script: in this variety

digamma, together with the phoneme it represents, disappeared early on. The

‘archetype’, whatever its original form, must have gone through an intermediate

22 _J

ANKO 2013, 45, is strongly against this interpretation: ‘there is no trace of digamma in these texts, any more than there is in Homer’.

23 _{”Epe' ¢q£nata of the GH however is not an epic iunctura. As concerns the conservation of} /w/ in forms of the word œpoj used in the Homeric poems, see CHANTRAINE 1958, 133-134.

24 _{The pronunciation (and writing down) of /w/ therefore was a feature of epic language,} per-haps encouraged by the phonetics of the local dialects. On the pronunciation of /w/ outside Ionia (e.g. Euboea), see CASSIO 2012, 239. For the idea that written copies (and local copies too) must have circulated before the ‘Peisistratean’ edition, see CASSIO 2002, who reviews the most impor-tant pro and contra arguments.

25 _{Hypothesis championed by B}

text in a script provided with digamma and a sign for initial aspiration, but

without eta and omega to note /e:/ and /o:/. This may be compatible with Doric

varieties of the Greek alphabet, but if my explanation of ιαγίην is correct the

sign for aspiration must have been ¨, which is not documented in Sicily outside

Himera and a text from Syracuse’s environs.

The adaptation of this antigraph to the Getty lamella entailed (i) the

preser-vation of written initial aspirations, in the GH noted through half eta; (ii) the

transformation of the digamma of col. I, 7 into an erroneous half eta; (iii) the

replacement of epsilon and omicron for /e:/ and /o:/ with eta and omega. This

third change also caused a few transcription mistakes, as shown below.

4.2 The representation of vowels

J

ANKO

2013 too favours the hypothesis that before the GH there were two

transmission phases. This, at any rate, is what emerges from two statements of

his: ‘at least the hyperarchetype of the text, if not also the archetype itself, was

in that [i.e. East Ionic] script’ (J

ANKO

2013, 45) and ‘the Getty Hexameters

were copied from a version in the Selinuntine alphabet without eta and omega

and with the down-turned epsilon that has resulted in the corruption agai for

¥gei’ (J

ANKO

2013, 32).

The mistakes qnhtwisi in place of qnhto‹si (col. I, 17), tîi in place of to…

(col. II, 15), ¢ktš in place of ¢kt» (col. II, 18) and deil»sait' in place of

dhl»sait' (col. III, 8) show that the writer tried to adapt a text without eta and

omega to a script which had these signs. The Getty lamella also contains

mis-takes concerning vowels which however are purely accidental: kokolammšna

in lieu of kekolammšna (col. I, 3), ¥gai in lieu of ¥gei (col. I, 9), and

pro-mole‹sa in lieu of promoloàsa (col. I, 16).

As already noted, J

ANKO

2013, 32 believes the antigraph to have been in

Selinuntine script. His hypothesis rests primarily on ¥gai for ¥gei, which he

interprets as a transcription mistake of a Selinuntine epsilon: in Selinous’

al-phabet this letter may be written with a pronounced inclination which may

in-duce confusion with alpha

26

_{. There are no other cases of ¥gei or ¥gai in the}

parallel texts, so it is impossible to check how this form might have been

han-dled outside the Getty lamella

27

_.

Another form which J

ANKO

2013, 45 classifies as an identical transcription

mistake is oudai, which in col. III, 8 occurs immediately after oÙde…j: ‘the

scribe started to write oÙde…j a second time by dittography, lapsing into

Se-26 _{This type of epsilon is used in the ‘great defixio’ (IGDS I, 38=BETTARINI 2005, nr. 23), e.g.} in the first epsilon of ¢delfeÒn in l. 3: cf. the drawing in BETTARINI 2005, 122.

