Source 04

CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH AND
METHODOLOGY
This thesis is an examination of the abstract concept of nemesis together with
its deity Nemesis that, with the exception of the archaeology in Chapter 4
which includes some pertinent Hellenistic material, stretches from the Archaic
through to the Classical period. The thesis is organized along the lines of a
chronological chapter approach which specifically avoids syncretic treatment,
but adopts a diachronic analysis to reveal the development of the deity from its
abstract, rather than taking as its starting point the goddess as an established
cult figure of fifth-century Attika presented along thematic lines that stretch
over the centuries. This has allowed me to explore and incorporate interesting
nuances from different periods and genres of evidence, and make them
relevant within their own time period. The evidence surrounding the
development of the abstract nemesis from Homer onwards is discussed,
analysed, and synthesized, together with Nemesis the deity, who was first
personified by Hesiod and who went on to be worshipped at her own cult
centre at Rhamnous, and elsewhere. Through the collection and extraction of
what is deemed pertinent in the ancient literature, inscriptions, papyri,
iconographical depictions, mythological traditions, and archaeological
discoveries, I develop an interpretative argument that elucidates the
phenomenon that is both nemesis and its embodiment, Nemesis, and which
provides new insights into why the Greeks would worship a deity who was to
epitomize retribution and punishment from the fifth century onwards. Other
questions to be addressed are how and why did the concept of nemesis, as a
mental state of being, i.e. an emotion lacking corporeality, become transformed
into a goddess who later came to receive cult worship, and what was the nature
of this worship?
From the literary evidence of the Archaic period, I conclude that the abstract
concept of nemesis is Janus-like, comprising two facets that were part of the
same entity. One facet of this abstract entity was concerned with overseeing
~1~
Research and Methodology
the just allocation, the ‘distribution of what is due’,1 or the deserved fate that a
person is allotted at birth, as derived from the verb νέμω ‘to deal out’,
‘distribute’, from which the abstract’s name derives.2 The other facet involved
the righteous punishment, indignation, or blame invoked against anyone who
went beyond, or did not live up to, this allotted apportionment of fate, or who
carried out a reprehensible act: punishments which logically became ‘righteous
retribution’ in the Classical period. Once the abstract was deified it was then
the goddess Nemesis who punished those guilty of reprehensible acts, or who
had gone beyond their allocation of life’s fortune.
As individual segments, the ancient written sources, the archaeology, and the
iconography can never be wholly sufficient to interpret comprehensively the
social and religious thoughts surrounding both nemesis and Nemesis.
Consequently, these sources have been used, wherever possible, in
collaboration with each other in a way that allows each to add to and
complement the other, thereby producing a more rounded synergistic exegesis.
For example, Nemesis’ statue at Rhamnous is described by Pausanias as
holding in her right hand a phiale adorned with Ethiopians;3 but without a
corresponding iconographical representation Pausanias’ inadequate description
leaves the reader to imagine how the phiale may have originally looked.
Consequently, had it not been for the archaeological discovery at
Panagyurishte in Bulgaria of a gold mesomphalos phiale adorned with African
heads which is thought to be a copy of the one from Rhamnous, this difficulty
would have persisted. Thus, archaeology and iconography have enabled
Pausanias’ brief written description to be visually supplemented and posterity
has the opportunity to picture Nemesis’ phiale.
With regard to iconography, the evidence from pottery is crucial. For example,
the images and scenes on the Berlin amphoriskos, also known as the
Heimarmene amphoriskos since it is thought to provide the only representation
of this goddess, provide a pictorial dimension to supplement and enhance the
established mythology, thus exemplifying a collaboration of sources. More
1
LSJ9 1167, col. 1 s.v. νέμεσις.
2
LSJ9 1167, cols 1-2 s.v. νέμω.
3
Paus. 1.33.3.
~2~
specifically, in using this vessel and others as evidence, I analyse features and
interpret the constituent individual representations on each vessel, paying
particular attention to the iconographic minutiae by stressing features which
may not have been previously discussed or the significance of which not
realised. Such an approach has enriched the understanding of Nemesis by
incorporating these into a discussion which presents a wider insight into this
goddess. In terms of the significance of a particular sub-set of pottery found at
Rhamnous, namely the loutrophoroi, the images that adorn them have enabled
me to establish a chthonic and funereal character for this goddess for at least
the late seventh century and possibly earlier, whereas the literary evidence first
secures this aspect of the goddess for the fifth century onwards. My thesis is
the first to stress these points in English, drawing scholars’ attention to this
important original aspect of the goddess.
My thesis is the first full-length treatment of N/nemesis. Studies stretching

over more than one hundred years have produced a number of studies on
deified personifications of abstract concepts. Despite this, a detailed analysis
of N/nemesis, either as an abstraction or a personification, has, prior to the
archaeological discoveries at Rhamnous, especially those under the auspices of
Petrakos since the mid 1970s, proven elusive with few scholars advancing any
real critical interpretational exegesis into the personification. What scholarship
exists is often limited to short overviews such as is found in Nilsson who
provides, without comment, two brief mentions concerning the goddess’
mythical role in Hesiod, and a remark about her appearance on the Berlin
amphoriskos.4 A slightly more in-depth discussion is provided by Farnell who
more broadly discusses both the abstract and the personification,5 whilst Herter
mainly focuses on her role as the mother of Helen.6 Foucart’s entry is limited
to three lines in which he says she may sometimes be a personification, and
incorrectly states she was a primitive goddess at Rhamnous. 7 Hamdorf
comprehensively discusses a wide range of personifications, but only briefly
4
M. P. Nilsson, 'Kultische Personifikationen,' Eranos 50, 1952, 32, 33.
5
L. R. Farnell, The Cults of The Greek States, 3 vols, vol. II, Oxford, 1896, 487-498.
6
H. Herter, 'Nemesis,' in A. Pauly (ed.), Paulys-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, vol. xvi, Stuttgart, 1935, cols 2338-2379.
7
G. B. Foucart, 'Personification', Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics ix, 1917, 794.
~3~
comments on Nemesis,8 while Burkert provides just three sentences on the

goddess.9 A more thorough treatment is provided by Roßbach who, writing in
the nineteenth century, discusses the evidence that was available at that time,
including the literary evidence, her attributes, her connections to other deities,
her cult at Rhamnous and elsewhere, and the iconographic evidence.10
More recently, the publication of the archaeological discoveries from

Rhamnous combined with a renewed interest in personifications has resulted in
several studies that enhance the previous scholarship. The dissertation by
Kershaw examines Nemesis during the Hellenistic period with a short
background discussion on the abstract concept and the goddess prior to this
time to illustrate Nemesis’ reception during the Hellenistic period.11 Fisher’s
seminal work on hybris discusses a variety of abstract concepts including
nemesis where he draws out the meaning of the abstract as used in the literary
sources. He goes on to discuss the relationship, if any, between hybris and
nemesis, but concludes there are just two confirmed instances where such a
dichotomy existed in the Classical literature.12 Hornum’s primary focus is
Nemesis in the Roman Imperial period together with her relationship with the
state and her connection to agonistic contests, for which he furnishes an
extensive epigraphical and literary corpus. Included in his work is a fourteen-
page chapter with documents and literary evidence for Nemesis in the Archaic
and Classical periods.13 Parker discusses Nemesis in a general sense as part of
thematic discussions to reinforce his arguments on issues such as temple
building, sanctuary priestesses, and temple administration.14 Stafford’s book
case-studies six personified abstract concepts, and presents a detailed and
8
F. W. Hamdorf, Griechische Kultpersonifikationen der Vorhellenistischen Zeit, Mainz, 1964,
35-36, 96-97.
9
W. Burkert, Greek Religion, Archaic and Classical, trans. J. Raffan, Oxford, 1985, 185.
10
O. Roßbach, 'Nemesis,' in W. H. Roscher (ed.), Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und
Römischen Mythologie, vol. 3, Leipzig, 1897-1902, 117-166.
11
S. P. Kershaw, Personification in the Hellenistic World: Tyche, Kairos, Nemesis,
Dissertation, Bristol University Press, 1986, chp. 4, pp. 1-101, Nemesis in the pre-Hellenistic
period chp. 4, pp. 1-13.
12
N. R. E. Fisher, Hybris, Warminster, 1992, the abstract concept is commented upon
throughout the book, for example: 162-163, 180-181, 300-301, 357-360.
13
M. B. Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, Leiden, 1993, 1-14 (pre-Roman
Nemesis).
14
R. Parker, Athenian Religion: A History, Oxford, 1996, 18, 74, 154, 187 (temples), 25
(temple administration), 127 n. 21 (priestesses).
~4~
comprehensive chapter on Nemesis in which she concludes that although

artistic representations changed over time, the goddess’ core character
remained constant. Her work is the most detailed prior to my own study, and
she covers a wide range of genres, but since the subject is limited to one
chapter the treatment is, of necessity, truncated.15 Shapiro’s study is an
important analysis of the artistic representations of numerous personifications
from the sixth and fifth centuries, but with such a wide range of
personifications detail is limited, resulting in less than four pages on
Nemesis.16 Smith presents a similarly themed book on the artistic
representation of personifications which is supported by an extensive catalogue
of document reliefs, paintings, statuary, iconography, and vase paintings. Her
focus is Classical personifications of ‘civic or political phenomena’, and
includes not only personified deities but also personifications of ‘things’ such
as virtues, political institutions, festivals and geographical entities, and their
relation to the Greek polis.17 An article by Schwarzmaler reports on the results
of her forensic analysis of the aforementioned Berlin amphoriskos where she
argues against an identification of the figure traditionally interpreted as
Heimarmene. She also presents a close study of the other depicted figures,
which is relevant to my own analysis of this amphoriskos.18 A recent article by
Bonanno examines the use of nemesis in Homer where her focus is the nemesis
felt by the gods towards both mortals and other gods. She sees no correlation
between nemesis and divine justice nor any ‘sanctioning effects’, but rather as
an emotion which ‘underlines the spheres of competence of a deity’, and for
mortals as a tool which ‘instructs on the correct way to behave in a social
context’.19 Whilst her latter statement is valid, I argue against the first since
there is a link between nemesis and divine justice as well as sanctioning effects
designed to temper mankind’s more violent deeds and behaviour.
15
E. Stafford, Worshipping Virtues: Personification and the Divine in Ancient Greece,
London, 2000, 75-110 on Nemesis.
16
H. A. Shapiro, Personifications in Greek Art: The Representations of Abstract Concepts
600-400 B.C., Zürich, 1993, 173-176.
17
A. C. Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, Leiden, 2011, 4, 41-46 on
Nemesis.
18
A. Schwarzmaier, 'Wo ist Heimarmene? Eine neue Deutung des berühmten Amphoriskos in
der Berliner Antikensammlung,' AA, 2012 no. 1, 15-41.
19
D. Bonanno, '"She Suddered on Her Throne and Made High Olympus Quake." Causes,
Effects and Meanings of the Divine Nemesis in Homer,' Mythos 9, 2014, 93-111.
~5~
The finest and most extensive archaeological scholarship is without doubt that
of Petrakos and his team, who have published numerous monographs, books,
and papers on their findings at Rhamnous since the commencement of the
work in the mid 1970s. One which deserves to be singled out for especial
mention is the indispensable two volume work by Petrakos entitled Ὁ δῆμος
τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος,20 which details the archaeological discoveries and provides an
invaluable corpus of the hundreds of inscriptions found, beginning from the
sixth century. The rest of the extensive material is too numerous to list in full
here, but I have referenced the various publications throughout this thesis.
This is the current state of scholarship. Within my thesis I have acknowledged,

discussed, and supplemented this previous scholarship at the relevant
junctures. In addition, the reliability of the hypotheses reached by the previous
scholarship is examined and, whilst cognisant of their conclusions, my thesis
develops an independently reasoned approach to develop a substantive and
original researched argument which reveals more completely the abstract
concept of nemesis and its personification, Nemesis, together with a study of
her nature, her roles and her reception at Rhamnous through the archaeological
material found there. My thesis is a crucial seminal study with independent
thought, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions that advances the topic to
arrive at a more complete understanding.
In addition, my approach in this thesis has involved analyses of the various

discussions or fleeting comments of N/nemesis in the primary sources of the
Archaic and Classical periods together with an evaluation of the artistic
intention behind what remains of the iconographical evidence. 21 For the
nemesis-words in Homer and Hesiod I indicate the extent of scholarship on the
topic, before providing my own analysis of these nemesis-words which have
all, for the first time, been collected into an appendix of Homeric and Hesiodic
occurrences. My thesis is the first to undertake a holistic treatment of the wide
spectrum of ancient sources in a variety of written and material genres.
20
V. Petrakos, Ὁ δῆμος τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος: Σύνοψη τῶν ἀνασκαφῶν καὶ τῶν ἐρευνῶν (1813-
1998), II vols, Athens, 1999.
21
An iconographical discussion on Nemesis through different time periods is found in: LIMC
vi.1 Nemesis, commentary pp. 733-773, vi.2 images pp. 431-450 (P. Karanastassi).
~6~
Chapter 2 of this thesis commences with a lexical methodological analysis of

