Journal Phasis - Greek and Roman Studies

Vickers, Michael

English

Euripides’ \u27Bacchae\u27, Critias and Alcibiades

Gardapkhadze, Ketevan

Phasis 11, 2008 
 
Ketevan Gardaphkadze (Tbilisi) 
GALAKTION TABIDZE ABOUT ARCHAIC GREEK LYRIC POETRY 
G. Tabidze’s (1891-1959) works hold a special place in the 20th century 
Georgian literature. It is no exaggeration to say that he laid the foundation 
for the new Georgian verse, the 20th century Georgian poetry. The prin-
ciple factor that makes his verse unique is that it cannot be assigned to the 
frames of any particular literary trend. Several mainstream trends are con-
ventionally distinguished in Tabidze’s poetry: Symbolism, Georgian lite-
rary tradition, Georgian folkloristic tradition and realism. However, this is 
a mechanical division of Tabidze’s poetry, who ‘explored his own rela-
tionship, as well as that of the whole Georgian culture, to ‘the colossal 
world harp’- G.T. … Hence, G. Tabidze could most smoothly join in a di-
alogue (or even a dispute) with antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renais-
sance and the 19th-20th century world culture.1 Consequently, his poetry is 
extensively reflective of world civilization, starting with ancient Mesopo-
tamia and going up to modern days. However, antiquity is the major 
source for his inspiration. Galaktion Tabidze’s works hold a special place 
in the 20th century Georgian literature in terms of the intensity and depth 
that are characteristic of their reference to ancient Greek and Roman cul-
tural traditions. The poet mentions 142 symbolic images 300 times at dif-
ferent levels: a. ancient image being a part of the poetic symbol, of the mi-
nor verse structure; b. ancient image being a part of the major verse struc-
ture. Tabidze’s use of ancient symbolic images is distinguished by plurali-
ty of functions. Besides, the poet presents anew the well-known traditional 
images, giving them a different artistic value. It should also be admitted 
                                                 
1  Tvaradze R., Galaktioni, Tbilisi 1972, 124 (in Georgian). 
Galaktion Tabidze about Archaic Greek Lyric Poetry 45 
that the poet is chronology-wise coherent when introducing ancient im-
ages into his poetry.2 
In this article, I would like to highlight one less studied aspect of Ga-
laktion Tabidze’s literary work. This is his quasi-theoretical poetic treatise 
Talking about Lyrics (1940), which presents the main essence of lyric poetry 
– a verse should first of all render the heartbeat of the society, should serve 
national interests: 
‘So, let us serve / again our country, / its call.’3 
The previously written prose version of the treatise, which can be re-
garded as a scholarly prooimon to the poem,4 testifies how seriously Ga-
laktion Tabidze was preparing to compose the poem. I will come back to 
this comment later, in the end of the article. Now I will briefly consider the 
structure of the poem. It consists of 176 lines and can be divided into the 
following thematic units: 
Lines 1-6 are the introduction, devoted to the poet’s recollections and to 
picturing the scenes of his homeland. 
Lines 7-40 are poetic reasoning over the purpose of poetry and its refer-
ence to the society. 
Lines 41-61 are a systemic overview of archaic Greek lyric poetry. 
Lines 62-176 are a non-systemic outline of the development of poetry, to a 
certain degree incorporating poet’s political views. This part of the poem 
is mainly associative, where one theme evokes associations and thus in-
troduces another, marking a shift from Georgian poetry to the world poe-
tic facts. 
Consequently, the only part of the poem structured to the logic of sys-
temic presentation of thought is the one dealing with archaic ancient lyric 
poetry. In this way, Galaktion Tabidze accentuates the fact that the archaic 
period was distinguished in world literature by its coherence and the most 
organic links with the social and political context. 
In my opinion, Galaktion Tabidze’s reasoning about archaic Greek lyr-
ic poetry is remarkable in two ways:  
                                                 
2  Gardapkhadze K., Ancient Terms and Notions in Galaktion’s Poetic Language, Tbilisi 
1995, 131-136 (in Georgian). 
3  Tabidze G., Complete Collection of Works in 12 volumes, Tbilisi 1971, vol. 9, 148 (in 
Georgian). 
4  Tabidze G., Complete Collection of Works in 12 volumes, Tbilisi 1975, vol. 12, 148 (in 
Georgian). 
 
Ketevan Gardaphkadze 
 
46 
What is the poet’s idea about the development of archaic lyric poetry? 
What does he find most important in the process and which archaic Greek 
poets does he focus on?  
How laconic and interesting are the formulations that Galaktion Tabidze 
uses to describe the works by each poet? 
As mentioned above, the principle point for Tabidze is to highlight the 
civil, belligerent spirit. According to the poet, archaic Greek verse, which 
fascinates with its ‘national mood and simplicity’, is matchless in this re-
spect.5 Therefore, Tabidze focuses on the poets who are distinguished by 
adequate representation of public mood. Hence, it is not difficult to ac-
count for the absence of such names as Sappho, Alcaeus, Anacreon, i.e. the 
poetry that can be described as ‘lyrics for the sake of lyrics’.6 
Galaktion Tabidze starts his reasoning over the functional power of 
lyric poetry with Orpheus. The mythic poet is presented through the fol-
lowing sings: people ascribe to him magic power, his songs can move un-
animated objects and even ‘the heartless and powerful gods’, can tame 
beasts. The poem reflects to the full the signs of Orpheus’ poetic dignity, 
existing in mythological tradition.7 
According to Galaktion, the forefather of lyric poetry was Archilochus 
of Paros: 
‘The forefather / of lyric poetry itself / was Archiloch.’8 
In this case, Tabidze is conscious of two facts: first, Archilochus was 
the first poet in the history of European literature whose lifetime has been 
dated more or less precisely, and second, he is the first poet to be called 
the true lyrist, as his poetry is the first endeavor to give such a dynamic 
picture of the individualism of a lyric poet.9 Galaktion Tabidze puts em-
phasis on three most important traits connected with Archilochus: iambic 
verse, inability to endure humiliation and pungent lyrics, which Tabidze 
rendered through a very capacious formula ‘the poison of lyrics’. In this 
way, Tabidze offered the main clues to the originality of Archilochus – a 
poet and a citizen.  
Among ancient poets, Galaktion Tabidze also mentions Tyrtaeus and 
the wars between the Spartans and Messenians; how a handful of Spar-
                                                 