27 _{Selinous N recto (R}

OCCA 2009, 24) has ™laÚnei; Himera, l. 3 could bear a mistake for a form of ™laÚnw, restored as ™laÚnete by JORDAN 2000 b, 105, given that Phalasarna, l. K, has the same form.

linuntine script’. One is to understand from this statement that, according to

Janko, the writer of the GH usually employed the Selinuntine alphabet but

wrote the GH in a different script. Is this really probable? As Janko himself

re-marks, Locri bears the form oÙda?: this agreement is best explained by assuming

that both the GH and Locri depend on a text which had this reading, and not

that it is a mistake made by the writer of the GH. It may be wondered whether

ουδαι of col. III, 8 conceals a maladroit ending of the hexameter, in which oÙd'

¥n (erroneously written oudai) echoed the initial oÙk ¥n: oÙk' ¥n dhl»sait',

oÙd' ¨n poluf£r[makoj …, rendering a double possibility: ‘(he?) may not do

harm, nor may (he?) who abounds in drugs …’ (followed by another optative:

¼koi is suggested in the ed. pr.).

If oÙk' ¥n was the original spelling, the graphic mistake leading to oudai

may be of the same kind of that in ιαγίην (col. I, 10) which may represent

¡gn»n, with original ny wrongly transcribed with iota

28

. In summary, I suggest

that in the GH the intrusive form is oÙde…j, not oudai.

Going back to Janko’s hypothesis, there are no other possible cases of

origi-nal epsilon rendered with alpha in the GH. The dative plural fras…n (col. II, 5

and 20) is not an erroneous transcription of fres…n but an archaism, another

one endowed with poetic pedigree (it is found e.g. in Pind. Pyth. 3, 108)

29

_{. The}

genitive skiarîn (col. I, 8) too is best explained as a linguistic variant (a Doric

feature) and not as a mistake

30

_{. ”Agei > ¥gai therefore remains the only certain}

graphic exchange of epsilon with alpha: too little to prove the hypothesis of an

antigraph in Selinuntine script.

To the contrary, the paths of transmission just hypothesized point in the

di-rection of a colonial city different from Selinous. As previously noted, in

iag…hn of col. I, 10 the initial iota derives from a wrong rendering of the ¨

de-noting the initial aspiration of the word. But what local script could have used

digamma and ¨, while at the same time retaining the archaic use of epsilon and

omicron for /e:/ and /o:/?

A possibility is that the antigraph came from Himera, the first Sicilian polis

where half eta is documented in a coin legend where omicron still represents

/o:/

31

_{. As suggested in section 4.1, this antigraph may also have employed}

28 _{A reading favoured by JANKO 2013, 48, because ¥gioj is post-Homeric.}

29 _{In fras…n /a/ derives from the zero-grade of the root, while fres…n shows the analogical} extension of the e-grade. See BETTARINI 2012, 126; JANKO 2013, 50.

30 _{The evolution of /e/ into /a/ before /r/ is a common Doric feature. See too the argument of} JANKO 2013, 45-46.

31 _{This possibility is also adumbrated en passant by JANKO 2013, 38, n. 30. At Himera H for} /h/ and lack of special signs for long vowels are documented only in the inscriptions IGDS I, 11 (475-450 BC) and IGDS II, 15 (the late-archaic ‘law on land-distribution’, c. 500 BC). Use of epsilon and omicron for the long vowels is pervasive until the mid-5th century (see IGDS I, 8, 9, 10, 14; IGDS II, 16). The partial switch to a newer type of alphabet is documented in a didrachm dated to c. 470-450 (KRAAY-HIRMER 1976, nr. 65, p. 20), where the legend on the recto bears

digamma in a line which is highly reminiscent of Homeric diction and which

may have local copies of the Homeric poems as its model. A role in the oral and

written circulation of the poems is a likely possibility for Himera, a Euboean

colony, and is supported by parallels such as the layout of Nestor’s cup from

Euboean Pithekoussai and the early exegetical work of local scholars such as

Theagenes of Rhegium (another Euboean colony not too far from Himera)

32

_.

It should be noted, however, that this hypothesis rests on the supposition

that the antigraph containing the hexameters was a special text, characterized

by a special attention to the epigraphic aspect, not that digamma and the sound

it represented were a reality in 5th-century Himera

33

. As a matter of fact, none

of the few and very short epigraphic texts from Himera feature a word

begin-ning with /w/, so that we cannot be sure as to whether it was ever written down.