Homeric nemesis where it was a purely abstract concept. Here its meaning
equates to an emotion of ‘righteous indignation’ or ‘blame’ either towards
another or as an internalized emotion of guilt at one’s own failures when
connected with the fear of committing a culpable action that would result in
censure. My analysis has involved all variations of Homeric forms of nemesis
being collected, their context evaluated, and the intended meaning in each
instance being determined, insofar as possible after a hiatus of ca. two-
thousand six hundred years. The results are deliberated and are supplemented
in Appendix 1 with lists of each Homeric occurrence of the different
grammatical forms: the verbs νεμεσ(σ)άω and νεμεσίζομαι, the adjective
νεμεσητός, and the noun νέμεσις, together with the Loeb translation as a
comparison to my own linguistic interpretations in the main body of the thesis.
This appendix has proved an invaluable tool as a ready reference in convenient
list form to facilitate quick and easy access to each occurrence of the word.
My methodology in approaching nemesis in Homer through a study of the
relevant vocabulary and different word combinations is a new departure in
studies of nemesis and this methodology approach has yielded a clearer
appreciation and understanding of archaic conceptions of nemesis. This
lexicographical method reveals that Homeric nemesis could range in meaning
from a mild sense of bashfulness through to wrathful anger, but it did not, at
this stage, represent retributive punishment as such. It was also an emotion
that could be experienced within oneself against oneself at behaviour enacted
against a conscious knowledge of it being wrong, against societal norms, or
beyond one’s allocation of place in society.
A similar linguistic analysis of Hesiod’s works is undertaken employing the

same methodology, resulting in the conclusion that Hesiod employed the
vocabulary of the abstract nemesis in a similar way to that of Homer. It was
Hesiod who first personifies and deifies the abstract concept into the goddess
Nemesis, and here I present a new interpretation of her moment of apotheosis.
Chapter 2 concludes with a comprehensive critical analysis of Nemesis’
extended mythology as found in the Kypria, including the consequences of her
involuntary role in Zeus’ plan for mankind, and as the mother of Helen. Such
~7~
a close-reading of the archaic authors was further employed in my examination

of the writers of the classical age.
While the archaeological discoveries, for example the funereal loutrophoroi,

indicate an archaic chthonic aspect of the goddess Nemesis at Rhamnous, this
is not indicated in the literature of this period, but is evident in the study of the
later fifth-century literary references to both Nemesis and nemesis. The
chronological disparity here reflects the importance of my approach to the
archaeology, and the importance of my method in not examining N/nemesis
purely as a literary construct but examining the actual material evidence in
conjunction with other sources of evidence. Thus, the written, archaeological,
and iconographic material complement each other and validate my
methodologies.
The iconographical and literary sources of the Classical period are the focus of
Chapter 3. The images on the previously mentioned Berlin amphoriskos are
discussed as well as those on two ôons, all of which link Nemesis’ mythology
in the Archaic Kypria with the Classical era. By means of a systematic
analysis of the remaining fragmentary letter forms on the amphoriskos, I have
determined that the identification possibilities of those whose names are lost is
wider than has previously been argued in the scholarship. With regard to the
written sources of this period, both the abstract concept and the goddess are
viewed through the prism of the literary genres: tragedy, where she has a
chthonic association, particularly in her role as the champion of the wronged
dead in bringing retributive justice on their behalf, since they cannot; comedy,
where Kratinos’ Nemesis presents a play full of religious satire and political
ribald, although the actual target was the politician of the day, Perikles; and the
historical sources, where the presence or absence of a hybris/nemesis
dichotomy as cause and effect in Herodotos is discussed. The nature of the
available evidence has meant that my discussions on comedy and history are
reliant mainly on the literary evidence, while tragedy has the additional support
of archaeology and inscriptional evidence to complement the literary sources.
The focus of Chapter 4 is the archaeological discoveries from Nemesis’ cult

centre at Rhamnous in Attika, where domestic activity is evident from at least
~8~
the Mycenaean period. In this chapter I discuss not only the archaeology of the
Archaic and Classical periods, but also that from the Hellenistic even though
this period falls outside the chronological remit of this thesis. This has been
deemed necessary due to the importance of the discoveries from this later era
that provide a seamless continuity from Archaic, to Classical, to Hellenistic
which all interrelate and illustrate the development of the goddess as more and
more responsibilities fell within her sphere. Falling within this later period is
the important festival known as the Nemeseia which had its genesis from at
least the Classical period, although only fourth-century evidence is extant.
After first providing a short survey of the archaeological scholarship going

back to the 1800’s with a strong focus on Petrakos’ more recent work, I then
turn to interpreting important archaeological finds from Rhamnous, such as the
loutrophoroi which confirm Nemesis’ chthonic nature, the sixth-century
miniature votive wheel, the bronze helmet dated ca. 499 dedicated by
Rhamnousians on Lemnos, as well as other iconographic material. The earliest
secure attestation to the goddess Nemesis at Rhamnous is an inscribed
perirrhanterion dated to the second half of the sixth century.
With regard to the votive wheel, Faraone has argued that its discovery provides
evidence of a sixth-century date to associate Nemesis with retributive
punishment and torture, an association not previously assigned to so early a
date, and is a theory against which I argue. My analysis of this wheel
commences with a study to contextualize it, something not undertaken by
Faraone, by collecting examples of similar votive wheels dating to the Archaic
and Classical periods from sacred sites throughout Greece and dedicated to
various deities, the majority of whom have no connection to retribution or
punishment. This comparative methodology of the evidence of votive wheels
clearly indicates that these were relatively common votive offerings, and in
fact constituted an independent genre of dedications. Nemesis was, therefore,
never the sole beneficiary of such votives, and consequently the discovery of a
single votive wheel at Rhamnous cannot assign a sixth-century date to her later
retributive and punishing qualities. My methodological approach has been to
~9~
seek contexts – mythical, literary, iconographical, archaeological, and

linguistic – for all the relevant material evidence.
I also discuss, in some detail, the remains of three main consecutive temples
together with a small building or temple within the sanctuary precinct. The
artefacts are closely examined and include a discussion on Nemesis’ cult statue
together with the attributes of an apple branch in one hand and a phiale in the
other. I have undertaken a study of the fifth-century frieze on Nemesis’ statue
base and its relationship to the Trojan War story. I argue that the scene on the
frieze, which includes depictions of the local heroes, Hippeus, Neanias, and
Epochos, should be interpreted as allegorical representations of the horsemen
of the Athenian cavalry (Ἱππεύς),22 the young men of the Athenian infantry
(Νεανίας),23 and the sailors of the Athenian navy (Ἔποχος),24 i.e. all the
Athenian armed forces, who will aid Nemesis in her defence of Attika
whenever it is threatened. This interpretation has not previously been
identified in the existing scholarship.
This thesis is an examination of the chronological development of the abstract

concept of nemesis from an emotion of ‘righteous indignation’ in Homer, to a
personified deity in Hesiod with an extended mythology in the Kypria until, in
the fifth century, the term became synonymous with a sense of the divine
retribution dispensed by Nemesis for those who went beyond their life’s
allocation or who transgressed those areas of behaviour within the deity’s
jurisdiction. Once her retributive quality was perceived to have thwarted the
hybristic Persian invasionary force her renown spread and she was presented
with a magnificent new temple at Rhamnous together with cult statue, temple
personnel, and a festival held in her honour; privileges which signify the regard
in which she was held. Nemesis had now achieved the ultimate transformation
from nemesis as an abstract concept experienced by mortals and divinities, to a
specific deity acting in her own persona to deliver retributive justice. Her
renown spread throughout the Classical world and on into the Hellenistic and
Roman where hymns sung to musical scores were written in her honour.
22
LSJ9 833, col. 2 s.v. ἱππεύς (2) ‘horseman, rider, cavalryman’.
23
LSJ9 1163, col. 2 s.v. νεανίας ‘young man’.
24
LSJ9 677, col. 2 s.v. ἔποχος ‘mounted upon (horses, chariots, ships)’.
~10~
CHAPTER 2: THE ARCHAIC
LITERARY EVIDENCE
ἢ αὖ Ὀρφεῖ ξυγγενέσθαι καὶ Μουσαίῳ καὶ Ἡσιόδῳ καὶ Ὁμήρῳ
ἐπὶ πόσῳ ἄν τις δέξαιτ’ ἂν ὑμῶν;
Or again, how much would anyone of you give to converse with

Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer?
Plato, Apology 41a
The origins of Greek religious thought and beliefs are obscure, but the myths
and stories that surrounded the divine world would have been generated and
perpetuated through an interconnected complexity of oral myth which evolved
and adapted over millennia.25 The myths related the theogonies and
genealogies of the gods, and promoted ideas of their personalities and
behaviour in a way that was not only entertainment but also pedagogical.
Once the written format became dominant the myths would gradually have
become relatively fixed hierocracies, from where they would go on to
influence poetry, epic, drama, comedy, artistic representation, even historical
narratives.
Of particular interest to the study of any aspect of early Greek religion is the
cache of fragmentary Mycenaean clay tablets found in ca. 1952 at Pylos,
Mycenae, Knossos and Thebes. These were written in Linear B script, date to
ca. 1400-1200, and provide a partial pantheon of the Mycenaean gods
including familiar Olympian deities: Zeus, Poseidon, Ares, Artemis, Hermes,
and Apollo (figure 1).26 The tablets establish that a common core of deities
25
Nagy argues that for as long as the oral tradition was still alive there was ongoing
recomposition: G. Nagy, 'Homeric Questions,' TAPhA 122, 1992, 38, 41, 44.
26
Figure 1 is a tablet from Knossos which reads: a-ta-na-po-ti-ni-ja I [e-nu-wa-ri-jo I pa-ja-
wo[ ]po-se-da[: the first word, a-ta-na-po-ti-ni-ja, has generally been read as Athānā potnia
‘Mistress Athena’ (cf. Hom. Il. 6.305: πότνι’ Ἀθηναίη); the second word, e-nu-wa-ri-jo, as
Enualios, another name for Ares; the third word, pa-ja-wo[ ], suggests the Homeric Paiēōn,
originally Paiāwōn, and later Paiān, an alternative for Apollo; adding an ‘o’ at the end of the
fourth word po-se-da[ makes it Poseidāōn: J. Chadwick, The Mycenaean World, Cambridge,
1976, 88-89, fig. 37. Tablets found at Pylos record gods such as Poseidon, Zeus, Hera, Hermes
and Potnia (used as an epithet for the primary goddess of a region): T. G. Palaima, 'Sacrificial
Feasting in the Linear B Documents,' Hesperia 73, no. 2, 2004, 219; J. Gulizio, K. Pluta & T.
G. Palaima, 'Religion in the Room of the Chariot Tablets,' in R. Hägg & R. Laffineur (eds),
~ 11 ~
The Archaic Era
had existed from at least this period. Although it is not thought there were any
personifications and/or deified abstract concepts on the tablets, these have been
found on cuneiform tablets from the Near East; a region believed to have
influenced Hellenic religious beliefs.27 These Near Eastern tablets record
personifications such as: ‘Justice’, ‘Right Mind’, ‘Good Rule’, ‘Devotion’,
‘Prosperity’, ‘Immortality’, and ‘Discipline’,28 making it conceivable that such
concepts may have existed as part of an early Hellenic belief system.
Figure 1: Linear B clay fragment KN V 52 from Knossos inscribed with the names of Athena, Ares,
Apollo and Poseidon; Iraklion Museum; text no. 208 (source: Chadwick).
It was not until the eighth or seventh century that confirmed personified
abstract concepts appear in the extant works of the Greek epic poets, Homer,
Hesiod, and the author of the Kypria. It was these poets who were credited
with influencing the cosmologies and genealogies of the ancient Greek gods.
Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, Belgium, 2001, 453-461, esp. 458-
459; Burkert, Greek Religion, 43-46; M. Ventris & J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean
Greek, 2nd edn, Cambridge, 1973, 126, 311-312. Burkert gives Di-we(i) as the Bronze Age
version of Zeus, whose sanctuary was called the Di-wi-jo(n), and his priest was Di-wi-je-u(s);
Dionysus was Di-wo-nu-so; the general term for goddess was Di-wi-ja; and the term ‘to all the
gods’ was transcribed as pa-si-te-o-i (pansi theoihi, πᾶσι θεοῖσι): W. Burkert, 'From Epiphany
to Cult Statue: Early Greek Theos,' in A. B. Lloyd (ed.), What is a God? Studies in the Nature
of Greek Divinity, Swansea, 1997, 15-16. The similarities between the gods of the Linear B
tablets and those of Homer are discussed in: B. C. Dietrich, 'From Knossos to Homer,' in A. B.
Lloyd (ed.), What is a God? Studies in the Nature of Greek Divinity, Swansea, 1997, 1-13.
27
S. B. Noegel, 'Greek Religion and the Ancient Near East,' in D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion
to Greek Religion, Malden, 2007, 21-37; E. Stafford, 'Personification in Greek Religious
Thought and Practice,' in D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion, Malden, 2007, 73;
F. Solmsen, 'The Two Near Eastern Sources of Hesiod,' Hermes 117, 1989, 413-422; M. L.
West, 'Hesiod's Titans,' JHS 105, 1985, 174-175; R. Mondi, 'The Ascension of Zeus and the
Composition of Hesiod's Theogony,' GRBS 25, 1984, 342; P. Walcot, Hesiod and the Near
East, Cardiff, 1966, 81-84; M. L. West (ed.), Hesiod: Theogony, Oxford, 1966, 19; W. G.
Lambert & P. Walcot, 'A New Babylonian Theogony and Hesiod,' Kadmos 4, 1965, 64-72; H.
G. Güterbock, 'The Hittite Version of the Hurrian Kumarbi Myths: Oriental Forerunners of
Hesiod,' AJA 52, 1948, 123-134; A. J. Carnoy, 'The Moral Deities of Iran and India and Their
Origins,' American Journal of Theology 21, no. 1, 1917, 63-64.
28
Stafford, 'Personification in Greek Religious Thought and Practice,' 73.
~12~
The Archaic Era
Xenophanes, writing in the late sixth and early fifth century, speaks of the
poems of Homer and Hesiod as having influenced Greek religious and
philosophical thought over centuries: ‘From the beginning all have learned
according to Homer’; while his younger contemporary, Herakleitos, states:
‘Hesiod is the teacher of most men’.29 Herodotos, writing in the fifth century,
embellishes these statements by saying it was Homer and Hesiod who were the
ones responsible for formulating the written genealogies and cosmologies of
the gods and providing all Greeks with their unique mythological past:
But whence each of the gods came into being, or whether they
had all for ever existed, and what outward forms they had, the
Greeks knew not till (so to say) a very little while ago; for I
suppose that the time of Hesiod and Homer was not more than
four hundred years before my own; and these are they who
taught the Greeks of the descent of the gods, and gave to all their
several names, and honours, and arts, and declared their outward
forms.30
Since gods of one sort or another were present in the consciousness of