5  Tabidze G., 1971, vol. 9, 154. 
6  Gordeziani R., Ancient Civilization, I, Tbilisi 1988, 201-232 (in Georgian). 
7  Ziegler K., RE XVIII, 1, 1200-1316. 
8  Tabidze G., 1971, vol. 9, 150. 
9  Gordeziani R., Greek Literature, I, Epos, Lyric and Drama of Hellenic Epoch, Tbilisi 
2002, vol. 1, 175-183 (in Georgian). 
Galaktion Tabidze about Archaic Greek Lyric Poetry 47 
tans, inspired with the poet’s fervency and belligerent stamina and with 
the verses fostering resistance, overpowered the enemy. Tyrtaeus was 
truly among the forefathers of lyric poetry.10 This is what Tabidze found 
most important. As admitted in the history of literature, Tyrtaeus was not 
distinguished solely with belligerent elegies; he was the first poet who 
praised political organization of his own polis. Greek poets called the like 
verses ‘eunomy’ (‘a well-adjusted constitution of government’).11 Regrett-
ably, Tabidze, did not accentuate this point. 
Three lines of the poem (47-50) are devoted to Solon. Tabidze refers to 
the well-known story of recapturing Salamis, emphasizing the decisive 
role of Solon’s battle songs in retrieving the island. Besides, to describe 
Solon’s poetry, Tabidze highlights the following aspects: elegiac poetry, 
presentation of philosophical points and social issues, associating poetry 
with his own laws and political slogans.12 As a politician and poet, Solon 
took interest in the life of the polis and the logic of its existence, relation-
ship between the individual and the society (relationship between the di-
vine and human spheres)13, which is most laconically and precisely mani-
fested in Tabidze’s poem. 
Another most interesting portrait of an ancient poet presented in Ta-
bidze’s work is that of Simonides of Ceos. Remarkably, the only aspect of 
Simonides’ poetry highlighted in Tabidze’s poem is the Greek-Persian 
relationship. It is common knowledge that Simonides devoted wonderful 
lines to the Spartan heroes fallen at Thermopiles.14 The passage from Ta-
bidze’s poem can even be regarded as the first attempt to translate the 
well-known epitaph ascribed to Simonides of Ceos: 
‘To the Lacedemonians / carry the message, traveler, / 
and tell them: / all devoted / to the homeland, / we have fallen here.’ 
We can learn from the comments that the translation must have been 
done from Russian as it has in brackets a Russian collocation (loyal to the 
laws of homeland – верные закону родины).15 
Galaktion Tabidze does not touch other aspects of Simonides’ poetry 
(professional poet, intellectual poet), as he associates the main virtue of 
                                                 
10  Gordeziani R., 2002, vol. 1, 186-188. 
11  Aristoteles, Politica, 5, 6, 2; Strabo, Geographica, 8, 362. 
12  Tabidze G., 1971, vol. 9, 152-153. 
13  Latacz J., Die griechische Literatur in Text und Darstellung, I Archaische Periode, 
Stuttgart 1998².  
14  Ярхо В., Древнегреческая литература, Лабиринт 2001, 74. 
15  Tabidze G., 1975, vol. 12. 
Ketevan Gardaphkadze 
 
48 
Simonides’ poems with his love for his homeland and his willingness to 
praise its glory. 
Among the lyrists, the most credited in Tabidze’s poem is Pindar. Ac-
cording to the Georgian poet, the properties best describing Pindar are 
‘singing in a wonderful voice’, praising his homeland, being an author to 
odes and hymns, praising the winners of Olympic and Pythian sport 
games, abundance of strophic forms, splendor of images, ‘eloquence and 
expressiveness of refrains’. Tabidze offers the following description: 
‘The very first / among the first is Pindar – 
 / the sharpness and pledge / of the Hellenic lyre.’16 
For Galaktion Tabidze, the principal asset of Pindar’s poetry is its Pan-
hellenic nature. The heroes praised by Pindar took part in Panhellenic 
games and embodied public faith, pride, the height of gene and immortali-
ty. 
Here Galaktion Tabidze provides the so-called theoretical basis for 
what his poem is structured to. For him, the point of departure is the the-
sis that lyric poetry is the energy ‘that breathes eternal vitality and devel-
ops along with the evolutionary pace of humankind.’17 According to Ta-
bidze, in ancient Greece, harmonious relationship of lyric poetry with so-
cial and political life was manifested to the greatest extent in the 7th-6th 
centuries BC and became one of the driving forces of the society. Galak-
tion presents his own translation of a summary of a scolion ascribed to 
Callistratus. The scolion praises Harmodius and Aristogiton, the assassins 
of tyrant. 
After reading the poem, it becomes clear that none of Georgian poets 
went so far as Galaktion Tabidze in terms of referring to ancient literature. 
His poem ‘Talking about Lyrics’ can be regarded as the most competent 
and exquisite praise to Greek poetry ever composed in the history of 
Georgian poetry.  
 
 
                                                 
16  Tabidze G., 1971, vol. 9, 156. 
17  Tabidze G., 1975, vol. 12, 570-571. 


Galaktion Tabidze about Archaic Greek Lyric Poetry

Tonia, Nana

Phasis 11, 2008 
 
Nana Tonia (Tbilisi) 
CORINNA 
There are a lot of arguments in science regarding Corinna’s personality 
and works. There are two main issues: a) Defining presumable period of 
Corinna’s life and activity; b) Identifying the reasons of her popularity 
since certain époque.  
a) Different scientific assertions result in deep gap between époques of 
Corinna’s life and activity. Traditionalists think Corinna belongs to late 
archaic - early classical époques and is a contemporary to Pindar. Others 
regard her as a poet of late-Hellenistic époque.1  
I. What are the arguments of traditionalists’ assumptions are based on? 
1. The data on her works: as it is known, one fragment of Corinna’s works 
survived, where she condemns ‘sweet-voiced’ Myrtis for daring rivalry 
with Pindar. According to this fragment Corinna is a contemporary to 
Pindar, i.e. she acted in V century BC.   
2. The tradition, where one can obviously and directly see that she lived in 
Pindar’s époque. For instance, according to Plutarch she won poetry com-
petition against Pindar for five times (Plutarch, On the Glory of Athens, 4, 
347). Ancient author Pausanias tries to explain Corinna’s victory over Pin-
dar. We encounter the following in Pausanias’ works: ‘I think her success 
was probably chiefly due to her dialect as opposed to the Dorian of Pin-
dar, she created in a dialect, familiar to Eolians. Besides, if one can trust a 
picture, Corinna must have been the most beautiful woman of the men-
tioned period’ (Pausanias, Description of Greece, X, 22, 3). As it is obvious 
from this saying, Pausanias might had seen Corinna himself or possessed 
                                                 
1  Schmid W., Stählin O., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, I-II, 7 Bde., München 
1920-1948, I, Bd. 1, 445; Lesky A., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, München 
1971, 167. 
Nana Tonia  
 