Digamma however is found (albeit in the function of a glide) in the archaic

laws from Monte San Mauro (IGDS I, 15, 6th century), which are written in

Chalcidian script and Euboean dialect and have more than one element in

common with Himera’s longest text, the late-archaic law IGDS II, 15 (cfr.

su-pra, 15 n. 31).

Another element which is compatible with Himera – a city where, according

to the well-known passage of Thuc. 6, 5, 1, a dialect ‘between that of the

Chal-cidians and Doric’ was spoken – is the Ionic-Doric mixture employed in the GH

and all the earlier parallel texts. I firmly believe that such mélange is not the

outcome of transmission, but characterized these hexameters, or at least a large

portion of them, since their oldest phases.

5. Language and the question of the ‘archetype’

The issue of dialectal mixture in the GH may be approached in two ways.

The first is to assume that it already characterized the oldest phases of the text,

as it was due to the context in which the archetype and its copies circulated.

This is the line of interpretation favoured in the present contribution. The

sec-ond way is to assume, with J

ANKO

2013, that the GH derive from the conflation

of two originally independent textual traditions: one concerning a paean in

epic-Ionic dialect with a few Doric intrusions, the other concerning an old

in-cantation against witchcraft which contained the Ephesia grammata and was

SOTHR (with eta for /e:/ but no omega) and the legend on the recto has IMERAION, with neither aspiration nor omega. The same uneven treatment of long vowels is visible in IGDS I, 13, a small bronze ball bearing the inscription DiÕj s4tÁroj (c. 415 BC).

32 _{For a brief bibliographical overview on the Euboean question, see C}

ASSIO 2012, 239, n. 7. 33 _{In l. 2 of the law from Himera (IGDS II, 15) the initial syllable of [o„]kÒped4n cannot be} read, so that one cannot be sure as to how the initial /w/ was treated in this text: the available space would allow the restoration of digamma.

written entirely in Doric (J

ANKO

2013, 55)

34

_{. In his reconstruction of the}

‘ar-chetype’, Janko restores Doric features in the part of the GH which begins with

the Ephesia grammata of col. II, 14: in doing so, he takes the Doric features of

the parallel texts into account. This approach is implemented in J

ANKO

2015, in

which some readings of the Getty lamella are replaced by Doric forms.

It is important to realize that none of the parallel texts is completely in

Doric. Both the GH and the other texts employ a generally epic-Ionic language

which admits a variable number of Doric features, mostly confined to the

pres-ervation of inherited /a:/. A few texts have a higher number of Ionic forms (the

GH and Phalasarna), others tend to be more Doric (Himera and Locri: the

lat-ter, the most Doric of all the texts, still features the Ionic form ¢kt»).

The GH – the longest version of the text – also feature standard non-Ionic

epic traits such as genitives in -oio (qalero‹o: col. I, 11; ˜k£toio: col. III, 5),

the pronoun nin (col. I, 4: this is never attested in Homer) and the archaic

da-tive fras…n (col. II, 5 and 20; see supra, 15): the last two features are also

compatible with Doric

35

_{. Apart from these, there also are three notable Doric}

forms, variously attested in literary language.

The first is the vocalism of skiarîn (col. I, 8). Among the texts of the

dos-sier this Doric form only occurs in the GH: Selinous has skirîn, which shows

well how the adjective, initially part of the poetic iunctura kat¦ skierîn

Ñršwn, later evolved into the beginning of the Ephesia grammata

36

. Skiarîn

may be an authentic Doric feature, a lectio difficilior later trivialized in other

texts; or a local Doric alteration of the original Ionic form: we will probably

never know for sure.

The second Doric feature is the contracted genitive singular ending

¢kamantorÒ

1 (col I, 11). J

ANKO

2013, 49, shows how this kind of genitive,

which is not Homeric, became a feature of post-Homeric epic language: it is a

metrical replacement of the Ionic genitive in -ew that at the same time keeps

the vocalism of the archaic genitive in -

1o so common in Homeric diction.

Adjectives in -rÒ1j feature in Bacchylides (¢kamantorÒaj: Bacch. Ep. 5,

180; kallirÒaj, Bacch. Ep. 11, 26 and 96) and in tragic choruses (Eurip.