humanity from the very earliest times, Herodotos’ words are better interpreted
as a statement that Homer and Hesiod fixed the gods into the consciousness of
Greek minds by presenting the oral myths in a format that went on to dominate
not only Greek but the world’s imagination to the present day.31
29
Xenoph. DK 21 B 10: ἐξ ἀρχῆς καθ’ Ὅμηρον ἐπεὶ μεμαθήκοσι πάντες; Herakl: DK 22 B 57:
διδάσκαλος δὲ πλείστων Ἡσίοδος; cf. Xenoph. DK 21 B 11, 12: ‘Homer and Hesiod have
attributed to the gods all that are matters of reproach and blame among men: theft, adultery,
and mutual deceit’, and ‘… they sang of numerous illicit divine deeds: theft, adultery, and
mutual deceit’.
30
Hdt.2.53: Ἔνθεν δὲ ἐγένοντο ἕκαστος τῶν θεῶν εἵτε αἰεὶ ἦσαν πάντες, ὁκοῖοί τε τινὲς τὰ
εἴδεα, οὐκ ἠπιστέατο μέχρι οὗ πρώην τε καὶ χθὲς ὡς εἰπεῖν λόψῳ. Ἡσίοδον γὰρ καὶ Ὅημρον
ἡλικίην τετρακοσίοισι ἔτεσι δοκέω μευ πρεσβυτέρους γενέσθαι καὶ οὐ πλέοσι· οὗ δὲ εἰσὶ οἱ
ποιήσαντες θεογονίην Ἕλλησι καὶ τοῖσι θεοῖσι τὰς ἐπωνυμίας δόντες καὶ τιμάς τε καὶ τέχνας
διελόντες καὶ εἴδεα αὐτῶν σημήναντες.
31
Homer and Hesiod’s genealogies of the deities do not always correspond: Hesiodic Eris is a
daughter of Night and has a host of unpleasant siblings but Ares is not one of them, but
Homer’s Eris is a sister of Ares: Hes. Theog. 225; Hom. Il. 4.440. Homer and Hesiod may
have been influenced by their own local traditions, or perhaps they altered traditional stories
for their own literary purposes, or possibly they were influenced by those genealogies, now
lost, recorded by other authors. Hesiod’s genealogy is the oldest extant text, but others were
attributed to Orpheus, Musaeus, Aristeas, Epimenides, Abaris, Pherecydes, Linus, Thamyris,
and Palaephatus. Acusilaus began his Genealogiai with a theogony, the ‘Epic Cycle’ began
with one, as did the Titanomachy and Gigantomachy: West (ed.), Hesiod: Theogony, 12; cf.
Hom. Hymn Herm. 4.426-433, where Hermes sings a theogony: ‘he spoke authoritatively of
the immortal gods and of dark Earth, how they were born originally and how each received his
portion’. Alkman’s fragmentary cosmology (with Thetis as a demiurge) provides another
~13~
The Archaic Era
The chronological relationship of these two poets is an ongoing debate with

opinions varying as to whether they rightly belong in the ninth, eighth or the
first half of the seventh centuries.32 The Kypria, another important Archaic
text, is thought to post-date the other two. Whether Homer and Hesiod
actually wrote down their poems, or whether they were simply oral bards who
recounted the stories which were later written down, remains a vexed issue.33
Since Hesiod’s poems are written in the first person and he names himself as
the author would suggest his poems were written down by him. What does
emerge from their writing style, grammar, dialectic idiosyncrasies, and
etymology is that Homer and Hesiod were most likely to have been among the
first within their respective local communities of Ionia (Homer) and Boiotia
(Hesiod) to have used the newly re-discovered medium of writing to record the
oral traditions about the gods, the heroes, and the battles of long ago.34
example: P.Oxy. 2390; G. W. Most, 'Alcman's 'Cosmogonic' Fragment (Fr. 5 Page, 81

Calame),' CQ 37, no. 1, 1987, 1-19; M. L. West, 'Alcman and Pythagoras,' CQ 17, no. 1, 1967,
1-15; D. L. Page (ed.), Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford, 1967, Alcman F5; M. L. West, 'Three
Presocratic Cosmologies,' CQ 13, no. 2, 1963, 154-156.
32
Finley proposes ninth or tenth century: M. I. Finley, The World of Odysseus, 2nd edn,
London, 1977, 48. The eighth century is suggested by: G. W. Most (ed.), Hesiod: Theogony,
Works and Days, Testimonia, Cambridge MA, 2006, xxv; H. van Wees, 'The Homeric Way of
War: The 'Iliad' and the Hoplite Phalanx,' G&R 41, 1994, 138-146; West (ed.), Hesiod:
Theogony, 46-47. The seventh century by: S. Scully, Hesiod's Theogony, Oxford, 2015, 10;
M. P. J. Dillon, The Ancient Greeks In Their Own Words, Stroud, 2002, 282; J. S. Burgess, The
Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle, Baltimore & London, 2001, 158; A.
T. Murray, 'Introduction,' in The Iliad, 2nd edn, Cambridge MA, 1999, 4; K. A. Raaflaub, 'A
Historian's Headache: How to Read 'Homeric Society'?,' in N. Fisher & H. van Wees (eds),
Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, London, 1998, 170, although on p. 188
he agrees that the evidence for the early seventh century is compelling; R. Lattimore, The
Odyssey of Homer, New York, 1991, 13; G. S. Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 1,
Cambridge, 1985, 1-10.
33
Scully, Hesiod's Theogony, 10-11, 76. The Greeks invented an alphabetical system of
writing towards the end of the eighth century. Homer was reputed to have been blind which, if
true, would support the argument he was purely an oral poet: Josephus wrote that Homer was a
bard who did not write his poems down: Josephus, Against Apion 1.12. Conversely Murray
suggests Homer wrote the poets down: Murray, 'Introduction,' 4. Those who believe Hesiod
wrote or dictated his poems, include: Most (ed.), Hesiod, xix-xxv; M. L. West (ed.), Hesiod:
Works and Days, Oxford, 1978, 30-33; West (ed.), Hesiod: Theogony, 40. Those who think
Hesiod’s poems are purely oral and written down later, include: G. Nagy, Greek Mythology
and Poetics, Ithaca and London, 1990, 38-40; R. Lamberton, Hesiod, New Haven, 1988, 33-
35. The bibliographical material on this topic is large, so apart from these brief mentions I do
not intend to pursue this any further.
34
Hom. Il. 6.169: ‘scratching in a folded tablet signs many and deadly’: this is the only
Homeric mention of writing, although a possibility exists at: 7.187. Mycenaean societies used
Linear B script for administrative and trade purposes, with an adaptation of the Phoenician
alphabet adopted in the ninth century: Hdt. 5.58; A. G. Woodhead, The Study of Greek
Inscriptions, 2nd edn, London, 1992, 12-23.
~14~
The Archaic Era
HOMER
Homer’s epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, are set in the Mycenaean
Period or Greek Late Bronze Age, i.e. approximately 1250/1180, and were the
ca. eighth or seventh century written versions of the myths and legends that
surrounded the so-called Trojan War as transmuted from an older oral
tradition.35 They narrate the capricious and manipulative deeds of the gods
interwoven with the heroic exploits of the Greek and Trojan warriors.
Personifications of abstract concepts are found throughout Homer’s poems, in

particular the Iliad but, as will be demonstrated, the concept of νέμεσις
remains an abstract.36 To understand Homer’s use of νέμεσις-words the
poems’ ethical values first require attention, since νέμεσις was part of this
value system. Conversely, a world which embraced such interpretations of
morality, ideals and social codes more than likely never actually existed
outside the imagination of Homer and his contemporaries. 37 In much the same
way the Roman Emperor Augustus looked back to the idealism of the Roman
Republic as the epitome of high moral values, or how later generations viewed
the time of legendary King Arthur as an age of chivalry, I suggest Homer
portrayed an idealism that appealed to his generation (and beyond) and who
yearned for what they imagined was the glory of an age long past. It gave
them a nostalgic link to a time of Hellenic greatness in which they believed
brave men fought wars for principles of honour, personal glory, and friendship;
35
Scully, Hesiod's Theogony, 10; Burgess, The Tradition of the Trojan War, 3-6; Nagy,
'Homeric Questions', 32-44; J. V. A. Fine, The Ancient Greeks, Cambridge MA, 1983, 20.
Milton Parry and Albert Lord established the oral character of Homer’s poems: D. L. Page,
History and the Homeric Iliad, Berkeley, 1959, 222.
36
In this chapter on Homer I have omitted the ‘Hom.’ in references to his works, which are
written simply as Il. or Od. Homeric personifications include: Il. 2.2, 22: Dream (Ὄνειρος); Il.
4.440: Terror (Δεῖμός), Fear (Φόβος), Discord/Strife (Ἔρις); Il. 5.740: Valour (Ἀλκή), Assault
(Ἰωκή); Il. 14.215-217: Sexual Intercourse (Φιλότης), Desire (ἵμερος), Fond Discourse
(Ὀαριστύς), Encouragement (Πάρφασις). Note that while the personifications in Il. 14.215-217
are written without capital letters in modern translations it is difficult to see how otherwise an
image of these concepts could have been embroidered onto Aphrodite’s girdle. Burkert writes
of these concepts as personifications with capital letters: W. Burkert, 'Hesiod in Context:
Abstractions and Divinities in an Aegean-Eastern Koiné,' in E. Stafford & J. Herrin (eds),
Personification in the Greek World: From Antiquity to Byzantium, Aldershot, 2005, 12. For a
discussion on the difficulty of whether an abstract was purely an abstract or whether it was a
personification, see: Scully, Hesiod's Theogony, 19-20.
37
Raaflaub, 'A Historian's Headache: How to Read 'Homeric Society'?,' 169-193.
~15~
The Archaic Era
it enabled them to recapture its glories – real or imagined. To them, as Mueller

quotes: ‘… the present is inferior to an image of the past …’.38
ABSTRACT QUALITIES AND THE HOMERIC HERO