134 
trustworthy information about her grave stone in Tanagra and her picture 
in Gymnasia as a sign of her victory over Pindar.   
Suda’s Corinna’s biography was written based on the information of 
ancient period. We read that Corinna was Achelodorus’ and Procratia’s 
daughter, Theban or Tanagran poet, a pupil of Myrtis, a lyric. She defeated 
Pindar for five times, wrote five books of lyric songs, epigrams and no-
moses. Based on this data some scholars think that there might exist a 
work about the poetic agon, like Homer and Hesiod’s agon.  
3. Linguistic analysis of Corinna’s poetry, which shows tense link to tradi-
tions of popular language (it will be discussed below). This can link Co-
rinna to earlier-classical époque, than to Hellenistic.  
4. ‘The Canon of the Lyric’ - it is known that famous law of lyric-poets was 
developed in Hellenistic époque, where nine best poets of Greece are 
listed. True, Corinna was not in the list from the beginning, but she was 
put there later. ‘Canon’ represents only the poets, having been acted be-
fore Hellenism.  
II. Arguments of opponents of Corinna’s early dating: 
1. None of ancient sources mention Corinna before II-I cc. BC. It is not like-
ly that such a popular poet was ignored by whole classicism and great 
Alexandrian philologists; Corinna’s name was not mentioned in the initial 
variant of the ‘The Canon of the Lyric’, she was put there later.  
2. Analysis of language and style of Corinna’s works shows reference to 
Eurupides’ tragedies created in middle period of his activity, which can be 
explained by the fact that poetess of late period used to apply to Euri-
pides’ tragedies, when this tragedian had gained a huge popularity in Hel-
lenistic époque.  
3. As for the references to Pindar and Myrtis in Corinna’s works, it is an 
example of literary fiction, which became a basis for later-period authors 
to connect Corinna to Classical époque, i.e. reconstruct Corinna’s biogra-
phy based on poetic fictions.   
As we can see, the starting point that feeds these two contradictory as-
sumptions is: on the one hand, the sources that mention Pindar and Co-
rinna together, and assertion of falsification of these sources on the other. I 
agree with the idea of early dating of Corinna’s work and life, so I will not 
refer to it further. I will try to criticize the arguments of the opponents of 
Corinna’s early dating:  
1. It is surely to be taken into consideration that Corinna’s name is not men-
tioned in Ancient sources until a certain period. There might exist several ex-
planations for this: a) during the whole classical period Corinna was regarded  
Corinna 135 
as a poet of a local importance in respect with a subject-matter. Re-
spectively she was not given certain importance at the time when the at-te-
ntion of society was driven to the poetry, oriented to general Hellenistic 
values. It is certain that many names of poets, belonging to certain locali-
ties, were forgotten. We could have never found out the names of po-ets 
that Sappho and Alcman mention. The fact is that they really existed and if 
not the authors that had been in a need of mentioning those, they would 
have been sunk into oblivion. In Hellenistic époque an interest grew towa-
rds less famous or totally strange names. Corinna might have been among 
them, the poetry of which caught a reader’s attention and interest was so 
high that she was put in the list of Greece best poets; b. Corinna’s late ap-
pearance might be explained by a plain accident; we can assume that the 
sources that would mention Corinna did not survive; The key authors that 
discussed the cardinal issues of poetry development, om-itted Corinna, 
because she did not seem significant to them by her meter, subject-matter, 
view-point.  
2. As for the issues of language and style, it is quite complicated to prove 
anything. The fact that there is some similarity between Euripides and Co-
rinna can be explained by their inclination to one and the same tradition. 
Besides we know Boeotian poetry so badly, that it is impossible to define at 
what extent Corinna’s poetry is early or late in relation with Boeotian poetry.  
3. The third argument attributes poetic fiction to tradition. This is not certain 
in either. One fact should be definitely considered: the ancient tradition, 
which was not unanimous even at dating Homer, reveals surprising agree-
ment at dating Corinna and chooses Pindar’s époque for defining the period 
of her activity. This, naturally, is based on the Corinna-created works, as well 
as the legend about their agon. We can hardly believe that a poetess, acting in 
Hellenistic époque would belong herself to earlier period and nobody would 
doubt about it. No ancient source can be found, which would argue Corinna’s 
belonging to classical period. This is the reason why we agree with the assu-
mption of those scholars that regard late-archaic and early-classical period 
as the time of Corinna life and act. In addition an orientation on Sappho’s poe-
try is observed in women’s poetry from late-classical period (it will be discu-
ssed below in details). We think that originality of Corinna and her contempo-
rary Myrtis enables us to regard the mentioned époque as a period of their ac-
tivity, when a Sappho model did not have a big influence on Hellenistic poetry. 
b) Activity. D. Page dedicates twenty pages to Corinna’s activity in his 
Poetae Melici Graeci.2 There are 36 fragments plus 6 fragments of unidenti-
                                                 
2  Page D., Supplementum Lyricis Graecis, Oxford 1962, 325-358. 
Nana Tonia  
 
136 
fied Boeotian poets, some of which could belong to Corinna, but it is hard 
to prove now. Among the fragments that we have at hand there are few of 
any importance that could help in forming an idea about Corinna’s poetry. 
Mainly these are 2-3 fragments, obtained after papyrus discoveries.   
Fr.1, first published in 1907, embraces about 62 lines that could be 
read. The rest, much damaged part of the text, about three times more 
than the identified part, is quite chaotic and vague.   
Fr.2 (POxy, 2370) was first published by Lobell and consists of 16 lines 
and there is some concept in it, but the work seems to be of a bigger vol-
ume. Besides, there are fragments confirmed in indirect sources (about 
twenty lines). They are collected from the works of the authors that quote 
Corinna in different aspects (mainly as examples of the forms, characteris-
tic to Boeotian dialect).  
Notwithstanding these few materials, Corinna seems to have been 
quite a productive poetess. This fact is confirmed in Suda’s biography, 
where Corinna seems to have written ‘five books, epigrams and lyrical 
nomoses’ (Suda, Corinna). As we can see, the classification is quite general; 
it mainly embraces three classes of works.  
As for the existing texts, they can be grouped according to a thematic 
principle. Surely, this can be said only about the fragments, which can be 
read. It seems that Corinna actively used mythological information. If we 
regard Plutarch’s information about the relations of Pindar and Corinna 
trustworthy, we can conclude that the latter was quite moderate in using 
myths: she would urge her contemporary ‘to sow them by a hand and not 
by a sack’ (Plutarch, On the Glory of Athens, 4, 347). One quite an interest-
ing tendency can be observed in Corinna’s works: the poet avoids poetic 
realization of already elaborated myths and attempts to choose the ones 
from local Boeotian legends that were ignored by great Greek poets. For 
instance: Fr.1 tells us about the agon of two brothers: Helikon and Kithe-
ron.  At musical-poetic contest conducted at Olympus Helikon would sing 
about how Kurets raised infant Zeus, kidnapped by Rea in disguise from 
Kronos.  
In Fr.2 Corinna tells us the story of Asopos’ daughters that were mar-
ried to Zeus, Poseidon and Hermes. ‘They fulfilled the order of Cyprus 
and Eros. They gave a birth to the constant, immortal and glorious genera-
tion of half-divinity heroes.’ The poet names Akraiphen, Euonymus, Hie-
reus and Orion. As soon as we look through antic sources to find out if 
they mention these heroes, we observe regularity: these sources do not 
know them at all or the episodes, related to them, which we encounter in 
Corinna 137 
Corinna’s works, are unknown to them. Consequently, we can say that 
Corinna’s confirmed and only source is Corinna herself (cf. RML).  
Boeotian city Akraiphnion is connected with Akraiphen’s name. And 
Tanagra, the divinity protecting the city of the same name, was Asopos’ 
daughter (Pausanias, IX, 20, I). It is obvious that in both cases the songs are 
composed based on local, namely Boeotian legends.  
Besides the reflection of mythological cycles, popular in Greece, can be 
observed in Corinna’s poetry. Namely: she seemed to have a work, dedi-
cated to the attack of the Seven against Thebe, as well as the song, dedi-
cated to killing of Teumesian fox by Oedipus. The theme of Heracles in 
one of her poems was represented by hero’s faithful friend-Iolaos. If the 
mentioned thematic is limited by the cycle of Boeotian and Theban leg-
ends, the work Orestas (?), which has not survived, might have been of a 
totally different character. We might consider its plot in the frame of Tro-
jan myths’ cycle.3  
According to sayings, Corinna had written poems about Athena’s 
shield (Antipater of Thessalonika, Athena Pallas, 9, 26); Apollo and Athena 
(Plutarch, On Music, 14) and others gods (Herodianus, Words without paral-
lels, 2, 917). The name of Corinna’s work is disputable. It had been 
considered for a long time that it was a story-teller old woman. In this 
case, it is assumed that Corinna’s works were of an ironic character. But on 
one of the newly discovered papyruses we come across  instead of 
F, the meaning of which is still unknown.4  
It should be pointed out that a major part of Corinna’s fragments are 
presented in sources for confirmation of this or that grammatical thesis. 
Nevertheless, nothing specific can be said about the linguistic peculiarities 
of this poetess, because of meager materials. Boeotian dialect, as well as 
signs of general Greek poetic upper-dialect can be observed in her frag-
ments. Her language and style seem to be fed by epic tradition.5 The argu-
able issue that is still to be solved is when Corinna’s text was written 
down so, as it has reached us from the orthographic point of view. Major-
ity of scholars think that it might have happened in 225-175 BC.6  
Therefore it is interesting to find out what is the reason for Corinna‘s 
originality that managed to drew attention of Antic society. First of all, we 
                                                 