Bacch. 568: çkurÒaj). 'AkamantorÒ

1 therefore was a feature endowed with

a high poetic pedigree.

The distribution of ‘short’ and ‘long’ first and second declension datives is

also compatible with post-Homeric epic diction, as is again shown by J

ANKO

2013, 51. In the GH there are two cases of preconsonantal -oij (¢nqrèpoij,

34 _{See too JANKO 2013, 49, on Panyassis; the other Doric features of the initial lines are} dis-cussed in JANKO 2013, 46-48. For the Attic features, see too JANKO 2013, 49, 51.

35 _{Fras…n is attested also in Selinous (N verso l. 4: R}

OCCA 2009, 24) and Locri (l. E: JORDAN 2000 a). On nin, see also JANKO 2013, 46.

36 _B

col. II, 8; prob£toij, col. II, 9), a very rare feature in Homer which becomes more

common in later epic. Together with the only case of preconsonantal -aisi (col.

II, 9: tšcnaisi) – which again is not attested in Homer, where the same scansion

is covered by -Vsi, but is common in later, especially Attic, poetry – these two

masculine datives cluster in the ‘original’ part of the GH. As concerns datives in

-aij – the majority ending in the Greek dialects but avoided in Homer, where it is

replaced by the metrical equivalent -Vj – the two instances in the GH both occur

in col. I, 12 (qea‹j, faeina‹j)

37

_{. Although these ‘short’ datives are also a Doric}

feature, it is clear from their whole distribution in the GH that the author strove

for the best possible flexibility allowed by the literary conventions of his day.

Another element compatible with Doric is the preservation of /a:/ in naus…n

(col. II, 7), and in the ending of E„nod…a{i} (col. I, 13) and b…ai (col. II, 15)

38

_{. It}

has been suggested that in all these cases /a:/ could also be an Attic feature: as

it stands in the GH, the iunctura E„nod…a `Ek£th (col. I, 13) can only be an

At-ticism

39

_{. However, the conscious introduction of Attic elements seems unlikely}

to me. The important point to note is that none of these vocalic features is

ex-clusive: they can all cover for other original features. E„nod…a `Ek£th, which

does look ‘Attic’, could have been created at any point of the textual

transmis-sion, either voluntarily, to enhance the linguistic mélange of the text, or by

chance, because of linguistic interference from the writer’s dialect.

It is unlikely that the state of affairs documented by the early texts,

includ-ing the GH, results from the corruption of a text originally written in Doric,

es-pecially since the time-span in which such corruption could have taken place

would be quite short: the agreement between some parts of the GH and the

lan-guage of late 5th-century authors suggests that the text cannot have been

com-posed long before the middle of the century

40

_{. The idea that a Doric text could}

have been significantly altered in this time-span is also countered by the fact

that the surviving lamellae come from Doric-speaking areas, where one would

expect the supposedly original Doric dialect to have been preserved. Moreover,

37 _{The Homeric vulgata features datives in -aij which could be either old or Attic} (CHANTRAINE 1958, 202). These datives become common in post-Homeric epics.

38 _{E„nod…a{i} `Ek£tei in the reading of the Getty lamella, but the dative must be corrected} into a nominative: see JANKO 2013, 49; 2015, 4.

39 _J

ANKO 2013, 49 identifies two parallels: Orph. Hymn. 1, 1 Quandt and Soph. F 535 Radt (Rhizotomoi).

40 _{'Akšsforoj of col. II, 13 is attested for the first time in Eurip. Ion 1005. The correptio in} Ûdrhj (col. III, 6) may also have an Attic background (a second correptio might be lurking be-hind the form qu[rštroisin] restored by Janko in col. II, 11). If these forms are reminiscent of Classical, and particularly Attic, poetry the conclusion would be that this part of the GH was composed after 415 (Ion is dated to 413-411 BC). For this chronological problem, see BETTARINI 2012, 115.

these texts were produced in a period when the use of local dialects, and

there-fore the writers’ competency in handling them, were still strong

41

_.