With the exception of Homer’s story of Thersites, the Homeric Age was
exclusively concerned with the exploits and ideology of an aristocratic elite, or
ἀγαθοί.39 It was an era of heroes,40 warriors, and chieftains who lived by a
warrior code of ethics and embarked on warfare for principles of honour. 41 Its
intrinsic value system was concerned with principles of ἀρετή (valour,
excellence), νέμεσις (indignation, blame, censure), αἰδώς (respect, shame),
κλέος (fame, glory), αἶσχος (disgrace), and τιμή (regard)42 which, together
with valour, courage, physical strength, loyalty to friends and kinsmen,
revenge, and hospitality to strangers, helped to define the ‘correct status’ for
each individual, and the ‘proper order of things’ within their individual
communities.43 As a collection, these principles were encapsulated by the
38
M. Mueller, The Iliad, London, 1984, 5.
39
Thersites is discussed below, pp. 34-43. The word ἄριστος, of which ‘aristocrat’ is a
derivative, is the superlative of ἀγαθός: LSJ9 241, col. 1, s.v ἀριστοκράτης; Cunliffe 55, col. 1,
s.v. ἄριστος (1) ‘the most warlike or soldierly’, (2) ‘the best’ ‘pre-eminent’, (3) ‘the strongest
or most powerful’, (4) ‘the highest in rank, dignity or power’; ἀγαθός: LSJ9 4, col. 2, s.v.
ἀγαθός: (1) ‘well-born, gentle’, (2) ‘brave, valiant’; Cunliffe 1, col. 2, s.v. ἀγαθός: ‘noble,
warlike, soldierly, stout, skilful in flight, good and worthy’.
40
The Greek ἥρως, is usually translated as ‘hero’, but in Homer can also mean ‘warrior’ – the
one connected with and interchangeable with the other, as in: Il. 7.452-453: τοῦ δ’ ἐπιλήσονται
ὅ τ’ ἐγὼ καὶ Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων ἥρῳ Λαομέδοντι πολίσσαμεν ἀθλήσαντε (‘men will forget the
wall that I and Phoebus Apollo toiled over making for the warrior/hero Laomedon’). ἥρως is
used for ‘warrior’ extensively throughout Homer, e.g: Od. 6.303; Il. 1.4, 102; 2.844; 23.824.
Cunliffe 183, col. 2, s.v. ἥρως; LSJ9 778, col. 2, s.v. ἥρως.
41
Honour was paramount to the Homeric hero and was a central theme in the Iliad: it was
because of honour that the Greek fleet set out against Troy to reclaim Helen; it was because of
honour that Agamemnon took Briseis from Achilles; and it was a sense of his honour being
slighted that caused Achilles to withdraw from the fighting. This warrior code of ethics
primarily concerned the aristocratic ἀγαθοί: van Wees, 'The Homeric Way of War', 1-18, 131-
155; cf. Mueller, The Iliad, 4, who speaks of a 'warrior code' that is found in many societies.
42
Cunliffe 53, col. 2, s.v. ἀρετή: (1) ‘manliness, valour, prowess’, (2) ‘excellence’, (3) ‘good,
credible, serviceable qualities or character’, (4) ‘skill in manly exercises or pursuits’, (5)
‘majesty, dignity, rank’; Cunliffe 277, col. 1, s.v. νέμεσις: ‘righteous indignation or vexation,
blame, censure, reproach’; Cunliffe 10, col. 2, s.v. αἰδώς: ‘reverence, respect, regard’, (2)
‘sensitivity to the opinion of others, fear of what others may think or say, shame’; Cunliffe
229, col. 1, s.v. κλέος: (2) ‘good report or repute, fame, glory, honour, high reputation for skill
in something, famous deeds, high achievements, notable conduct’; Cunliffe 14, col. 2, s.v.
αἶσχος: ‘shame, disgrace, a cause or occasion of shame or disgrace’, in plural ‘shameful
deeds’; Cunliffe 383, col. 2, s.v. τιμή: (2) ‘the value or estimation in which a person is held,
position in a scale of honour, estimation, regard’.
43
Mueller, The Iliad, 4.
~16~
The Archaic Era
abstract concept of θέμις (a body of traditional rules that have been set in
place) and δίκη (custom).44
This warrior or Homeric code of ethics was especially evident on the battle
field where the emphasis, aside from victory, was the glory, military prowess,
and bravery of the individual warrior. By successfully living up to this code
and constantly striving for excellence the warrior demonstrated his ἀρετή,
increased his κλέος and his τιμή; anything less would be cause for νέμεσις.45
Sarpedon’s speech to Glaukos emphasizes these principles as driving forces:
why is it, he asks, that in Lykia he and Glaukos are given the best of food,
possessions, estates of land, and revered as gods?46 The answer indicates it is
on account of their peoples’ expectations of glorious exploits full of those traits
associated with the quality of ἐσθλός – nobility, bravery, and supreme fighting
skills.47 It is this which gives both him and Glaukos a greater obligation to
prove their worth by making a stand and fighting amongst the foremost
Lykians with such exceptional valour so that it might be said of them:
οὐ μὰν ἀκλεέες Λυκίην κάτα κοιρανέουσιν

ἡμέτεροι βασιλῆες, ἔδουσί τε πίονα μῆλα
οἶνόν τ’ ἔξαιτον μελιηδέα· ἀλλ’ ἄρα καὶ ἲς
ἐσθλή, ἐπεὶ Λυκίοισι μέτα πρώτοισι μάχονται.48
Surely no inglorious men are these who rule in Lykia, our kings,
and they eat fat sheep and drink choice wine, honey-sweet: but
their might too is noble, since they fight among the foremost
Lykians.
By their deeds Sarpedon and Glaukos prove their worth and meet the
expectations of, and the obligations to, their people. It was through such
accomplishments that warriors also looked towards their final reward – a
44
Cunliffe 187, col. 2, s.v. θέμις (1). From the aorist stem θε- of the verb τίθημι, ‘to put, set,
place’: Cunliffe 382, col. 1, s.v. τίθημι. Cunliffe 95, col. 2, s.v δίκη. An analysis of these
Homeric terms is found in: N. Yamagata, Homeric Morality, Leiden, 1994, 61-87.
45
Cunliffe 277, col. 1, s.v. νέμεσις: ‘righteous indignation or vexation, blame, censure,
reproach’.
46
Il. 12.310-328.
47
Cunliffe 162, col. 2, s.v. ἐσθλός: ‘well-born, noble’, ‘war-like, soldierly, skilful in fight’;
LSJ9 696, col. 2, ‘brave, stout’.
48
Il. 12.318-321.
~17~
The Archaic Era
glorious death, κλέος ἄφθιτον, and the triumph of renown in epic poetry,49
exemplified in Hektor’s words when he realizes he is about to die:
μὴ μὰν ἀσπουδί γε καὶ ἀκλειῶς ἀπολοίμην, ἀλλὰ μέγα ῥέξας τι

καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πυθέσθαι.50
Not without a struggle let me die, nor ingloriously, but having

done some great deed for men yet to be born to hear.
Figure 2: Sarpedon’s body being carried by Hypnos and Thanatos; Attic red-figure calyx-krater;
ca. 515; Museo Nazionale Etrusco di villa Giulia L 2006.10 (source: Barringer).
Sarpedon achieved his ‘glorious death’ by dying nobly in the midst of battle
and having his deeds remembered.51 An Attic red-figure calyx-krater (figure
2)52 depicts his fatally injured body being lifted up by Hypnos and Thanatos to
be carried back to his home in Lykia.
49
J.-P. Vernant, 'A "Beautiful Death" and the Disfigured Corpse in Homeric Epic,' in D. L.
Cairns (ed.), Oxford Readings in Homer's Iliad, Oxford, 2001, 50-51. Also, Il. 9.413, where
Achilles tells Odysseus that although he may loose his life his renown or glory will be forever;
cf. Il. 16.450-457; Pind. Pyth. 3.112: ‘we know of Nestor and Lykian Sarpedon, still the talk of
men’. See, also: G. Nagy, Greek Mythology and Poetics, New York, 1992, 122-142.
50
Il. 22.304-305.
51
Il. 16.477-505.
52
Side A of the 45.7 cm high ‘Euphronios krater’, belonging to the Leagros Group, signed by
Euxitheos (potter) and Euphronios (painter): LIMC vii Sarpedon 4 (von Bothmer); J. M.
Barringer, The Art and Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Cambridge, 2015, 171-173, fig. 3.36b;
~18~
The Archaic Era
The feminine side of this Homeric code is characterized by Penelope who

stood steadfast in her constancy to her husband, Odysseus. Despite
accusations from her suitors,53 she exemplified familial loyalty, patience, and
fidelity. She was the Homeric model of a heroine and the antithesis of
unfaithful Klytemnestra, who broke the code through adultery and the murder
of her husband, Agamemnon.54 Klytemnestra’s lack of αἶσχος, αἰδώς, τιμή,
and disregard of νέμεσις violated the principles θεμίς, resulting in Homer’s
description of her as a κακὴ γυνή.55 Penelope is the only female to have her
virtues described as ἀρετή by Homer. In a passage where Agamemnon’s ghost
speaks to Odysseus he wistfully contrasts Penelope’s virtues to those of his
own faithless wife, Clytemnestra: πολυμήχαν’ Ὀδυσσεῦ, ἦ ἄρα σὺν μεγάλῃ
ἀρετῇ ἐκτήσω ἄκοιτιν. ὡς ἀγαθαὶ φρένες ἦσαν ἀμύμονι Πηνελοπείῃ, κούρῃ
Ἰκαρίου· ὡς εὖ μέμνητ’ Ὀδυσῆος, ἀνδρὸς κουριδίου· τῷ οἱ κλέος οὔ ποτ’
ὀλεῖται ἧς ἀρετῆς56 (‘Odysseus of many devices, truly full of all excellence
was the wife you won. How good of understanding was flawless Penelope,
daughter of Ikarios! How well she kept before her the image of Odysseus, her
wedded husband! Therefore the fame of her excellence shall never perish).
Ἀρετή was concerned with excellence in all things, of living up to one’s full
potential, and especially pertinent to superlative masculine qualities, such as
outstanding athletic ability, leadership, exceptional valour, bravery and ability
in war.57 Unlike the term ἀγαθός (and despite Adkins’ assertion to the
S. Woodford, Images of Myths in Classical Antiquity, New York, 2002, 161 fig. 125; H. A.
Shapiro, Myth into Art: Poet and Painter in Classical Greece, London, 1994, 23, fig. 13; K.
Schefold, Gods and Heroes in Late Archaic Greek Art, trans. A. Griffiths, Cambridge, 1992,
248-250, fig. 303; D. von Bothmer, Greek Vase Painting, New York, 1987, no. 19; E.
Vermeule, Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry, Berkeley, 1979, 37-38, fig. 27; D.
von Bothmer, 'Der Euphronioskrater in New York,' AA, 1976, 485-512; J. Boardman, Athenian
Red Figure Vases, The Archaic Period, London, 1975, fig. 22; D. von Bothmer, 'Greek Vase
Painting,' Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 31, no. 1, 1972, no. 15. A bibliography on this
calyx-krater is found in: Beazley Archive no. 187.
53
Od. 2.90-92; 2.96-109: Penelope deceived the suitors with promises and messages.
54
Od. 24.193-7; Od. 11.385-464; cf: Eur. Elekt. 8-10, 60-63, 160-165; Soph. Elekt. 97-99;
Seneca Ag 234-243.; Aischyl., Ag. 1435-1346, Choe. 134-135, 904-907.
55
Od. 11.384.
56
Od. 24.192-197. Cf: 2.205-6, when Eurymachos declares that they (the suitors) will continue
their rivalry in Odysseus’ house in an effort to claim Penelope’s excellence (aretē).
57
Od. 4.814-816: Such as that described by Penelope of Odysseus. Cf: Il. 13.275-278, 15.641-
643, 11.90, 11.763, 22.268, 8.535, 13.275-8, 14.118; Od. 4.725, 815, 8.237, 239, 12.211,
18.205, 24.515, 4.628, 21.187, 22.244. A. W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility, Oxford,
1960, 32; cf. A. A. Long, 'Morals and Values in Homer,' JHS 90, 1970, 126.
~19~
The Archaic Era
contrary),58 ἀρετή does not denote social class but is able to traverse social
groups, except slaves.59 This is clear in the following false tale told by
Odysseus to the swineherd Eumaios: ἐμὲ δ’ ὠνητὴ τέκε μήτηρ παλλακίς …
ἠγαγόμην δὲ γυναῖκα πολυκλήρων ἀνθρώπων εἵνεκ’ ἐμῆς ἀρετῆς, ἐπεὶ οὐκ
ἀποφώλιος ἦα οὐδὲ φυγοπτόλεμος60 (‘but the mother that bore me was bought,
a concubine … but I took to me a wife from a house that had wide possessions,
winning her by my ἀρετή; for I was no weakling, nor a coward in battle’). Had
Odysseus genuinely been the son of a concubine he would not have been either
an ἄριστος nor an ἀγαθός yet, as the passage illustrates, he could claim a
reputable ἀρετή. Accordingly, ἀρετή was a quality that was earned.
The primary concern for an ἀγαθός was to constantly and consciously

endeavour to avoid censure and try to be seen attempting to maintain and to
increase his κλεός, ἀρετή and τιμή, since the loss of these qualities would,
according to Johnston, result in ‘social death’.61 Yet, despite all efforts by the
ἀγαθός, ultimately it was the gods, through their capricious and contrary
idiosyncratic whims, who could manipulate his ἀρετή and κλέος,62 as shown in
Aeneas’ words to Achilles: Ζεὺς δ’ ἀρετὴν ἄνδρεσσιν ὀφέλλει τε μινύθει τε,
ὅππως κεν ἐθέλῃσιν63 (‘but as for ἀρετή, it is Zeus who increases it for men or
diminishes it, just as he wishes’). On the other hand, for an ἀγαθός to reject
the principles of ἀρετή through some consciously enacted shameful deed he
would invoke the critical judgement or νέμεσις of others, as Stenger notes:
‘emotionale Reaktion … auf Handlungen anderer, die nicht den allgemeinen
moralischen Erwartungen entsprechen’ (‘an emotional reaction to the
behaviour of others who do not respond to general moral expectations’).64
58
‘Agathos and aretē also denote a social class’: Adkins, Merit and Responsibility, 36.
59
Od. 17.322-3: ‘Zeus the Thunderer takes away the half of a man’s aretē, when the day of
slavery comes upon him.’
60
Od. 14.202-213.
61
I. C. Johnston, The Ironies of War: An Introduction to Homer's Iliad, New York, 1988, 74.
Cf: Il. 6.206-209, 6.444-446, 11.784; Pind. Pyth. 8.44-45.
62
Adkins describes the Homeric ἀγαθός as ‘always insecure’: A. W. H. Adkins, 'Values,
Goals, and Emotions in the Iliad,' CPh 77, no. 4, 1982, 297-298.
63
Il. 20.242-243; also Od. 18.132-135.
64
J. Stenger, 'Nemesis,' in H. Cancik & H. Schneider (eds), Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der
Antike, vol. 8, Stuttgart, 2000, 818-819.
~20~
The Archaic Era
THE HOMERIC CONCEPT OF NEMESIS

