This collected volume is the product of a symposium convened by C. in Bologna on 30 October 2015. All the original speakers (C., S. Boehringer, C. Calame, F. Ferrari, G. Liberman) contributed to the volume. Additional contributions were made by A. Chabod, C. Neri and R. Tosi. The aim of the book, as stated by Tosi in the preface, is to combine philological analysis and anthropological comparison in order to study the evolution of the concept of ἔρως in Archaic Greece.
The first contribution, by C., ‘Amore fra ἔρως e ϕιλότης’, serves as an introduction to the volume. C. contends that ‘love’ is a modern notion employed inadequately as a translation for various Greek terms like ἔρως, ϕιλότης, πόθος or ἵμερος, all of which convey specific connotations. His aim is to pursue the connotations for the term ϕιλότης, for which he observes two distinct contexts. In erotic contexts, ϕιλότης denotes forms of consensual sexual intercourse or those aspiring to it. In non-erotic contexts, it denotes reciprocal alliances between individuals or groups. C. then examines whether these two usages might have a common origin and locates this origin in the wedding, where the legitimisation of sexual intercourse among two individuals represents and completes an alliance between two families. For C., this suggests that the erotic usage is secondary, resulting from its occurrence in the particular context of the wedding, and that the primary sense of the term is that of a reciprocal relationship.
The second contribution, by Boehringer and Chabod, ‘Sotto il rischio di eros: genere e poesia melica in una società che precede sessualità’, provides the theoretical foundations for the study of gender and sexual identity in antiquity. The first half of the contribution contains a (rather) general survey of the history of gender studies. It concludes that, given the constructed nature of modern binary categories like heterosexual/homosexual, these categories are unlikely to have been meaningful in antiquity. The second part argues that, for archaic poets, there exists in fact no ‘hierarchy of sexuality’, since certain erotic constellations of sexes in the hic et nunc may correspond to mythical paradigms that contain different constellations. This argument is illustrated through two examples. The first is the ‘New Sappho’ (fr. 58 V. + P.Köln xi 429), where Tithonus serves as a paradigm for the female speaker and Eos for her female beloved. The second example is Thgn. 1283–94, where a boy's defiance against the speaker's advances is compared to Atalanta's refusal to marry.
The third contribution, ‘Chi ama Astimelusa? Gli attori di Alcm. PMGF 3 nel loro contesto’, also by C., aims to shed light on the figures in Alcman's obscure second Partheneion. Starting from the observation that the description of Astymeloisa by the chorus is amorous in tone, C. juxtaposes similar descriptions of homoerotic relationships in Sappho and Theognis. He points out that, though both male and female homoerotic relationships usually involve a form of asymmetry between ἐραστής and ἐρώμενος, this asymmetry is often inverted as the ἐρώμενος grows up. C. then applies these categories to the second Partheneion, where he observes that Astymeloisa is depicted in terms evocative of both the lover and the beloved. C. seeks the reasons for this unusual kind of asymmetry in the performance context of this song. Unlike Theognis and Sappho, whose songs were supposedly sung in front of small, stable audiences, Alcman's song was, according to C., directed at the entire Spartan citizen body. Here, he argues somewhat vaguely, different visions of feminine erotics may be voiced.
Sappho, fr. 1 V. is the focus of the contribution by Ferrari, ‘Sapph. fr. 1,18–24 e la grammatica dell’eros’. This contribution is directed against the traditional interpretation whereby Sappho wishes that an unfaithful girlfriend may return to her. Ferrari pursues an alternative interpretation, first advanced by A. Giacomelli (‘The Justice of Aphrodite in Sappho fr. 1’, TAPhA 110 [1980], 135–42), whereby Sappho merely complains about a girl impervious to her first advances. Here, Aphrodite does not promise that the girl will love Sappho, but that, when the girl is grown up and herself in the position of the adult lover, her own advances will be equally unrequited by young girls. Ferrari reviews all the support for this interpretation. He also seeks to corroborate it through a number of different readings. In 24, he favours ἐθέλοισαν (Schäfer) instead of the more commonly printed ἐθέλοισα. In 22, he proposes ἄλλα instead of ἀλλά. For 18–19, he produces τίνα δηὖτε Πείθων (Ahrens) | μᾶσ′ (Wilamowitz) ἄγην ἐς σὰν ϕιλότατα, where Πείθων is accusative and μᾶσ(αι) an uncontracted form of the second-person present indicative of μαίομαι/μάομαι (‘whom do you want Peitho to lead into union with you’). The resulting interpretation is coherent and convincing, thought doubts may remain about ἄλλα.Footnote 1
Calame's contribution, ‘Saffo e il “genere”, il “genere” e Saffo: le protagoniste femminili della poesia erotica greca’, is an Italian translation of an article that originally appeared in French in 2013 (Eugesta 3, 6–24). In it, Calame approaches feminine identity in Sappho through the lexical terms used to refer to female individuals, including πάις, πάρθενος, νύμϕα and γύνα. He emphasises the close correspondence of these feminine identities with the biological development of the female body. In a second step, Calame aims to integrate these findings into the study of gender in general. He deplores the distinction between nature and culture, which underlies most feminist approaches today. His contribution ends with an appeal for greater attention to the organic and biological realities on which the social and cultural construction of gender identities is based.