In summary, it is more likely that the original text employed an Ionic diction

mixed with certain metrically guaranteed features adopted from Doric and

per-haps consciously employed to gesture towards the linguistic context in which the

text was produced. The GH would thus create a kind of mixed literary language in

which the typical epic traits alternate with Doric ones, some of them already in

use in the language of post-Homeric epics (nin, fras…n, ¢kamantorÒ1).

It may be no chance that this kind of dialectal mixture was allowed to flourish

in texts which circulated in Sicily and Magna Graecia. These areas have yielded

inscriptions in which code-mixing and code-switching become prominent from

the 4th century BC onwards, as Carlo Consani has shown in various works

de-voted to the epigraphy of southern Italy

42

_{. It is telling that the superficial}

Dorici-zation testified to by all texts in the dossier tends to characterize word-final

mor-phemes, as is the norm in the Hellenistic texts showing code-mixing. In the GH

the result of this superficial Doricization is a literary mélange which is coherent

with a linguistic area in which Ionic and Doric co-existed side by side and at the

same time hints at the poetic tradition of choral lyric

43

_.

Well before the experiments in code-mixing witnessed by Hellenistic

in-scriptions, Sicily may have experienced dialectal mixture at Himera, a city

which we have often referred to in this paper

44

_{. It is certainly not by chance}

that, when confronted with the unique kind of poetry and literary language

practiced by Stesichorus, the ancients identified Himera as his birthplace: this

connection may find its justification in the linguistic reality of this colony.

Himera has been brought into the picture by the epigraphic aspect of the

GH: J

ORDAN

-K

OTANSKY

2011, 55 go as far as to suggest that the Getty

la-mella, perhaps produced at Himera, may have been brought to Selinous by a

mercenary. On the whole, I tend to prefer the idea that the Getty lamella was

produced after the end of the 5th century. This dating, as I have already

dis-cussed, does not rule out the possibility that the lamella really comes from

post-409 Selinous. Be that as it may, I would be very careful in reading the text of

the GH as referring to 5th or 4th-century Selinous in particular. The GH have

an antigraph behind them which, if the above epigraphic analysis is correct, is

more likely to have been produced outside Selinous.

41 _{Had the ‘embedded spell’ been entirely in Doric, as argued by Janko, it would be odd that} the GH – a text supposedly produced in Doric Selinous – preserved only one Doric feature in this part, i.e. βίαι (which is paralleled by readings in Locri and Selinous).

42 _{E.g. CONSANI 1995, 2004.}

43 _{SILK 2009, 14, describes the language of Greek lyric with the label ‘generic dialectalizing’} which, he argues, ‘serves to evoke both the correlation of dialect and genre and the fact that the ‘dialect’ is itself less than specific’.

44 _{I address Thucydides’ evidence for a ‘mixed dialect’ at Himera and the question of whether} there is any evidence for it in Himerean inscriptions in TRIBULATO (forthcoming).

My suggestion that Himera is the place from which the antigraph originated

is destined to remain purely hypothetical and I would not wish to press it

fur-ther here. This speculative suggestion has been made in the belief that we must

think about the content and production of the GH more outside Selinous and

more within the wider 5th-century Sicilian context. It is only by moving in this

direction that we are likely to make significant advances in the interpretation of

the text, its language and literary connections.

ACQUARO-PANTALEO-DE VITA 2015: E. Acquaro-G. Pantaleo-P. De Vita, La Selinunte di Cartagine, in IANNUCCI-MUCCIOLI-ZACCARINI 2015, 31-43.

AGOSTINIANI 1977: L. Agostiniani, Iscrizioni anelleniche di Sicilia, I. Le iscrizioni eli-me, Firenze 1977.

AGOSTINIANI 1980-1981: L. Agostiniani, Epigrafia e linguistica anelleniche di Sicilia: prospettive, problemi, acquisizioni, «Kokalos» 26-27, 1980-81, 503-530.

AGOSTINIANI 1988-1989: L. Agostiniani, I modi del contatto linguistico tra Greci e in-digeni nella Sicilia antica, in Da Cocalo a Ducezio. Incontri di genti nella Sicilia antica. Atti del VII Congresso Internazionale di Studi sulla Sicilia antica (Palermo 10-16 aprile 1988), «Kokalos» 34-35, 1988-89, 167-206.