Cunliffe, in his lexicon of Homeric dialect, translates the noun νέμεσις as: (1)
‘righteous indignation or vexation, blame, censure, reproach’, (2) ‘something
worthy of righteous indignation or of blame, censure or reproach’. The verb
νεμεσάω he defines as: ‘to be righteously indignant or vexed, to conceive, feel
or express blame or censure, utter reproach’. His definition of the verb in the
middle and passive voice is: ‘to be dissatisfied or displeased with oneself’.65
The authors of the LSJ9 first describe the noun νέμεσις as: ‘distribution of what
is due’ (the same definition they give for νέμησις).66 The LSJ9 authors go on to
explain: ‘but in usage always retribution, esp. righteous anger aroused by
injustice, not used of the gods in Hom.’. They describe the verb νεμεσάω as:
to ‘feel just resentment, to be wroth at underserved good or bad fortune’, ‘to be
wroth with a person or at a thing’, and in the middle and passive voice as: ‘to
be displeased with oneself’, ‘feel shame’.67 These definitions show that the
interpretation of nemesis can vary,68 as Cairns observes: ‘The range of nemesis
is very wide; it is frequently employed in condemnation of violence or excess,
and also in a number of minor social contexts, where it censures infringement
of decorum. In some cases it seems to signify little more than anger, although
… it always connotes anger in which the subject feels himself justified’.69
From these explanations, I would extrapolate a definition of nemesis as

follows: ‘Homeric nemesis is the indignation or righteous anger felt by men or
gods towards someone who consciously behaves in a manner that is, by the
societal standards of the time, shameful, and which invites censure and
criticism. This emotion can also be experienced towards oneself as a result of
personal deeds thought worthy of blame’.
65
Cunliffe 277, col. 1, s.v. νέμεσις; 276-277, col. 2-1, s.v. νεμεσάω. Appendix 1 of this thesis
details all 68 Homeric instances of νέμεσις-words.
66
LSJ9 1167, col. 1, s.v. νέμησις.
67
LSJ9 1166, col. 2, s.v. νεμεσάω.
68
Henceforth Greek words within English text will initially be written in Greek to show its
form, but will then be transliterated, except when there is discussion on the Greek word itself.
69
D. L. Cairns, Aidos: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek
Literature, Oxford, 1993, 53.
~21~
The Archaic Era
The emotion can, therefore, be evoked through a variety of causes, all of which
are discussed in detail below. It can result from a seemingly mild sense of
personal bashfulness and social inappropriateness,70 to going beyond one’s
given lot in life (exemplified by Thersites),71 to justified anger or righteous
indignation where, according to Redfield: ‘a man not only feels it but feels
himself correct in feeling it’,72 through to a reaction against the excesses of
violence as seen in the behaviour of Penelope’s suitors, and the gods who
threaten nemesis against Achilles for his excessive violation of Hektor’s
body.73 When used in the middle or passive voice the verb can be an emotion
of shame directed against oneself at one’s own actions such as is experienced
by Menelaos, Telemachos, and Helen (who acknowledges she is deserving of
nemesis).74 Conversely, some actions which might logically be considered
worthy of nemesis are somehow exempt when enacted under mitigating
circumstances of social or personal expectations,75 such as the old men of Troy
who consider there is οὐ νέμεσις (no nemesis) in waging war for a woman of
such incomparable beauty as Helen.76
Homeric nemesis was potentially both a positive and a negative concept: action
or behaviour that was contrary to themis evoked nemesis in an onlooker,
caused censure, diminished the offender’s aretē, and resulted in shame – this
was its negative aspect. Such is implied in Nausicaa’s words concerning the
blame an unmarried girl would receive if she consorted (μίσγηται) with men,
for indeed Nausicaa herself would blame such a girl: καὶ δ᾽ ἄλλῃ νεμεσῶ, ἥ τις
τοιαῦτά γε ῥέζοι, ἥ τ᾽ ἀέκητι φίλων πατρὸς καὶ μητρὸς ἐόντων, ἀνδράσι
μίσγηται, πρίν γ᾽ ἀμφάδιον γάμον ἐλθεῖν77 (I, too, would blame another
70
Od. 4.158 detailed below: p. 46.
71
Il. 2.211-277, and discussed below: pp. 34-43.
72
J. M. Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector, Durham & London,
1994, 117.
73
The suitors: Od. 1.228-9, 2.64, 17.481, 21.146-147 (below pp. 58-66); the gods: Il. 24.43-54
(below pp. 50-58).
74
Il. 17.93, below pp. 27-28 (Menelaos); Od. 1.119, below p. 62 (Telemachos); Il. 3.410,
below p. 70 (Helen).
75
Il. 2.296, 3.156, 4.413; Od. 1.350, 18.227, 19.264, 20.330; cf. Redfield, Nature and Culture
in the Iliad, 116-117; M. Scott, 'Aidos and Nemesis in the Works of Homer, and their
Relevance to Social or Co-operative Values,' AClass 23, 1980, 26.
76
Il. 3.156, and discussed below: pp. 67-68.
77
Od. 6.286-288.
~22~
The Archaic Era
maiden who should do likewise, and in despite of her own father and mother,
while they still live, should consort with men before the day of public
marriage). To Nausicaa, her opinion of one guilty of such an act would be
lessened and the person concerned would be shamed. The word μίσγηται in the
passage infers something stronger than just ‘mixing’ since Nausicaa has herself
already been in the company of Odysseus and his companions, and she does
not seem to count that as an offence warranting censure. 78 Consequently,
μίσγηται in this context implies a sexual liaison for an unmarried girl, which
would indeed invoke nemesis.79 Similarly, at Iliad 23.494, where the arguing
Aias and Idomeneos are rebuked by Achilles who cautions them against
reprehensible behaviour that they themselves would condemn in another: καὶ
δ᾽ ἄλλῳ νεμεσᾶτον ὅτις τοιαῦτά γε ῥέζοι.80 These passages warn against doing
that which would draw criticism, since the offender’s aretē would be shamed
by the resultant nemesis. The positive aspect of the abstract is seen in a
conscious personal desire to avoid inviting nemesis for fear of censure: it is
then a subjective emotion that has a positive controlling influence. 81 This
positive controlling aspect is also evident in Pittakos of Mytilene, ca. 640-
568:82 ὅσα νεμεσᾶις τῶι πλησίον, αὐτὸς μὴ ποίει83 (‘do not yourself do that
which would be cause for nemesis in your neighbour’).84
Importantly, and contrary to Munn’s assertion that nemesis ‘refers to a sense of

scandal and reproach active only in a public setting’,85 an arousal of nemesis
was not wholly dependant upon a shameful act being witnessed by another
person, since it was believed that everything in the universe – the waters, the
78
LJ 446, col. 1, s.v. μίγνυμι: ‘mix, mingle’, II (2) ‘to have intercourse with’. Not in LSJ9 or
Cunliffe.
79
See Cairns’ discussion on this passage: D. L. Cairns, 'Mixing with Men and Nausicaa's
Nemesis,' CQ 40, no. 1, 1990, 263-266.
80
Cf. a similar sense of nemesis as a judgement on others using one’s own sense of what is
right and wrong as the benchmark, Od. 15.69: ἱέμενον νόστοιο: νεμεσσῶμαι δὲ καὶ ἄλλῳ.
81
See: Long, 'Morals and Values in Homer', 135, on the role of public opinion in Homer.
82
Suda s.v. Pittakos (pi 1659), described as one of the seven sages and according to Fränkel
his name is common to all lists of ancient sages: Arist. Pol. 1274b 19; Diod. 9.11; Strab. 13
2.3; Pl. Rep. 335e; H. Fränkel, Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy, trans. M. Hadas & J.
Willis, Oxford, 1975, 239.
83
Pittakos F4 (DK 10 3 ε); Stob. Anth. Γ.1.172 ε (in: Hense vol. 3 120ε). (Translation: author).
84
Also said by Thales but without nemesis, DL vol. I, 1.36: ἐὰν ἃ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπιτιμῶμεν,
αὐτοὶ μὴ δρῶμεν (do not do yourself that which we blame in others). (Translation: author).
85
M. Munn, The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia, Berkeley, 2006, 334 n.
73.
~23~
The Archaic Era
earth, the air, the trees, the mountains – were full of gods, daimones, spirits and
Keres who saw and heard everything. There could never be escape from
blame, for someone or something was always watching or listening.86
Sarpedon speaks of the multitude of Keres from which one can never escape:
νῦν δ’ ἔμπης γὰρ κῆρες ἐφεστᾶσιν θανάτοιο μυρίαι, ἃς οὐκ ἔστι φυγεῖν βροτὸν
οὐδ’ ὑπαλύξαι,87 and Hesiod affirms that the earth and the sea are full of evil
spirits: πλείη μὲν γὰρ γαῖα κακῶν, πλείη δὲ θάλασσα.88 Seventh-century
Thales is quoted by Aristotle as having said: καὶ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ δή τινες αὐτὴν
μεμῖχθαί φασιν, ὅθεν ἴσως καὶ Θαλῆς ᾠήθη πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἶναι89 (‘Some
think that the soul pervades the whole universe, whence perhaps came Thales’
view that everything is full of gods’). An anonymous poet declared spirits
were so plentiful that there was no room even for the air: 90 τοιάδε θνητοῖσι
κακὰ κακῶν ἀμφί τε κῆρες εἰλεῦνται, κενεὴ δ’ εἴσδυσις οὐδ’ αἰθέρι; (‘Such
woes of woes for mortal men, and round about the Keres throng close; there is
no vacant pathway for the air?’)
Consequently, the guilt of doing something worthy of blame could potentially

result in an internalized sense of nemesis, either because of personal shame or
because of the consequential fear of knowing that some punishing god or
daimon somewhere had witnessed the deed.91 This concept of an ‘all-seeing’
power later merged with other nuances of nemesis to become the personified
and deified goddess Nemesis who saw everything, judged and punished.92
86
G. Murray, The Rise of the Greek Epic, 4th edn, London, 1934, 84.
87
Il. 12.326-328.
88
Hes. WD 101. Plutarch quotes this maxim almost verbatim: Plut. Mor., vol. ii, Letter of
Condolence to Apollonius 26: πλείη μὲν γαῖα κακῶν, πλείη δὲ θάλασσα.
89
Arist. DA A5, 411a8; DK 11 A 22. Thales has been connected with the phrase through his
observation of the magnetic force of a lodestone which can move iron filings around at will as
if they have a life-force of their own: G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven & M. Schofield, The Presocratic
Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, 2nd edn, Cambridge, 2002, 95-97;
M. Clarke, 'The Wisdom of Thales and the Problem of the Word ΙΕΡΟΣ,' CQ 45, no. 2, 1995,
297-299. Also, DL vol. I, 1.24; Arist. DA A2, 405a19.
90
Quoted in: Plut., Mor., Letter of Condolence to Apollonius 26; PLG F. Adesp. 2B, 689; G.
Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion, expanded edn, London, 1935, 34, nn. 1-2; J. E.
Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 2nd edn, Princeton N J, 1908, 170.
91
Il. 3.277, of Zeus; Hes. WD 265-268, of Zeus; Aischyl. Prom. 91, of Helios; Aischyl. Suppl.
303, of Argos Panoptos, 304; Soph. Oed. Kol. 43, of the Eumenides, 1085 of Zeus, 1765 of
Zeus.
92
This aspect of Nemesis is discussed in detail below, pp. 109, 114, 185, cf. p. 105. Cf. Hymn
to Nemesis, lines 2, 8: ‘Nemesis, I call upon you, goddess and greatest queen, whose all-seeing
~24~
The Archaic Era
nemesis and aidōs