3  Lesky A., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, München, 1971II, 167.  
4  Ibid., 168. 
5  Cf. Hoffmann O., Scherer A., Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, Bd. I, Berlin 1969, 
88. 
6 Hoffmann, 1969.  
Nana Tonia  
 
138 
should refer to one key issue: what was the main thematic of Corinna’s 
works and who she wrote for. It is significant that notwithstanding few 
survived fragments, Corinna’s works themselves answer these questions 
(fr. 664 (b) P., fr. 655 P.).  
We think that in these two fragments Corinna indicates quite clearly 
what the topic of her songs is: who she is praising. These are hero men and 
hero women. The whole polis, the city where she acted, namely Tanagra, 
is her audience. And mainly women, living in the polis, are her listeners. It 
is interesting, that Corinna never mentions other city than Tanagra in sur-
vived fragments, and she never crosses its border. Therefore it can be def-
initely said that Corinna’s view-point is limited by this audience. Conse-
quently it is obvious that the heroes, that Corinna praises, are framed in 
local, Boeotian context. The poetess is interested in the issues that are in-
teresting and close to her specific audience. One more circumstance 
should be noted: Corinna directly separates women among Tanagran 
people, as the direct addressees of her songs.  We should focus of one in-
teresting detail in the above-discussed fragment. Corinna says: 
‘…Terphsiqora summons me so that I can sing beautiful songs about great 
heroes to Tanagran ‘white-peplosed’ women’ (Fr. 755 P). This passage 
witnesses the poet’s strive to heroization of women’s interests, which can, 
on its part, reflect the ideals of emancipation of classical époque women, 
discussed above.  This fragment also shows that Corinna had well-realized 
the importance of her songs for her audience. She stresses out that she 
sings beautiful ( songs about great ( heroes and that ‘polis re-
joices at these songs.’ If we recall what we have already discussed above, 
namely local nature of the myths, selected by Corinna and the high share 
of Boeotian dialect in her writings, it becomes obvious why  the poetess’ 
name did not pass beyond the borders of her audience and the city in the 
classical époque. Corinna’s poetry caught interest only when the audience 
revealed interest towards the very locality of the poetry. It happened in 
Hellenistic époque. This might explain the fact why she was listed among 
lyric-poets of Ancient Greece.  
The issue of Corinna’s style is to be discussed separately. As soon as 
we get familiar with the fragment we feel originality of Corinna’s lan-
guage, which can be named as non-highly-flown narration. What do we 
mean: In the survived poetry we cannot come across the poetic tool, that 
Homer’s epos, Sappho’s poetry, her contemporary Pindar’s works are so 
rich with. We mean the way of thinking, poetic formulas, simile, epithets, 
etc. which give highly-flown style to a poetic piece. We fail to find literary 
Corinna 139 
similes, metaphor or other poetic tool in the survived fragments. The only 
thing that can catch our attention is a name with an epithet, but their anal-
ysis makes it clear that she does not strive to a significant highly-flown 
style. Using this epithet while describing an event is just a traditional nar-
ration.  
If we go back to a highly-flown style that was characteristic to Sap-
pho’s poetry, we can assume that Corinna’s style strongly opposes the 
style of her predecessor poetess. She was definitely different from her con-
temporary and compatriot Pindar. Naturally a question arises, how can be 
explained Corinna’s clearly defined narrative style, which differs her from 
highly-flown style of melic poets. We think that it is realized artistic origi-
nality. It seems that the Poetess’ main objective was to ignore ornamental, 
highly-flown style and convey information in a plain and easy way. It 
goes without saying that such poetry was not liked in ancient Greece in V 
century BC. Since Hellenistic period two directions had been distin-
guished in literature: stressed ornamental and artificial style on the one 
hand, and scientific heaviness on the other. Corinna’s poetry seemed to 
attract readers by its plainness and natural style.  
And last, we are interested in the specifics of Corinna, as a poetess. We 
think several moments should be outlined here: a) regional limitedness; as 
it was mentioned her listeners inhabit in one polis (‘My polis rejoices at 
my bright songs’, fr. 655 P); b) thematic limitedness; we mean local leg-
ends, which attract interest of only one region (Boeotia), that other poets 
did not pay attention at all; c) interest towards the stories on hero- men 
and women  (‘Glory to virtue of men and women heroes’ fr. 664 P) and 
focus on female audience (‘I sing beautiful songs about great heroes to 
Tanagran ‘white-peplosed women’ fr. 655 P).  
I think, because of meager survived fragments, it is complicated to talk 
about other specific womanish signs of Corinna’s poetry. I mean women’s 
world, their emotions, perception of events, which is so strong in Sappho’s 
poetry. Corinna must have been very popular in Hellenistic world and 
ancient Rome; the fact that great Ovid named his beloved after her name, 
only confirms this fact. Another great Roman poet Propertius equals the 
poetic excellence of his beloved to Corinna’s (II, III, 21). It should be added 
as well that Corinna was the only one, after Sappho, having a privilege to 
be listed in ‘The Canon of the Lyric’ among male poets (even in late tradi-
tion).    