AGOSTINIANI 1991: L. Agostiniani, Greci e indigeni nella Sicilia antica, in E. Campa-nile (ed.), Rapporti linguistici e culturali tra i popoli dell’Italia antica (Pisa, 6-7 ot-tobre 1989), Pisa 1991, 23-41.

AGOSTINIANI 1992: L. Agostiniani, L’elimo nel quadro linguistico della Sicilia anelleni-ca, in L. Biondi-A. Corretti-S. De Vido-M. Gargini-M.A. Vaggioli (edd.), Atti delle Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’area elima (Gibellina, 19-22 settembre 1991), Pisa-Gibellina 1992, 1-11.

ALBERTOCCHI 2009: M. Albertocchi, Daedalica Selinuntia II. Osservazioni sulla coroplastica selinuntina d’età orientalizzante, in ANTONETTI-DE VIDO 2009, 9-27. ALBERTOCCHI 2012: M. Albertocchi, Dalle origini all’età arcaica: importazioni e

rielaborazioni locali, in M. Albertocchi-A. Pautasso-M. Pisani (edd.), Philotechnia: studi sulla coroplastica della Sicilia greca, Catania 2012, 85-111.

ALESHIRE 1989: S.B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion. The People, Their Dedica-tions, and the Inventories, Amsterdam 1989.

ALFIERI TONINI 2012: T. Alfieri Tonini, Culti e templi della Sicilia sud-orientale nelle iscrizioni: Apollo e Artemide, «Aristonothos» 4, 2012, 187-208.

ALTENMÜLLER 1991: H. Altenmüller, Papyrusdickicht und Wüste. Überlegungen zu zwei Statuenensembles des Tutanchamon, «MDAI-Kairo» 47, 1991, 11-19.

AMBAGLIO 2006: D. Ambaglio, Diodoro Siculo tra storia locale e storia indigena, in C.

Miccichè-S. Modeo-L. Santagati (edd.), Diodoro Siculo e la Sicilia indigena. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Caltanissetta, 21-22 maggio 2005), Palermo 2006, 81-86. AMBAGLIO 2008: D. Ambaglio (ed.), Diodoro Siculo. Biblioteca storica. Libro XIII.

Commento storico, Milano 2008.

AMPOLO 1984: C. Ampolo, Le ricchezze dei Selinuntini: Tucidide VI 20, 4 e l’iscrizione

del tempio G di Selinunte, «PP» 39, 1984, 81-89.

AMPOLO 1996: C. Ampolo, Tra Greci e tra ‘barbari’ e Greci: cronache di massacri e

tipologia dell’eccidio nel mondo ellenico, «QS» 44, 1996, 5-28.

AMPOLO 2006: C. Ampolo, Diplomazia e identità culturale delle comunità: la

testimo-nianza dei caducei, in C. Ampolo (ed.), Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel Mediterraneo antico (VIII-VII sec. a.C.). Arte, prassi e teoria della pace e della guerra. Quinte giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima e la Sicilia Occidentale nel contesto mediterraneo (Erice 2003), Pisa 2006, 181-189.

ANELLO 1986: P. Anello, Il trattato del 405/4 a.C. e la formazione della «eparchia»

punica di Sicilia, «Kokalos» 32, 1986, 115-180.

ANELLO 1990-1991: P. Anello, Rapporti dei Punici con Elimi, Sicani e Greci, in

L’eparchia punica in Sicilia. Atti del Colloquio (Palermo 18-20 gennaio 1990), «Kokalos» 36-37, 1990-91 (1994), 175-213.

ANELLO 1997: P. Anello, Lo «stato» elimo nel VI e V sec. a.C., in Seconde Giornate

Internazionali di studi sull’area elima, Atti I (Gibellina, 22-26 ottobre 1994), Pisa-Gibellina 1997, 41-75.

ANELLO 2005 a: P. Anello, Barbaros ed enchorios in Diodoro, in C. Bearzot-F.