The safety-net which kept one within the bounds of socially acceptable
standards of behaviour and averted nemesis, was one’s personal sense of
αἰδώς. The LSJ9 authors define αἰδώς: (1) ‘as a moral feeling, reverence, awe,
respect for the feeling or opinion of others or for one’s own conscience, and so
shame, self-respect, sense of honour’; (2) ‘regard for others, respect,
reverence’, ‘regard for the helpless, compassion’; II: ‘that which causes shame
or respect, dignity’. To these interpretations Cunliffe adds: (1) ‘fear of what
others may think or say’; (4) ‘sense of propriety’, ‘delicacy’,
‘shamefacedness’. Aidōs93 was, therefore, a positive concept in that an
awareness of, and a sensitivity to it and its sanction nemesis produced an
inhibiting influence which enforced a mode of behaviour that avoided stepping
outside the bounds of appropriateness.
Since aidōs and nemesis can both be construed as a sense of shame,

interpretational nuances can be subtle. Leaf saw the concept of nemesis as
objective and expressed by the indignation of others, with aidōs as the shame
felt by the offender and so subjective.94 Murray gives a short, yet clear,
explanation of their differences: ‘aidōs is what you feel about an act of your
own: nemesis is what you feel for an act of another. Or, most often, it is what
you imagine others will feel about you’.95 Scott interprets the use of nemesis
as acting partly as a sanction enforcing aidōs,96 while Dickie explains:
‘nemesis is the indignation which men or gods feel when they observe
unrighteous conduct’.97 Redfield calls aidōs and nemesis ‘a reflexive pair’;
and, ‘the inner and outer aspects of the same thing’, such that personal failures
of aidōs provoke the nemesis of others and ‘the nemesis of others evokes aidōs
eye looks upon the lives of man’s many races’: A. N. Athanassakis & B. F. Wolkow, The
Orphic Hymns, Baltimore, 2013, 50, Hymn 61.
93
LSJ9 36, col. 2, s.v. αἰδώς; Cunliffe 10, col. 2, s.v. αἰδώς, adds: ‘fear of what others may
say’; sense of propriety’; ‘delicacy’, ‘shamefacedness’.
94
W. Leaf (ed.), The Iliad: Edited with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and
Appendices, vol. 2, London, 1888, 10, commenting on 13.122.
95
Murray, The Rise of the Greek Epic, 83-84.
96
Scott, 'Aidos and Nemesis in the Works of Homer', 25.
97
M. W. Dickie, 'Dike as a moral term in Homer and Hesiod,' CPh 73, no. 2, 1978, 93-94.
~25~
The Archaic Era
in oneself’.98 Konstan expresses nemesis and aidōs as the external and internal
responses to a violation of customary rules.99 To Fränkel, aidōs and nemesis
are the positive and negative elements of justice.100 Turpin defines aidōs as:
‘dans l'usage courant, un ordre des conduites «honorables» dont le non-respect
peut provoquer une réaction d'indignation exprimée par l'autre terme, νέμεσις’
(‘in common usage, an order of “honourable” conduct, a breach of which can
cause a reaction of indignation expressed by another term, νέμεσις’).101
Stanford adds a touch or humour by explaining nemesis and aidōs as two
complimentary qualities that restrained the fierce self-centred heroes.102
Cairns, in his exhaustive study on aidōs, defines the emotion as: ‘let aidōs be
an inhibitory emotion based on sensitivity to and protectiveness of one’s self-
image, and let the verb aideomai convey a recognition that one’s self-image is
vulnerable in some way.103 Cairns further explains that although aidōs is often
translated into English as ‘shame’, it is not ‘shame’ per se since this is a
negative connotation with ‘guilt’ associations;104 rather aidōs is a positive
force that inhibits negative behaviour.
With these interpretations in mind, and from an analysis of the ancient sources
to be discussed, I propose the following explanation of nemesis and aidōs:
‘Homeric nemesis is the indignation or righteous anger felt by men or gods
towards someone who consciously behaves in a manner that is, by the societal
standards of the time, shameful, and which invites censure and criticism. This
emotion can also be experienced towards oneself as a result of personal deeds
thought worthy of blame. Conversely, respect for aidōs is an inhibiting
emotion that keeps one within the bounds of socially acceptable standards by
98
Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad, 116-117; cf. Cairns, Aidos, 193; R. A. Kaster,
'Invidia, νέμεσις, φθόνος and the Roman Emotional Economy,' in D. Konstan & N. K. Rutter
(eds), Envy, Spite and Jealousy, Edinburgh, 2003, 262.
99
D. Konstan, 'Nemesis and Phthonos,' in G. W. Bakewell & J. P. Sickinger (eds), Gestures:
Essays in Ancient History, Literature, and Philosophy presented to Alan L. Boegehold, Oxford,
2003, 78.
100
Fränkel, Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy, 531, Index A [5.6-1.1].
101
J.-C. Turpin, 'L’expression αἰδώς καὶ νέμεσιν et les “actes de langage”,' REG 93, 1980, 352,
also his discussion on the two terms in combination: 352-367. (Translation: author.)
102
W. B. Stanford, Homer: Odyssey Books I-XII, 2nd edn, London, 1959, 231, commenting on
1.350.
103
Cairns, Aidos, 2; see his further discussion on this topic at: 51-54, 56, 84-86, 98.
104
Cairns, Aidos, 14-26, 98.
~26~
The Archaic Era
strengthening resolve to adhere to those values epitomized by themis for fear

of loss of kleos and aretē, and cautions against committing a discredible deed
lest one arouse nemesis, either in one’s self or in another. Consequently, aidōs
is an objective emotion, but nemesis can be both objective and subjective.’
This relationship between aidōs and nemesis is seen in Poseidon’s fiery words
to the Achaians: ἀλλ’ ἐν φρεσὶ θέσθε ἕκαστος αἰδῶ καὶ νέμεσιν105 (‘but place
into your hearts, each of you, (a fear of) shame (in yourselves) and reproach
(from others)’. Poseidon’s objective was to bully the Achaians into fighting,
which is doubly emphasized when he also calls them ‘weaklings’ (ὦ πέπονες).
Correspondingly, Telemachos explains that it was aidōs (personal shame) and
nemesis (indignation/blame from others) that prevents him from sending his
mother away to her father’s house: αἰδέομαι δ’ ἀέκουσαν ἀπὸ μεγάροιο
δίεσθαι μύθῳ ἀναγκαίῳ, and νέμεσις δέ μοι ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἔσσεται106 (‘but I am
ashamed to drive her forth from the hall against her will by a word of
compulsion’, and ‘since I shall have blame, too, from men’).
The concern for publically maintaining one’s kleos and aretē, and the fear of
being thought to lack personal aidōs and respect for nemesis, is seen in the
following predicament facing Menelaos, which simultaneously draws out the
fine line between one’s duty and one’s self-interest in the face of fear:
ὤ μοι ἐγών, εἰ μέν κε λίπω κάτα τεύχεα καλὰ

Πάτροκλόν θ’, ὃς κεῖται ἐμῆς ἕνεκ’ ἐνθάδε τιμῆς,
μή τίς μοι Δαναῶν νεμεσήσεται, ὅς κεν ἴδηται·
εἰ δέ κεν Ἕκτορι μοῦνος ἐὼν και Τρωσὶ μάχωμαι
αἰδεσθείς …107
Ah me! If I leave behind the exquisite armour, and Patroklos,

who lies here because of my honour, I fear that some of the
Danaans may hold me blameworthy, whoever sees it. But if
from a sense of shame I do battle alone with Hektor and the
Trojans …
Menelaos’ dilemma involves either following his natural instinct and arousing
nemesis for retreating and leaving Patroklos’ body and armour behind (the
105
Il. 13.122, (translation: author).
106
Od. 20.343-344; 2.136-137.
107
Il. 17.91-95, (translation: author.)
~27~
The Archaic Era
Trojans would abuse the body and the armour would represent a trophy),108 or
to heed his personal internal sense of aidōs and nemesis and fight for
Patroklos’ body.109 Cairns describes Menelaos’ mental wrestle as aidōs
anticipating and attempting to prevent nemesis, if only he will listen to it.110 In
his self-conscious dilemma Menelaos vainly tries to rationalize his options by
saying to himself that since Hektor has divine help surely none would feel
nemesis against him if he retreats and leaves the body.111 If Menelaos were to
flee he would fail his aretē-standards and would be seen as exhibiting
cowardice; he will be haunted by his failure of aidōs; and, he will have nemesis
within himself and from others. Ultimately, his sense of aidōs prevails and his
time and kleos remain intact. Such was the power of aidōs and nemesis on the
psyche of the agathoi that even Menelaos feared losing the respect of others.
Dodds evaluates this fear as: ‘the strongest moral force which Homeric man
knows is not fear of god, but respect for public opinion’.112
Similarly, purposefully avoiding danger would invariably evoke nemesis. In

the following passage Agamemnon, whose personal desire is to flee,
demonstrates a lack of aidōs (implied) and argues against nemesis by saying
that to do so would mean living to fight another day:
For it is οὐ νέμεσις to flee from ruin, even by night. Better it is

if one flees from ruin and escapes than if he be taken’.
Then with an angry glance Odysseus of many wiles addressed
him: ‘Son of Atreus, what a word has escaped the barrier of your
teeth! Accursed man, I wish that you were in command of some
other, inglorious army, and not king over us, to whom Zeus has
given, from youth right up to age, to wind the skein of gruesome
wars till we perish, every man of us’.113
108
See for example: Il. 1.4; 4.237; 9.394, 452, 818; 13.831; 17.150; 18.271.
109
The Homeric ideal was to die καλὸς θάνατος, ‘a beautiful death’, with eternal glory, but to
defile a body was to deprive it of this. See, Vernant: ‘It is no longer enough to triumph in a
lawful duel, to confirm one’s own aretē over another’s; with the opponent dead, one attacks
his corpse, as a predator does its prey’, which deprives the body of all honour and makes it
ugly and not whole: Vernant, 'A "Beautiful Death" and the Disfigured Corpse in Homeric
Epic,' 332-333. For agathoi to make no attempt at recovery represented a failure of their
aretē-standards resulting in a personal sense of aidōs and an evocation of nemesis from others.
110
Cairns, Aidos, 52.
111
Cf. Hektor’s dilemma before his final battle: Il. 22.99-130, below p. 30.
112
E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley, 1951, 18.
113
Il. 14.80-102: οὐ γάρ τις νέμεσις φυγέειν κακόν, οὐδ’ ἀνὰ νύκτα. Βέλτερον ὃς φεύγων
προφύγῃ κακὸν ἠὲ ἁλώῃ’. Τὸν δ’ ἄρ’ ὑπόδρα ἰδὼν προσέφη πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς· ‘Ἀτρεϊδη,
ποῖόν σε ἔπος φύγεν ἔρκος ὀδόντων· οὐλόμεν’, αἴθ’ ὤφελλες ἀεικελίου στρατοῦ ἄλλου
~28~
The Archaic Era
Agamemnon’s argument of
withdrawing to gain a future military
advantage is contemptuously rejected
by Odysseus, who sees Agamemnon’s
proposal as nothing more than a
breach of his aretē-standards and
deserving of nemesis.
Figure 3 depicts Aias demonstrating

right-thinking aidōs, despite the
dangers of the battle-field, as he
retrieves Achilles’ body so it can be
Figure 3: Aias carrying the body of Achilles
from the battlefield; Attic black-figure volute given the customary rites, and to
krater; ca. 570-560; Museo Archeologico
Florence 4209 (source: Cohen). prevent it from being abused by the
Trojans.114 Reprehensible actions or
behaviour which would cause a sense of aidōs in a person at performing will
result in an evocation of nemesis towards that person by anyone who observes
the action or behaviour. The consequence would be the latter’s opinion of the
former being lessened, and the former experiencing a feeling of ‘loss of face’
from the latter’s indignation, condemnation and judgement, or nemesis. It is
this fear of being shamed, censured, thought ‘lesser’, and thereby not living up
to the expectation of one’s aretē, that drives the Homeric hero to avoid those
situations or actions which might invoke a feeling of nemesis in man or god
against him – although the degree to which this emotion should be interpreted
as some sort of personal ‘conscience’ felt by the Homeric heroes is arbitrary.115
σημαίνειν, μηδ’ ἄμμιν ἀνασσέμεν, οἷσιν ἄρα Ζεὺς ἐκ νεότητος ἔδωκε καὶ ἐς γῆρας τολυπεύειν
ἀργαλέους πολέμους, ὄφρα φθιόμεσθα ἕκαστος.
114
Painted by Kleitias: ABV 76.1, 682; Beazley Archive no. 300000; Woodford, Images of
Myths in Classical Antiquity, 76 fig. 50, 191 fig. 152; S. Woodford & M. Loudon, 'Two Trojan
Themes: The Iconography of Ajax carrying the body of Achilles and of Aeneas carrying
Anchises in Black-Figure Vase Painting,' AJA 84, no. 1, 1980, 26, pl. 3.3; B. Cohen,
'Polyxena's Dropped Hydria: The Epic Cycle and the Iconography of Gravity,' in A.
Avramidou & D. Demetriou (eds), Approaching the Ancient Artifact: Representation,
Narrative, and Function, Berlin, 2014, 21 fig. 2.
115
Cairns sees a relationship between ‘aidōs’ and ‘conscience’: ‘Aidōs, then, is, or perhaps
better springs from, an internal state of conscience which is based on internal standards and an
awareness of the values of society; these standards will have become internal to the individual
precisely because of their uniformity and of the power of popular opinion to enforce them, and
~29~
The Archaic Era
Fearing aidōs and nemesis, and failing one’s personal standards of aretē could
even be an emotion greater than death itself, as exemplified by Hektor’s mental
wrestle immediately before the climax of his final battle with Achilles:116
ὥ μοι ἐγών, εἰ μέν κε πύλας καὶ τείχεα δύω, 99