Corinna

Otkhmezuri, Tamar

Ephrem Mtsire and Commentaries on Gregory of Nazianzus’ Liturgical Sermons

Kobakhidze, Ekaterine

Phasis 11, 2008 
 
 
Ekaterine Kobakhidze (Tbilisi) 
TYRRHENIAN PIRATES 
Notwithstanding the diversity in modern theories of myth research, al-
most every theory agrees that often metaphorisation of the event, having 
taken place realistically, is characteristic to mythological thinking. In other 
words, concrete historical reality gives an impulse to each myth, whatever 
abstract and fantastic its plot might seem.  
Therefore it is quite possible to talk about chronological frames of 
myth development, which, naturally, serves as an important factor for 
scientific research of a myth. 
It is interesting that share of historical reality might be higher in the 
plot, full of fantastic elements, rather than in a story with concrete geo-
graphic names, because the latter might describe mythological reality and 
mythological peoples.  
Interesting synthesis of reality and fantasy can be observed in the myth 
about Dionysus and Tyrrhenian pirates – the scene of transforming pirates 
into dolphins co-exists with the concrete ethnonym – ‘Tyrrhenian’. 
The myth about Dionysus and Tyrrhenian Pirates is quite a popular 
plot in Ancient literature, as well as in fine arts.   
This episode is mentioned in Homeric Hymns at the first time, namely 
in the eighth dithyramb, which is fully dedicated to the meeting of Diony-
sus and Tyrrhenian Pirates:1 
Presently there came swiftly over the sparkling sea  
Tyrrhenian pirates on a well-decked ship - a miserable doom led them on. 
                                                                                           (8, 49-51)2 
                                                 
1    ‘/ 
      /’ 
2  Hesiod, Homeric Hymns and Homerica, trans. by H. G. Evelyn-White, Loeb Classical 
Library 1914. 
Ekaterine Kobakhidze  
 
74 
Thus the first allusion of this myth in belles-lettres belongs to the 
second half of VI c. and the first half of V c. BC.3    
Who are Tyrrhenian Pirates? What does the word ‘Tyrrhenian’ mean? 
Does it describe historically existing people or it represents mythological 
ethnonym like ‘Phaeacs’ and ‘Hyperboreans’?  
In Ancient sources the term ‘Tyrrhenian’ is first mentioned in He-
siod’s’ works. It is pointed out at the end of Theogony:  
‘And Circe the daughter of Helius, Hyperion's son, loved steadfast 
Odysseus and bare Agrius and Latinus who was faultless and strong: also 
she brought forth Telegonus by the will of golden Aphrodite. And they 
ruled over the famous Tyrenians, very far off in a recess of the holy isl-
ands.’4
Some modern scholars regard that these lines were attached to Theogo-
ny in VI c. or V c. B.C, because the information given here is the justifica-
tion of myth about Aeneas, although there are some opposite assumptions 
as well.5  
We dedicated a special article to proving of originality of mentioned 
lines in Theogony by Hesiod.6   
Having discussed mythology of the peoples of ancient Italy (Latins, 
Marsi, Ausonians, Etruscans) we became confident that so called ‘Italic 
pre-conditions’ really existed for this version of the myth, given in He-
siod’s poem. Hesiod meant Italy’s native Etruscans under the term: ‘Glo-
rious Tyrrhenians’, as it is obvious from the given excerpt, which Greeks 
called Tyrsenoi/Tyrsanoi (Tyrrhanoi/Tyrrhenoi from V c. BC) (Besides 
literature sources, Tyrrhenians as Etruscans are mentioned in inscriptions 
in Delphi and in Olympos – V c. BC). And concrete creators of this variant 
of the legend (As known, Homer, in difference with Hesiod, thought that 
island Aia was situated in the Far East) might have been Eubeians – 
founders of the first colony in Italy. The myth might have been composed 
in the beginning of VIII c. BC, which is clearly confirmed in   archeological 
materials reflecting active contexts between Greek Cumian Colonists and 
Etruscans.7  
                                                 
3  Homer’s this particular hymn is created in this very period, scientists regard. Refer to Weck-
lein N., Die Homerischen Hymnen und die griechischen Tragiker, München 1920, 15. 
4  Hesiod, Theogony, 1011-1016. 
5  Refer to Attilio Mastrocinque, Ricerche sulle religione italiche, SE, vol. LXI-MSMXCV, 
Serie III, 1996, 141. 
6  Кобахидзе Е., Кирка и Италия, Caucasica. The Journal of Caucasian Studies, 5, 2002, 
70-79. 
7  Cristofani M., Cuma, in: Dizzionario illustrato della Civilta Etrusca, Firenze 1999, 83. 
Tyrrhenian Pirates 75 
Thus Etruscans and Greeks are already familiar with each other by the 
period of creation of this myth by Homer. Eubeians attempt to ‘put’ ‘Tyr-
senians’ in Hellenic genealogical myths, which are reflected in the conclu-
sive passage of Hesiod’s’ Theogony. 
Although, if the term ‘Tyrrhenians’, if proceed from geographic con-
crete terms (mentioning them with Latins), can be undoubtedly linked 
with Etruscans, the Antiquity has contradictory assumptions regarding 
‘Tyrrhenians’, being mentioned in the myth reflecting the meeting of Dio-
nysus and pirates.  
Namely, Thucydides notes, that other tribes, living in Adriatic Sea, 
were named as Tyrrhenians too. Thucydides indicates that these tribes 
had Pelasgian origin and before being settled in Khalkidia, they lived in 
Athens and island Lesbos. The Greek historian considers that these very 
people were involved in kidnapping of Dionysus.8  
It is significant that there was non-Indo-European culture on island 
Lemnos that used western variation of Greek alphabet.9 It seems that so 
called ‘Lemnosian Stella, dated by VI c. BC, is composed on the local di-
alect.10   
This dialect has certain reference to Etruscan language (Considering 
phonetic, as well as lexical similarities).11   
As regarded, it is possible to restore common linguistic phase between 
Lemnosian and Etruscan, though, considering the archeological data, it is 
early to speak about unanimity of these cultures.  
We think that this kinship stipulated the common ethnonym of Etrus-
cans and Lemnos natives, both were given these names by Greeks.  
Notwithstanding this fact, as mentioned above, ‘Lemnosians’ and 
‘Etruscans’ were not of same ethnos, consequently, different people, being 
geographically far away form each other, could serve as a stimulating fac-
tor for a concrete myth. 
Because of the fact that, there are no geographic concrete terms at the 
very first mention of the myth, namely, in Homeric Hymn, (which could  
specify the area of location of ‘Tyrrhenian’), it is worthwhile to take into 
                                                 
8  Thucydides, vol. I, History of the Peloponnesian War, I, books 1-2, edited by J. Hen-
derson, translated by C. F. Smith, Loeb Classical Library 2003, II, 57. 
9   Malzahn M., Das Lemnische Alphabet: Eine Eigenstandigl Entwicklung, SE, vol.V, 
1999, 259-279. 
10  Hewrgon J., A propos de I’inscription Tyrrhenienne de Lemnos, Secondo Congresso 
Internazzonale Etrusco, Firenze, 26 V-2, VI, atti I, 1985, 93-103. 
11  Cristofani M., Lemno, Dizionario Illustrato, 153. C. de Simone, I Tirrenei a Lemnos, 
Firenze 1996; Woudhuisson F.G., Linguistica Tyrrhenica, Amsterdam 1992. 
Ekaterine Kobakhidze  
 