Landuc-ci (edd.), Diodoro e l’altra GreLanduc-cia. Macedonia, OcLanduc-cidente, Ellenismo nella Bibliote-ca storiBibliote-ca. Atti del Convegno (Milano 15-16 gennaio 2004), Milano 2005, 223-237. ANELLO 2005 b: P. Anello, Cittadini e barbari in Sicilia, in M.G. Angeli Bertinelli-A.

Donati (edd.), Il cittadino, lo straniero, il barbaro, fra integrazione ed emarginazio-ne emarginazio-nell’antichità. Atti del I incontro Internazionale di Storia Antica (Genova, 22-24 maggio 2003), Roma 2005, 143-176.

ANELLO 2006: P. Anello, La pace e la guerra nella Sicilia di IV secolo, in C. Ampolo

(ed.), Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel Mediterraneo antico (VIII-III sec. a.C.). Arte, prassi e teoria della pace e della guerra. Quinte giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima e la Sicilia Occidentale nel contesto mediterraneo (Erice 2003), Pi-sa 2006, 91-105.

ANELLO 2008: P. Anello, Punici e Greci dal 405-404 a.C. all’età timoleontea, in M.

Congiu-C. Miccichè-S. Modeo-L. Santagati (edd.), Greci e Punici in Sicilia tra V e IV sec. a.C., Caltanissetta 2008, 81-100.

ANGELI BERNARDINI 1976: P. Angeli Bernardini, Eracle mangione: Pindaro, fr. 168

ANGELI BERNARDINI 1983: P. Angeli Bernardini, Mito e attualità nelle odi di Pindaro.

La Nemea 4, l’Olimpica 9, l’Olimpica 7, Roma 1983.

ANGELI BERNARDINI 2003: P. Angeli Bernardini, La comunicazione della vittoria nella

Grecia antica: modi e tempi di un percorso, «AUFL» 4, 2003, 31-43.

ANGELI BERNARDINI 2008: P. Angeli Bernardini, La comunicazione della vittoria nella

Grecia antica: la risposta della polis, in M. G. Angeli Bertinelli-A. Donati (edd.), La comunicazione nella storia antica, Roma 2008, 23-38.

ANGELI BERNARDINI 2010: P. Angeli Bernardini, Eracle: una biografia eroica tra epos

arcaico, poesia lirica e tradizioni locali, in E. Cingano (ed.), Tra panellenismo e tradizioni locali. Generi poetici e storiografia, Alessandria 2010, 385-409.

ANGELI BERNARDINI 2011: P. Angeli Bernardini, L’eroe, l’atleta e il soldato nell’ideologia

agonale greca, in C. Masseria-D. Loscalzo (edd.), Miti di guerra e riti di pace, Bari 2011, 87-96.

ANGELI BERNARDINI 2012: P. Angeli Bernardini, Cos e i Meropi nel poema epico

Me-ropis: una possibile ricostruzione, in G. Cerri-A.T. Cozzoli-M. Giuseppetti (edd.), Tradizioni mitiche locali nell’epica greca, Roma 2012, 179-190.

ANTONETTI 1997: C. Antonetti, Megara e le sue colonie: una unità storico-culturale?,

in C. Antonetti (ed.), Il dinamismo della colonizzazione greca. Atti della tavola ro-tonda “Espansione e colonizzazione greca in eta arcaica: metodologie e problemi a confronto” (Venezia, 10-11/11/1995), Napoli 1997, 83-94.

ANTONETTI 1998: C. Antonetti, Le développement du panthéon d’une métropole:

Méga-re, «Kernos», Supplément 8, Liège 1998, 35-46.

ANTONETTI 1999: C. Antonetti, Le culte d’Apollon entre Mégare et ses colonies du

Pont, in O. Lordkipanidzé-P. Lévêque (edd.), Religions du Pont-Euxin. Actes du VIII Symposium de Vani (22-27/9/1996), Besançon 1999, 17-24.

ANTONETTI 2010 a: C. Antonetti, Il koinon etolico di età classica: dinamiche interne e

rapporti panellenici, in C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Gre-cia nord-occidentale. Territorio, società, istituzioni. Atti del Convegno Internazio-nale (Venezia, 7-9 gennaio 2010), Pisa 2010, 163-180.