Πουλυδάμας μοι πρῶτος ἐλεγχείην ἀναθήσει, 100
ὅς μ’ ἐκέλευε Τρωσὶ ποτὶ πτόλιν ἡγήσασθαι 101
νύχθ’ ὕπο τήνδ’ ὀλοήν, ὅτε τ’ ὤρετο δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς. 102
ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ οὐ πιθόμην· ἦ τ’ ἂν πολὺ κέρδιον ἦεν. 103
νῦν δ’ ἐπεὶ ὤλεσα λαὸν ἀτασθαλίῃσιν ἐμῇσιν, 104
αἰδέομαι Τρῶας καὶ Τρῳάδας ἑκλεσιπέπλους, 105
μή ποτέ τις εἵπῃσι κακώτερος ἄλλος ἐμεῖο· 106
‘Ἥκτωρ ἧφι βίηφι πιθήσας ὤλεσε λαόν’. 107
ὣς ἐρέουσιν· ἐμοὶ δὲ τότ’ ἂν πολὺ κέρδιον εἴη 108
ἄντην ἢ Ἀχιλῆα κατακτείναντα νέεσθαι, 109
ἠέ κεν αὐτῷ ὀλέσθαι ἐυκλειῶς πρὸ πόληος.’ 110
… βέλτερον αὖτ’ ἔριδι ξυνελαυνέμεν ὅττι τάχιστα· 129
εἴδομεν ὁπποτέρῳ κεν Ὀλύμπιος εὖχος ὀρέξῃ. 130
… μὴ μὰν ἀσπουδί γε καὶ ἀκλειῶς ἀπολοίμην, 304
ἀλλὰ μέγα ῥέξας τι καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πυθέσθαι. 305
Ah me, if I go inside the gates and the walls, Polydamas will be

the first to put reproach on me, since he told me to lead the
Trojans to the city during that fatal night when noble Achilles
rose up. But I did not listen – surely it would have been far
better! But now, since I have brought the army to ruin through
my blind folly, I feel αἰδώς before the Trojans and the Trojan’s
wives with trailing robes, lest perhaps some other, baser than I,
may say: ‘Hektor trusting in his own might, brought ruin on the
army.’ So they will say; but for me it would be far better to meet
Achilles man to man and slay him and so return home, or myself
perish gloriously before the city.
… It would be better to clash in strife as quickly as possible; let
us know to which of us the Olympian will grant glory.
… Not without a struggle let me die, nor ingloriously, but having
done some great deed for men yet to be born to hear.
Although nemesis is not used in the passage it is implicit in the word ἐλεγχείη
(shame, disgrace, reproach from others). Like Menelaos before him, Hektor’s
dilemma is whether to flee or to stand, and his quandary reveals the power of
the controlling duo, nemesis and aidōs. Hektor’s overriding concern is what
even the women of Troy will say of him, and those lowly κακώτερος – that
will have been imparted early in the process of socialization.’ Also, ‘So while the operation of
aidōs in Homer does presuppose a minimal sort of conscience, this does not coincide with our
concept of conscience’: Cairns, Aidos, 144-145; cf. Redfield who argues that a concept of
conscience is post-Homeric: Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad, 116.
116
Il. 22.99-110.
~30~
The Archaic Era
individuals such as these should have nemesis for him is to Hektor an

untenable situation. His words: ἐμοὶ δὲ τότ’ ἂν πολὺ κέρδιον εἴη ἄντην ἢ
Ἀχιλῆα κατακτείναντα νέεσθαι, ἠέ κεν αὐτῷ ὀλέσθαι ἐυκλειῶς πρὸ πόληος
(‘but for me it would be far better to meet Achilles man to man and slay him
and so return home, or myself perish gloriously before the city’), reveal that his
sense of personal aretē, his fear of aidōs and nemesis, and his dread of what
people will think of him, his time, his aretē, and his kleos, are of a greater
concern to him than any fear of death. Yet, although the opinion of others was
important to Hektor, it was his kleos that was closest to his heart. This is
brought out at the end of the passage at line 110: ‘or myself perish gloriously
before the city’; later at line 130 where he says: (‘that we might see to which of
us the Olympian will grant glory’), and; significantly towards the end of his
speech at lines 304-305 where he asks that he not die without glory (ἀκλειῶς
ἀπολοίμην). For Hektor, death was acceptable so long as it came with glory.
Hektor would have learnt since childhood to live up to his full potential, to be
one of the most prominent, to strive for excellence, and to win glory. This
meant holding on to the values represented by themis, to have respect for the
inhibiting strength of personal aidōs and to fear nemesis from others.
Although the abstract is not used, the following passage implies nemesis in
Hektor’s desire to avoid shame within himself and being thought a κακός (here
‘coward’) or one who wants to ἀλύσκω (shirk, shun, skulk) from the fighting:
ἀλλὰ μάλ’ αἰνῶς

αἰδέομαι Τρῶας καὶ Τρῳάδας ἑλκεσιπέπλους,
αἴ κε κακὸς ὣς νόσφιν ἀλυσκάζω πολέμοιο·
οὐδέ με θυμὸς ἄνωγεν, ἐπεὶ μάθον ἔμμεναι ἐσθλὸς117
αἰεὶ καὶ πρώτοισι118 μετὰ Τρώεσσι μάχεσθαι,
ἀρνύμενος πατρός τε μέγα κλέος ἠδ’ ἐμὸν αυτοῦ.119
But I dreadfully feel shame before the Trojans, and the Trojans’
wives with trailing robes, if like a coward I skulk apart from
battle. Nor does my spirit command it, since I have learnt to
117
LSJ9 696, col. 2, s.v. ἐσθλός: brave, stout, noble; Cunliffe 162, col. 2, s.v. ἐσθλός: (2)
‘warlike’, ‘stout’, ‘soldierly’, ‘skilful in fight’.
118
Cunliffe 350, col. 1, s.v. πρῶτος: (4. b) ‘the most prominent in some sphere of activity; c)
‘the first in social rank’, ‘the leading men’; d) ‘the most distinguished’, ‘the first’.
119
Il. 6.441-446.
~31~
The Archaic Era
excel always and to fight among the foremost Trojans, striving to

win great glory for my father and myself.
Again, it is a desire for personal excellence and glory on the battlefield that are
greater concerns to Hektor than the preservation of his life without these.
The fear of being thought lacking in personal aidōs and evoking nemesis from
others were potent tools which are seen in other poets. By way of comparison,
it is worth a look at the following fragmentary didactic poem by seventh-
century Tyrtaios,120 where he tries to rouse the Lakedaimonians before battle
by encouraging them to eschew cowardice, to fight valiantly in the front-lines,
and not to shirk the battle by putting the older warriors in the front-lines:121
αἰσχρὸν γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο, μετὰ προμάχοισι πεσόντα

κεῖσθαι πρόσθε νέων ἄνδρα παλαιότερον,
ἤδη λευκὸν ἔχοντα κάρη πολιόν τε γένειον,
θυμὸν ἀποπνείοντ’ ἄλκιμον ἐν κονίηι,
αἱματόεντ’ αἰδοῖα φίλαις ἐν χερσὶν ἔχοντα
αἰσχρὰ τά γ’ ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ νεμεσητὸν ἰδεῖν,
καὶ χρόα γυμνωθέντα.122
For this brings shame, when an older man lies fallen among the
front ranks with the young men behind him, his head already
white and his beard grey, breathing out his valiant spirit in the
dust, clutching in his hands his bloodied genitals – this is
shameful to the eyes and evokes nemesis to see his body naked.
For ‘shame’ or ‘shameful’ Tyrtaios uses αἰσχρός; a word which imparts the
stronger emotion of ‘shame mixed with disgrace’, appropriate in this
hypothetical situation.123 For the sense of αἰδώς note Tyrtaios’ use of its
120
Suda s.v. Tyrtaios (tau 1205-1206). Tyrtaios is variously described as Spartan, Athenian, or
Milesian: Diod. 15.66.3 (Athenian); Suda (Lakonian or Milesian); Pl., Laws 629a-b
(Athenian); Paus. 4.15.6 (Athenian then Lakonian); TT 1-8 in: J. M. Edmonds (ed.), Elegy and
Iambus, vol. 1, London, 1931, 50-58; D. E. Gerber (ed.), Greek Elegaic Poetry: From the
Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC, Cambridge, MA, 1999, 25-33. Tyrtaios is noted by the Suda
as one of the seven sages but, as Fränkel points out the list varied: Fränkel, Early Greek Poetry
and Philosophy, 239.
121
The natural assumption for the older men to fight towards the rear is reinforced by
implication in: Thuc. 5.72.3-4; Hom. Il. 22.71-76; cf. comments in: Fränkel, Early Greek
Poetry and Philosophy, 155-156, nn. 10, 11.
122
Tyrtaios F10.20-27 (Lycurgus, Against Leocrates, 107) in; Gerber (ed.), Greek Elegaic
Poetry, 53; Edmonds (ed.), Elegy and Iambus, vol. 1, 70-71. I have translated νεμεσητὸν as
‘nemesis’ in place of Gerber’s ‘indignation’. This exhortation was possibly connected with the
Second Messenian Wars: N. Luraghi, 'Becoming Messenian,' JHS 122, 2002, 46, n. 3; V.
Parker, 'The Dates of the Messenian Wars,' Chiron 21, 1991, 25-47.
123
LSJ9 43, col. 2, s.v. αἰσχρός; Cunliffe 14, col. 2, s.v. αἰσχρός.
~32~
The Archaic Era
neuter plural αἰδοῖα, i.e. genitals.124 By linking αἰδοῖα back to its root, αἰδώς,
it can translate as ‘shameful parts’ or ‘bashful parts’, adjectives derived from
αἰδώς. By extension, the customary practice of covering these parts in
everyday life expresses a sense of αἰδώς, here ‘self-respect’.125 The emotion
evoked by the scene described, were it to happen, would be a true sense of
righteous indignation, of nemesis, towards those who could allow an old man
to fight in the front ranks and to end up dead or wounded with his bloodied
genitals, his self-respect, exposed, and not to have died a ‘glorious death’.
In certain contexts aidōs can also be construed as corresponding to ‘shrinking

back,’ ‘self-restraint’, or ‘modesty’; emotions inspired by respect, reverence, or
perhaps even fear for some superior power or person.126 For example,
Patroklos’ words when speaking of Achilles: αἰδοῖος νεμεσητὸς ὅ με προέηκε
πυθέσθαι127 (‘respected and to be dreaded is he who sent me out to learn’).
Aidōs can also express a feeling of ‘bashfulness’ or ‘reticence’ in a youth or an
inferior in the presence of one more senior either in rank, social standing, or
age, evidenced when Telemachos says: αἰδὼς δ’ αὖ νέον ἄνδρα γεραίτερον
ἐξερέεσθαι128 (‘and moreover a young man has shame to question an elder’),
where aidōs is seen as ‘embarrassment’ or ‘shyness’ on the part of a youth in
the presence of an older man.129 It is these nuanced interpretations of aidōs
that can inhibit nemesis which, under normal circumstances, would have been
invoked at one guilty of reprehensible behaviour. This interpretation is
demonstrated when Diomedes is rebuked and chastised by Agamemnon and he
naturally feels shame and embarrassment. Nevertheless, any feeling of
nemesis towards Agamemnon as the cause of his humiliation is inhibited by a
feeling of aidōs in the company of his basileus, and in this Diomedes
demonstrates social appropriateness:
124
LSJ9 36, col. 1, s.v. αἰδοῖα; Cunliffe 10, col. 2, s.v. αἰδοῖα.
125
Cf. Hes. WD 733-734: μηδ’ αἰδοῖα γονῇ πεπαλαγμένος ἔνδοθι οἴκου ἱστίῃ ἐμπελαδὸν
παραφαινέμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλέασθαι (‘do not reveal your genitals besmirched with intercourse near
the hearth, but avoid this’).
126
LSJ9 36, col. 2, s.v. αἰδώς; Cunliffe 10, col. 2, s.v. αἰδώς; W. J. Verdenius, A Commentary
on Hesiod: Works and Days, vv.1-382, Leiden, 1985, 114, n. 192.
127
Il. 11.649.
128
Od. 33.24.
129
Telemachos in the presence of Menelaos: Od. 4.158.
~33~
The Archaic Era
Ὥς φάτο, τὸν δ’ οὔ τι προσέφη κρατερὸς Διομήδης,