76 
consideration the information about piracy of ‘Tyrrhenians’; in other 
words, information about piracy activities of these two people.  
Presumably, the appearance of Dionysus and Tyrrhenian pirates in 
world of letters should be regarded as starting point VI-V cc. BC.  
There is nothing known about the piracy activities of Tyrrhenians pi-
rates, living in Adriatic Sea, on the other hand, much is said about Etrus-
cans in Ancient sources (Not to count Apollonius Rhodius’s Argonautica 
which says, that the descendents of Argonaut Euphemus were kicked out 
from the island Lemnos by Tyrrhenians (IV, 1760) – 
 This fact confirms the 
warrior features of this tribe.  
For instance, Diodorus the Sicilian points out, that because of Etruscan 
pirates’ attacks, from the period of Knidan colony (580 c. BC), half of pop-
ulation was busy with agriculture in Lipari, and the other half defended 
the island from Etruscan pirates (V, 9, 4).  
Strabo says that Etruscans were wide famous by piracy, which, accord-
ing to the author, served as main reason for Etruria’s decentralization:12 
‘Their united government was dissolved, and the Tyrrheni, yielding to 
the violence of their neighbours, were broken up into separate cities; for 
otherwise they would not have given up a happy land and taken to the sea 
as pirates, different bands turning to different parts of the high seas; in-
deed, in all cases where they acted in concert, they were able, not only to 
defend themselves against those who attacked them, but also to attack in 
turn and to make long expeditions’ (It should be explained here, that all 
seaside countries were engaged in piracy and this activity was not re-
garded shameful until the establishment of political-institutional essence 
of a country, co-existing with commerce).13  
Thus, in accordance with the above-mentioned, by the period of ap-
pearing legend about Tyrrhenian pirates in ancient literature and arts, 
Italian native Tyrrhenians, based on Ancient data, were more eligible for 
the concept of the myth, than so-called Lemnosian Tyrrhenians, living in 
                                                 
12    ὶ   
τὸ ὶ     
            
          
     ὶ  ὶ   
 (V, II, 2). 
13  Camporeale G., La vocazione marittima degli Etruschi, in: Gli Etruschi, Milano 1998, 
36. 
Tyrrhenian Pirates 77 
Adriatic Sea, which, after moving to Kalkidia, were not regarded as con-
trolling forces of the sea.  
Ethnonym ‘Tyrrhenian pirates’ in Ancient literature is motivated by 
the etymology, mentioned by Herodotus, according to which Tyrrhenians 
were leaded by their king Tyrsenos, having taken them from Lydia to Ita-
ly. Afterwards these people were named after the name of the King.14    
The presumable date of myth creation might be V-VI cc. BC, when es-
tablishment of Greek colony – Cumae caused familiarization of Helens 
with Etruscans.  
Mentioning Tyrrhenians by Hesiod in the context of Greek myths, as it 
was already pointed out, might be the variant of the legend, developed by 
Eubians.   
Development of the latter, presumably, might be the impression, re-
ceived from Tyrsenians’ military strength and high level of civilization.  
To our mind, the Dionysus and Tyrrhenian pirates’ story is chronolog-
ically followed by the myth of dominion of Circe’s sons’ over famous Tyr-
rhenians.   
This can be observed in mood of the myth. The relationship is already 
tensed between Greek colonists and Etruscans in VI c. BC. The reason for 
this might be Etruscans attacks against Cumae colonists, the earliest of 
which is dated by 524 BC. In 524 the united army of Etruscans, Umbrians 
and Dauni attacked Cumae (Although they were defeated by Cumae cava-
lry). Later, in 474 BC Tyrrhenians again attacked Cumaens and came off 
second-best (The story is narrated in one of odes by Pindar, which is dedi-
cated to Hieron of Syracuse and Tyrrhenian failure is described there).15  
Thus, Dionysus, Greek divinity, gains victory and severely punishes 
Tyrrhenian, which fail to identify him as a divinity and do not worship 
him. Only one Tyrrhenian Aketos acknowledges the power of the son of 
Zeus and is given mercy and respect by Dionysus.  
A couple of words about the existence of Dionysus’ cult in Etruria (It 
can be assumed, that his settlement in Etruria, as in other episodes of Dio-
nysus’ adventure, was not easy and painless).16  
                                                 
14  Herodotus, Histories, I, 94. Other assumptions on Etruscan origin are not provided 
here, because it goes beyond limits of the topic in question.  
15  Pindar, I, Etna, 72, 102; Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes, Edited by J. Henderson, Trans-
lated by W. H. Race, Loeb 2002.  
16  Livius, for instance, points out, that Dionysus cult emerged to Rome exactly from 
Etruria, which was forbidden by the Senate in 186 BC.  
Ekaterine Kobakhidze  
 
78 
In V c. BC Etruscan Chthonian deity Fufluns, the cult of which was 
popular in Vay-city, preserved its name, but became a character of Hellen-
ic myths and occupied Dionysus’ place in Etruscan pieces of art.  
In parallel with popularization of Dionysus Cult in Italy (It seems that 
Etruscans got acquainted with him in Coumae),17 the myth about Diony-
sus and Tyrrhenian pirates, which might be created by Eubians in VII-VI 
cc. BC, reflects attitude of the Greek towards Tyrrhenians and piracy as 
well, which is narrated by allegoric language of this fantastic metamor-
phosis.  
Therefore, the myth about Dionysus and Tyrsenian pirates, which is 
metaphorically based on opposition of the Good and the Evil, might be 
reflecting several historical events:  
1. War between Greeks and Etruscans (Tyrrhenians) for the supremacy 
on sea.  
2. History of establishment of Greek culture (Namely, Cult of Diony-
sus) in the Basin of Tyrrhenian Sea and the Apennines (VIII-IX cc. BC).  
It is significant that Tyrrhenian pirates, being the personification of 
negative forces, gain additional features in Ancient literature and turn into 
hyperbolized Evil.18  
Consequently, it seems quite realistic to consider orientation date of 
creating Dionysus-related myth VI-V cc. BC.  
It is important that this assumption is justified by archeological data- 
so far there is no reflection of a specific myth in pieces of art earlier, than 
VI-V cc. BC.19  
 
                                                 
17  Mario Cristofani, Fufluns, 118. 
18  Kobakhidze E., Tyrrhenian Pirates, in: Kobakhidze E., Etruscans in Ancient Literature, 
Logos, Tbilisi 2007, 280- 281.  
19  The earliest: Hydria from Taledo (510-500 cc. BC. Ohio. Fine Arts Museum: Bowl 
Exekias (540-530 c. BC), Munich, Antikensamlungen. 


Tyrrhenian Pirates

Phasis 10 (I), 2007 
 
 
Nana Tonia (Tbilisi) 
THE ENIGMATIC LOGIC OF THE ARGONAUT MYTH 
–  Why does a stone, thrown up, fall down?  
  ‘In compliance with the force of gravitation’, 
says Newton.  
  ‘Because the stone wants so’, says Schopenhauer. 
–  But what about the stone hanging over the head of  
 Tantalus, which ever threatens to come down, why  
 does it not fall down? 
  ‘Zeus wishes so’, mythos answers.  
 