The long contribution by Liberman, ‘L'elogio pindarico di Teosseno (fr. 123) rivisitato’, offers a comprehensive re-examination of Pindar's fr. 123 S.-M. Liberman first assesses the central role played by this poem in the formation of the legend of Pindar's death in Argus, which he traces back to Chamaeleon. He then provides a text of the fragment followed by comments on selected issues. The remaining parts are dedicated to two broader issues. The first concerns the question of whether the speaker's affection for Theoxenus is merely a sympotic topos or whether Pindar was in fact in love with the boy. Liberman is emphatically in favour of the latter and aims to revive a pre-Bundyan interpretation as it is found, most clearly, in Wilamowitz. In the course of this argument, he also re-examines the relationship of fr. 123 S.-M. with N. 11 and concludes that Aristagoras, the victor of N. 11, must be the brother of Theoxenus and Agesilas their father. The second issue concerns the corrupt term ψυχράν in line 9 of fr. 123 S.-M.: Liberman reviews and rejects all available conjectures and proposes the reading ψυδράν, a rare variant of ψευδῆ.
A conclusion to the volume is offered by Neri's contribution, ‘La forza e la forma. Appunti su necessità e metamorfosi dell’amore tra Omero, Platone e i Cristiani’, which broadens the scope from archaic Greek poetry to the treatment of love across antiquity. As opposed to the other contributions, Neri's aim is not to pursue a specific argument or interpretation, but to offer a panorama of reflections on love from Homer to Augustine. The appeal of this contribution lies in Neri's elegant translations of the passages selected, particularly his verse translations of Greek poetry.
For the volume as a whole, C.’s efforts are to be commended, not only because he organised the original symposium and the speedy publication of the contributions, but also because he procured the Italian translations of the contributions of Boehringer/Chabod and Calame. The volume is well produced. Typographical errors are infrequent, though some are obvious. Greek text, which is quoted abundantly, for instance, in Neri's contribution, has been checked carefully. There is an index of passages discussed, but a thematic index would have increased the usefulness of the volume.
As for the quality of argument, the individual contributions vary. A particular contrast is manifest between the first three contributions and the last four. This difference is not merely one of seniority or experience, but perhaps also of thoroughness. C. and Boehringer/Chabod frequently refer to their previous work, but treat other secondary literature only superficially. Boehringer/Chabod refer to entire books without page numbers, and C.’s bibliography contains surprising gaps.Footnote 2 Moreover, the interpretations offered in all three contributions rely excessively on speculation based on vague parallels or general likelihood. C.’s first contribution contains distracting factual errors (p. 5: Sapph. fr. 112.4 V. refers either to the bride or the bridegroom, not to Aphrodite; p. 9: Helen's lover is Paris, not Patroclus; p. 10: the speaker at Od. 10.347 is Odysseus, not ‘il poeta’). Textual variation is not sufficiently taken into consideration, which is particularly detrimental in the case of Sappho's ‘Kypris Song’ (fr. 26 V. + P.Sapph.Obbink), where the choice of reading has a significant effect on the interpretation (cf. now inter alia L. Benelli, Sapphostudien [2017], pp. 111–27; K. Tsantsanoglou and S. Tselikas, Eikasmos 28 [2017], 23–36; A. Lardinois, ZPE 205 [2018], 1–5). In contrast, Ferrari, Calame and Liberman develop their arguments thoroughly, on the basis of verifiable evidence, and with full accounts of previous scholarship.
The merit of this volume lies in revisiting existing interpretations rather than in finding new ones. Despite any shortcomings, it will be useful to readers of Sappho, Theognis and Pindar. In addition to the focus on gender theory, the volume's wealth of textual and linguistic observations makes it interesting also for more conservative scholars.