ANTONETTI 2010 b: C. Antonetti, I diversi aspetti di una koine socio-culturale nella

Grecia nord-occidentale di epoca ellenistica, in C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio, società, istituzioni. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Venezia, 7-9 gennaio 2010), Pisa 2010, 301-326.

ANTONETTI 2018: C. Antonetti, Rituels ‘à mystères’ et polis entre la Sicile et la Mer

Noire: réflexions de méthode, in M. Costanzi-M. Dana (edd.), Une autre façon d’ être grec: interactions et productions des Grecs en milieu colonial/Another Way of Being Greek: Interactions and Cultural Innovations of the Greeks in a Colonial Mi-lieu. Actes du colloque international organisé à Amiens (Université Jules Verne Pi-cardie) et Paris (ANHIMA) (18-19 novembre 2016), Leuven 2018, 131-147.

ANTONETTI-DE VIDO 2006 a: C. Antonetti-S. De Vido, Cittadini, non cittadini e

stranie-ri nei santuastranie-ri della Malophoros e del Meilichios di Selinunte, in A. Naso (ed.), Stranieri e non cittadini nei santuari greci. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Udi-ne, 20-22 novembre 2003), Firenze 2006, 410-451.

ANTONETTI-DE VIDO 2006 b: C. Antonetti-S. De Vido, Conflitti locali e integrazione

culturale a Selinunte: il nuovo profilo della polis nell’iscrizione della Vittoria, in C. Ampolo (ed.), Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel Mediterraneo antico (VIII-III sec. a.C.). Arte, prassi e teoria della pace e della guerra. Quinte giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima e la Sicilia Occidentale nel contesto mediterraneo (Erice 2003), Pisa 2006, 143-180.

ANTONETTI-DE VIDO 2009: C. Antonetti-S. De Vido (edd.), Temi selinuntini, Pisa 2009.

ANTONETTI-DE VIDO 2017: C. Antonetti-S. De Vido (edd.), Iscrizioni greche. Un’antologia,

Roma 2017.

ANTONETTI-LÉVÊQUE 1990: C. Antonetti-P. Lévêque, Au carrefour de la Mégaride.

De-vins et oracles, «Kernos» 3, 1990, 197-209.

ARENA 1989: R. Arena (ed.), Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia.

Iscrizioni di Sicilia, I. Iscrizioni di Megara Iblea e Selinunte, Milano 1989.

ARENA 1996: R. Arena (ed.), Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia.

Iscrizioni di Sicilia, I. Iscrizioni di Megara Iblea e Selinunte, Pisa 19962_.

ASHERI 1996: D. Asheri, Identità greche, identità greca, in S. Settis (ed.), I Greci.

Sto-ria Cultura Arte Società, I, Torino 1996, 19-26.

ASSMANN 1972: J. Assmann, Die Inschrift auf dem äußeren Sarkophagdeckl des

Me-renptah, «MDAI-Kairo» 28, 1972, 47-73.

ASSMANN 1989: J. Assmann, Death and Initiation in the funerary religion of Ancient

Egypt, in P. Allen (ed.), Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt, New Haven 1989, 135-159.

ASSMANN 1997: J. Assmann, La memoria culturale. Scrittura, ricordo e identità

politi-ca nelle grandi civiltà antiche, Torino 1997.

AUDOLLENT 1904: A. Audollent, Defixionum tabellae quotquot innotuerunt tam in

Graecis Orientis quam in totius Occidentis partibus praeter Atticas in C.I.A. editas, Parigi 1904.

AVERSA 2011: F. Aversa, Taranto. Fonti epigrafiche, in BTCGI, 20, 125-132.

AVRAM 1995: A. Avram, Un règlement sacré de Callatis, «BCH», 119, 1995, 235-252.

AVRAM 1999: A. Avram, Inscriptions de Scythie Mineure, III. Callatis et son territoire,

Paris 1999.

BAINES 1983: J. Baines, Literacy in Ancient Egyptian Society, «Man» n.s. 18, 1983,