Mythos hides hosts of secrets. Some can be disclosed, while others remain 
unrevealed even at present. This creative power, imagination exists, although 
in a hidden way, in the consciousness of poets and philosophers. 
Consequently, it is possible to have new myths created, which is attested by 
our contemporary verbal art. This dynamic character of the poetic form of 
mythos has its structure, the structure of metamorphosis of the poetic images 
of mythos, which on its part follows a definite logic. This logic is sometimes 
rational, but more often it is irrational, as a lot remains mysterious for human 
consciousness endowed with the gift for poetic imaginations. Ancient Greek 
epos, lyric and tragedy tenderly attended to the mystery of these images and 
beliefs till the end of ancient times as its own treasure and splendid 
possession. 
Historical-cultural rendering of mythic images, poetic imaginations 
requires great caution and is often marked with infantilism. The goal of my 
paper is to consider the world of poetic imaginations of the Argonaut myth 
and have a look at the logic, which underlies and keeps alive the poetic 
images of the myth and the wonderful events or the enigmas depicted therein. 
Nana Tonia 
 
194 
First of all, I believe that it would be appropriate to specify what exactly I 
mean by ‘enigmas’, or more precisely, ‘the enigmatic logic’: the extraordi-
nary world of the Hellenic mythos is material and sensible i.e. perceptible at 
the same time. All what is spiritual, ideal and mental in it is at the same time 
material and vice versa: all what is material can appear ideal, imaginary, not 
following the logic of common sense and transferable into the imaginary 
world, which also has its own logic. In this case, I share the opinion of Jacob 
Golosovker that if we try to decipher the imaginary world, if we go deeper 
into the gnoseology of imagination, we will come to the conclusion that it has 
its own logic, and this will be the ‘enigmatic logic’.  
The Argonaut mythos, which retains hosts of dilemmas for the reader, is 
imaginative rather than real. Although Tim Severin’s expedition, 
archeological excavations in Troy, Lemnos, as well as other materials have 
attested to the possibility of an actual Argonautic expedition, this is only one 
aspect of mythological studies. I am interested in the axis that supports the 
imaginative world of the Argonaut myth, and I believe it should be looked for 
exactly within enigmatic logic. More specifically, it is the voyage in time and 
space, both being imaginative in their essence. Allow me to remind you that 
the correspondence between Aea of the earliest legends and the countries 
located on the East Black Sea coast has not yet been unquestionably attested; 
legendary Aea is considered to be located in either Greece itself1, or the west 
Mediterranean2, or Mesopotamia3, or Ethiopia4; there is an assumption 
regarding the Anatolian version of the Golden Fleece as well5. The complete 
route and exact duration of the Argonaut expedition has not been detected, 
etc. 
Besides, I should also mention that it was the voyage with obstacles, as 
the central element of the narration was always a wondrous person, event or 
thing. In my opinion, the whole myth is based exactly on the axis of wonders. 
Such axis is the Golden Fleece hanging in a gorgeous grove of Aea the 
wonderland, and protected by the sleepless dragon. Around this axis lie 
magicians, magic tools and magic events. In support of this statement, I will 
cite a fragment from A. Losev’s and A. Takho-Godi’s paper: ‘If even 
                                                 
1  Я. Э. Голосовкер, Логика мифа, Москва, 1987, 19. 
2  W. H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexika der griechischen und römischen Mythologoie, Leipzig 
1884-1937. See also Pauly's Realenzyklopedie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 
Stuttgart, 1893-1972. 
3  M. C. Astour, Hellenosemitica, Leiden, 19678. 
4  Der Kleine Pauly, Lexikon der Antike auf der Grundlage von Paulys RE, hg. K. Ziegler, W. 
Sontheimer, 5 Bde., 1964-75. 
5  Cf. G. Giorgadze, ‘The Fleece’ in the Hittite Sources and It’s Ancient Parallels, TSU papers, 
227, 1982, 287ff. 
The Enigmatic Logic of the Argonaut Myth 
 
195
wonders live in actual terms, they live only on the soil of the most exotic land 
of Colchis, where they fill the palace of Aietes, where wonder and 
monstrosity is almost indistinguishable, neighboring with each other, and 
where the heroic human character is fully capable of confronting a monster 
and working a wonder.’6 Not only the Colchian part, but the whole myth of 
the Argonauts’ voyage abounds of wondrous plots, which, as I have already 
mentioned above, make up a certain system. Now I will only focus on three 
determining aspects of this system, which I find especially relevant. They are 
a) The possibility of scholarly treatment and explanation of enigmas; b) 
Functional implication of enigmas; c) The aesthetic aspect of enigmas. 
a) The mystery of enigmas 
Scholars have always attempted to explain an event presented in the myth 
and adjust it to a historical context. Sometimes this is justified, but sometimes 
such reasoning is tinted with infantilism. In my opinion, scholarly approach to 
such plots as ‘Jason’s adventure in Colchis’ contains discrepancies. It 
includes the unity of two sub-plots: a) Accomplishment of Aietes’ tasks; 
b) Taking away the Fleece. The episode is rich in enigmas. One of the scenes 
belonging to it is the fight against the dragon, which has several versions. The 
comparison of these versions reveals some discrepancies. Two dragons 
appear in the myth: one, whose teeth Jason is to sow, and the other, who 
guards the Fleece. Realizing that two dragons could not be related to the same 
plot, ancient authors offered their own versions: either Jason killed the dragon 
on the king’s order, or the teeth belonged to the dragon killed by Cadmus.7 
Some authors even neglected the episode with dragon’s teeth. Even such an 
early source as the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar, which thoroughly enough 
presents Aietes’ task, is reticent about the dragon’s teeth.8 There are several 
hypothesis connected with the retrieval of the Fleece or the origin of the 
Argonaut myth. The majority of scholars support the so-called Greek-
Caucasian hypothesis, according to which the archeological material from 
western Georgia attests to the high level of metalwork, high production rate 
                                                 
6  А. А. Тахо-Годи, А. Ф. Лосев, Греческая культура в мифах, символах и терминах, Санкт-
Петербург, 1999, 605. 
7  According to the tradition, after killing the Dragon, Cadmus retained part of its teeth, and 
Prixus (or some other deity) took the rest of the teeth to Aietes. This version was especially 
favoured by ancient authors. It was also used by Apollonius Rhodius (III, 869; IV, 214). For a 
detailed account of the episode, see The Argonauts. The World of Greek Myths, related and 
commented on by R. Gordeziani, Tbilisi, 1999, 104 ff. (in Georgian). 
8  According to Pindar, ‘…Aietes positioned in their midst the plow made of adamant and the 
oxen that were breathing the flame of blazing fire from their tawny jaws and pawing the 
ground in turn with brazen hoofs, he led them and brought them to the joke-strap single-
handedly. He stretched straight furrows as he drove them and split open the stretch of clodded 
earth a fathom deep’ (223-230). 
Nana Tonia 
 
196 
of agricultural tools, and consequently, the episode of yoking fire-breathing 
bulls and of ploughing the field is subjected to an ontological and not 
enigmatic logic. In my opinion, such an approach, to put it softly, is 
disputable. Finding links between the fire-breathing and brazen-footed bulls 
and the production of agricultural tools bears the signs of infantilism in the 
same way as the detection of parallels between the mythos of the armed men, 
the Spartans, sprang from the ground after dragon’s teeth were sown, and 
agriculture, as well as between their fight and the act of scything. The 
grounds for such parallels are very simple: an attempt to connect the unusual 
to the ordinary, belonging to the sphere of daily life, or to a historical fact. 
In the same way, no matter what the Golden Fleece may embody9, 
whatever symbols it may be supposed to convey, it primarily was the symbol 
of power (or welfare) of a country in mythological world, which after being 
moved away from Colchis, lost its function and was rendered uninteresting to 
mythos. 
b) The absoluteness of the functions of enigmas 
The wonderful world of mythos has its own symbols, directly based on 
the absoluteness and perfect nature of the functions of creatures and things 
found therein, whether deities, monsters or magic items. 
The function of a magic creature or thing is infinite; as the energy it issues 
is absolute and is put into use or stopped at the will of its owner (it suffices to 
mention Apollo’s unfailing arrows and Heracles’ club). If the absoluteness of 
the function of the items or beings is lost, the latter are annulled – they are 
rendered invalid to accomplish their function, lose their essence and perish 
away from the mythical scene. 
This exactly happened to the Golden Fleece, which was carried away by 
the expedition of the renowned heroes from whole Greece. Symplegades, the 
Clashing Rocks, which were not supposed to be passed through by any ship, 
also disappeared from the mythic scene. After the Argonauts managed to 
overcome this wonder, the rocks lost their function10, while the mythic world 
lost interest in them. 
c) Enigma as an aesthetic game without moral 
Logical understanding or interpretation of a wondrous event was nat at all 
important to ancient world. The Hellenes perceived this wonderful event 
without any questions. They accepted the body made invisible by an invisible 
hat as just invisible; while the representative of modern European civilization, 
H. G. Wells, was to comment which chemical solution was responsible for 
                                                 
9  The Argonauts. The World of Greek Myths, related and commented on by R. Gordeziani, 
Tbilisi, 1999, 107 ff. (in Georgian). 
10  This episode is replicated in the Homeric Odyssey. 
The Enigmatic Logic of the Argonaut Myth 
 
197
making a body invisible so that it remained palpable otherwise. However, it 
should also be mentioned here that neither a modern reader takes much 
interest in the techniques of man’s transformation into a spider. 
The Hellenes perceived a wonderful event as an aesthetic reality, which 
did not rule out an appropriate logical ground. The logic of an enigmatic 
event is easily understandable, for example, in such a classical plot as the 
birth of Athena (wisdom) from the head of Zeus. This fact is based on a 
logical ground, which is sufficient for mental reality (i.e. a logical element) to 
become ontological. Here we enter the world of enigmatic reality, where 
everything is possible and no one is surprised at this. All depends of one’s 
will or artistic effort, which also has its own logic – nothing is impossible for 
it.11 No one but Peleas’ daughters were surprised at Medea’s hacking an old 
ram into pieces, putting them into a boiling water, and then taking out a lamb 
from the water – because Hellenic world did not take interest in ‘why?’, it 
found relevant the fact itself, the power of sorcery as an aesthetic reality 
(according to certain sources of the Argonaut myth, when Jason arrived, his 
father Aeson was still alive. Medea rejuvenated him12, and did the same with 
his husband).13 This axiom of a wonderful event also has its logic: the 
important thing here is not whether the fact is convincing or not, but the 
essence of it as an aesthetic game, which does not have moral. This is the 
basis for any wonder, magic events or magic things. Just one wish is enough 
to have the unimaginable accomplished, although nothing is unimaginable for 
Greek mythos. 
As the process of myth-creation is unlimited in ancient Greek world, 
which the dynamic character of the poetic form of mythos fits so well, no one 
was surprised at adding new traits to the interpretation of Medea’s image. I 
mean the intensified tragism of this ever tragic image. If child-slaughter, 
committed by Medea, was not in the initial version of the mythos and is 
believed to be included later, the creative genius of the author placed it 
anyway in the sphere of enigmatic logic, in the string of indescrepant 
discrepancies – the dismembering of Apsyrtus, the boiling of Peleas, and 
turning Creon and Creuse into ashes. A modern reader may have a lot of 
questions: why is not Medea punished? Or if she revived a hacked and boiled 
ram as a lamb, why did not she wish to bring her children back to life? And so 
                                                 
11  Although ethic are very important in Greek mythos, in this case, first the desire is fulfilled (no 
matter how blasphemous it may be), and then punishment follows (Tantalus, Sisyphus, Ixion, 
etc.). 
12  The Returns, fr. VI; Ovid, Metamorphoses, VII, 159 ff. 
13  Pherecydes, fr. 74; Simonides, fr. 204 and others.  
Nana Tonia 
 
198 
on. But this infantilism vanishes at once when we recall that an event is more 
important to a creative genius than its interpretation. 
Accomplishment of unimaginable feats and labors is a fabulous motif. It 
has moral as well as aesthetic implication. However, here we once again 
encounter certain logic; it also has its own logic. In particular, a wondrous 
being makes wonder with the help of or through another wonder: yoking 
brazen-footed and fire-breathing bulls, beating the armed men that sprung 
from the ground after the dragon’s teeth were sown, putting to sleep the 
horrifying guard of the Golden Fleece, acquiring the symbol of power of the 
Colchian king, and so on is impossible for an average mortal to accomplish 
without a magic force. What happens in mythos is pre-determined. The secret 
of the future is obvious, but the ways of accomplishing it are not revealed. 
This aesthetic game is also intrinsic for enigmatic logic. 
So, the goal of the present paper was to show with respect to the Argonaut 
mythos that the enigmas existing in the mythic world have their own logic. To 
be concise, this is the logic of unimaginable imaginations, which, although 
presented in time and space, exists without time and space; is placed in the 
chain of discrepancies, but works without any discrepancy. This is the free 
logic, which is equivalent to a creative effort. The world of imaginations, 
mythos implicitly offers the reason and cause of an event. They are linked to 
each other with an absolute freedom – the creative will, which may even be 
unconsciously guided by ontological logic.  


The Enigmatic Logic of the Argonaut Myth

Chotalishvili, Lela

The Colchian \u27Heritage\u27 of Helios against the Background of Linguistic Data

Puchner, Walter

"Η Μήδεια" του Franz Grillparzer (1821) στη μετάφραση του Κωνσταντίνου Χατζοπούλου (1915, 1927)

Plontke-Lüning, Annegret

Apsaros, Apsyrtos, Andreas, Mathata. Heroentraditionen im politischen Kontext

Gagua, Iamze

For the Interpretation of Some Details from the Argonaut Legend according to the "Argonautica" by Apollonius Rhodius

Not a member yet