αἰδεσθεὶς βασιλῆος ἐνιπὴν αἰδοίοιο
… ‘οὐ γὰρ ἐγὼ νεμεσῶ Ἀγαμέμνονι, ποιμένι λαῶν’
Thus he spoke, and mighty Diomedes did not answer anything,

though he was shamed by the rebuke of the revered king … ‘I
have no resentment for Agamemnon, shepherd of the people’130
In its relationship to aidōs Homeric nemesis operated through a voluntary code

of conduct; one could choose to embrace or to ignore one’s personal sense of
aidōs at the risk of evoking nemesis from others, exemplified by the shameful
behaviour of Penelope’s suitors, discussed in more detail below.131 It would be
some centuries later, ca. the fifth century, that this personal choice would be
taken from the individual and any sense of aidōs would not be called into
action since nemesis would fall under the guardianship of a goddess with this
function. It would be she who would become an independent watchdog that
operated by distributing punishment where she saw fit, regardless of any
individual qualms about personal behaviour, an aspect discussed below.132
nemesis and the common man

Thersites was one of those who chose to ignore any personal sense of aidōs
whilst in the presence of elders or superiors,133 and who had a unique
130
Il. 4.401-402, 413, (translation: author). Although Diomedes overlooks Agamemnon’s
reproach at this juncture for the reason mentioned, he later rebukes Agamemnon when the
latter shows signs of mental weakness: Il. 9.32-7.
131
In the sub-chapter: nemesis and the Suitors on pp. 58-66.
132
Below p. 109.
133
Thersites has been commented on from at least Eustathios ca. 1115-1195; and again in the
sixteenth century AD: H. D. Rankin, 'Thersites the Malcontent, a Discussion,' Symbolae
Osloenses 47, 1972, 36-37. Recent commentators see Thersites as: a representation of a
'thinkable discourse imagined by Homer': S. Stuurman, 'The Voice of Thersites: Reflections on
the Origins of the Idea of Equality,' JHI 65, no. 2, 2004, 184; a representation of proto-
democratic mentality: Stuurman, 'The Voice of Thersites', 189; the soldiers' spokesman who
says what they are all thinking: E. W. Robinson, Ancient Greek Democracy: readings and
sources, Oxford, 2003, 44; 'dishonourable': Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad, 161; a
scapegoat: W. G. Thalmann, 'Thersites: Comedy, Scapegoats, and Heroic Ideology in the
Iliad,' TAPhA 118, 1988, 21-26; 'on the margins of society and blurs class distinctions':
Thalmann, 'Thersites', 17; 'an upstart, mischief-maker, villain': M. S. Silk, The Iliad,
Cambridge, 1987, 60, 73; 'the aristocrat's image of a perfect plebeian, an ugly loudmouth and
coward': Mueller, The Iliad, 6; a 'tactless upstart': J. P. Holoka, '"Looking Darkly" (
): Reflections on Status and Decorum in Homer,' TAPhA 113, 1983, 4-5; a statement on
Homer's class prejudices: G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek
World, Ithaca, 1981, 413; 'a menial, a nonentity among dynastic aristocrats': C. R. Beye, The
Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Epic Tradition, London, 1968, 86; an affirmation of the Homeric
~34~
The Archaic Era
connection with nemesis. He is described as the ugliest man to come to Troy:

‘Ugly was he beyond all men who came to Ilios: he was bandy-legged and
lame in one foot, and his shoulders were rounded, hunching together over his
chest, and above them his head was pointed, and a scant stubble grew on it’.134
His deformities and ugliness are matched by his vile mind and behaviour.
Indeed, his contemptible language and conduct towards superiors seemingly
knows no bounds as he publically vilifies Agamemnon in the assembly. 135
There is no introspective aidōs in Thersites, and even his name represents that
which is objectionable as it probably derives from thersos (θέρσος),
appropriately translating as ‘over-confidence’ or ‘audacity’.136
Thersites’ ugliness, deformities, and behaviour,137 are forcefully emphasized as

a potent contrast to the Homeric ideal of the physical and spiritual beauty of
the Homeric agathos who aspires to achieve perfection in aretē, time, aischros,
and kleos, and who is ever mindful of aidōs and nemesis. Thersites represents
all that was ugly in the Homeric world both physically and psychologically,
and his presence acts as a foil to underscore those Homeric opposites: beauty
epitomized by the Iliadic warrior versus ugliness in its basest ignoble form. He
is a pictorial statement that anything or anyone that does not exhibit excellence
of mind or body is sordid, with Whitman describing Thersites as: ‘the
aristocratic ideology: Adkins, Merit and Responsibility, 34, 173; a scapegoat: Murray, The Rise
of the Greek Epic, 212-214.
134
Il. 2.216-219: αἴσχιστος δὲ ἀνὴρ ὑπὸ Ἴλιον ἦλθε· φολκὸς ἔην, χωλὸς δ᾽ ἕτερον πόδα· τὼ δέ
οἱ ὤμω κυρτώ ἐπὶ στῆθος συνοχωκότε· αὐτὰρ ὕπερθε φοξὸς ἔην κεφαλήν, ψεδνὴ δ᾽ ἐπενήνοθε
λάχνη; cf. Lykoph. 1000, where Thersites is described as: πιθηκομόρφῳ πότμον Αἰτωλῷ
φθόρῳ (‘death to the ape-formed Aetolian pest’).
135
Some scholars have drawn a parallel between Thersites’ outburst and that of Achilles’
towards Agamemnon in book i, especially in regards to the similar phraseology: D. Konstan,
The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature, Toronto,
2006, 116; N. Postlethwaite, 'Thersites in the 'Iliad',' G&R 35, no. 2, 1988, 135: 'the speech of
Thersites is not a mere paraody of Achilleus' quarrel with Agamemnon, but rather is a careful
review of, and comment upon, that quarrel'; Rankin, 'Thersites the Malcontent', 42-43, 53; C.
H. Whitman, Homer and the Heroic Tradition, Cambridge, MA, 1958, 161. Bell suggests
Thersites and Achilles are two sides of the one individual, with Achilles representing the good
facet full of time and aretē, and Thersites the darker facet full of hatred, or ‘Achilles seen
through a glass darkly’: R. H. Bell, 'Homer's Humour: laughter in the Iliad,' Humanitas 20, no.
1-2, 2007, 105-106. I suggest any similarity is Thersites trying to emulate his betters.
136
LSJ9 794, col. 2, s.v. θέρσος: Aeolic for θάρσος; LSJ9 785, col. 1, s.v. θάρσος: (II)
‘audacity’, ‘over-confident’, ‘reckless persistence’; Cunliffe 186, col. 2, s.v. θάρσος: (2)
‘excessive boldness or confidence’; cf. P. Jones, Homer’s Iliad: A Commentary on Three
Translations, London, 2003, 71; Thalmann, 'Thersites', 14; G. Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans:
Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, Baltimore, 1979, 260.
137
Kirk comments that Thersites is ‘a monstrosity by heroic standards’: Kirk, The Iliad: A
Commentary, 140.
~35~
The Archaic Era
incarnation of the ugly truth’,138 and Jaeger as: ‘the only true malicious
caricature in the whole of Homer’, and as: a ‘vulgar and hideous agitator’.139
Thersites’ one appearance in the Iliad makes him an enigmatic creature since
he is the sole orator about whom Homer provides no information as to rank,
class, patrimony, or place of origin. (Homer’s omission to provide identifying
information may have been deliberate – in its absence he is free to exaggerate
Thersites in all his gross ugliness, both physical and mentally, without
insulting any one group of people, or polis.) Usually such omissions indicate a
person of low rank whose antecedents are so insignificant they are not deemed
worthy of mention. Yet, Thersites speaks out in the assembly, and he insults
and mocks Agamemnon to his face: surely not the actions of someone of low
rank, especially if he valued his life? It is this strange behaviour which has led
some to suggest Thersites was an agathos, possibly even Agamemnon’s
equal.140 If correct, why does he sit among the common soldiers with whom
he seems to share a rapport, and why do they, in turn, laugh with apparent
impunity at his later misfortunes and call him a ‘scurrilous foul slanderer’
(λωβητῆρα ἐπεσβόλον)?141 The overtly familiar and insolent manner in which
they speak to Thersites is, in my opinion, an indication that he was their equal,
a commoner with whom they felt free to engage in mocking banter.
When Thersites rises on his bandy and deformed frame to speak in the
assembly, the speech that spews from his mouth exhibits a lack of decorum,
respect or personal aidōs. He is so deficient in social propriety that he berates,
ridicules, and heckles his basileus, Agamemnon, in the presence of the
common soldiers.142 Significantly, he delivers his tirade without the authority
of the speaker’s sceptre.143 The sceptre was not only a physical symbol of
138
Whitman, Homer and the Heroic Tradition, 261.
139
W. Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, trans. G. Highet, 1965 edn, vol. 1, New
York, 1939, 19, 359.
140
J. Marks, 'The Ongoing Neikos: Thersites, Odysseus, and Achilleus,' AJPh 126, no. 1, 2005,
2-6; Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary, 138-139. Feldman argues for Thersites as an agathos and
provides an anachronistic quote from Quintus Smyrnaeus (fourth century AD) Posthomerica i
1047, to argue his point: A. Feldman, 'The Apotheosis of Thersites,' CJ 42, no. 4, 1947, 220.
141
Hom. Il. 2. 211-216, 2.270-277.
142
Il. 2.212-242.
143
The sceptre was important within the Homeric political structure. The evidence contradicts
Combellack’s view that its importance was over-rated and its use limited: F. M. Combellack,
~36~
The Archaic Era
authority, but also a metaphysical representation of ‘right order’ (themis)

which was given, usually by the herald, to each speaker as his authority to
talk.144 Without this sceptre Thersites had no right to speak regardless of his
rank and in doing so he violated themis both actually and metaphysically.
In his outburst Thersites’ taunts and mocks Agamemnon for his greed of spoils
and his lust for young girls:
ἔχθιστος δ’ Ἀχιλῆι μάλιστ’ ἦν ἠδ’ Ὀδυσῆι·

τὼ γὰρ νεικείεσκε· τότ’ αὖτ’ Ἀγαμέμνονι δίῳ
ὀξέα κεκλήγων λέγ’ ὀνείδεα. τῷ δ’ ἄρ’ Ἀχαιοὶ
ἐκπάγλως κοτέοντο νεμέσσηθέν τ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ.
αὐτὰρ ὁ μακρὰ βοῶν Ἀγαμέμνονα νείκεε μύθῳ·
‘Ἀτρεḯδη τέο δὴ αὖτ’ ἐπιμέμφεαι ἠδὲ χατίζεις;
μλεῖαί τοι χαλκοῦ κλισίαι, πολλαὶ δὲ γυναῖκες
εἰσὶν ἐνὶ κλισίῃς ἐξαίρετοι, ἅς τοι Ἀχαιοὶ
πρωτίστῳ δίδομεν, εὖτ’ ἂν πτολίεθρον ἕλωμεν.
ἦ ἔτι καὶ χρυσοῦ ἐπιδεύεαι, ...
ἠὲ γυναῖκα νέην ἵνα μίσγεαι ἐν φιλότητι,
ἥν τ’ αὐτὸς ἀπονόσφι κατίσχεαι;’145
Hateful was he to Achilles above all, and to Odysseus, for those

two he was in the habit of reviling;146 but now with shrill cries he
uttered abuse against noble Agamemnon. With him were the
Achaians exceeding resentful, and indignant in their hearts.147
But shouting loudly he reviled Agamemnon: ‘Son of Atreus,
'Speakers and Scepters in Homer,' CJ 43, no. 4, 1948, 209. The sceptre’s importance is given
in: Σ (A, bT) who comment on Il. 23.568 (and Il. 10.321, 18.505): πρὸς τοὺς δημηγοροῦντας
ὅτι σκῆπτρα ἔλαβον (‘to speak to those in the assembly the sceptre must be held’ [translation:
author]); cf: Σ (A, bT) on Il. 2.186, who give the same reason as to why Odysseus takes
Agamemnon’s sceptre when he speaks in the assembly, since he could not have done so
without it; similarly Eustathios on Od. 2.37: ‘The herald Pisenor put the sceptre into
Telemachos’ hand, because it was not permissible for the kings to address the assembly
otherwise’: Eust., Odysseam 1432; Cunliffe 361, col. 2, s.v. σκῆπτρον: (3) ‘a staff in the
custody of a herald and handed by him to one wishing to speak in an assembly in token of his
right to a hearing’; Finley, The World of Odysseus, 112. Cf. Hes. Theog. 30-34, where the
Muses give Hesiod a staff as authority to talk, or sing (below p. 78).
144
Il. 23.566-569 describes the sceptre’s use as an instrument of authority to speak when
Menelaos rose to challenge Antilochos: ‘then among them rose up also Menelaos, grieved at
heart, furiously angry at Antilochos, and a herald placed the sceptre in his hand and ordered
silence among the Argives’; cf. Il. 2.206; Hes., Theog. 30-34: ‘and they (the Muses) plucked a
σκῆπτρον, a branch of luxuriant laurel, a marvel, and gave it to me; and they breathed a divine
voice into me, so that I might glorify what will be and what was before’.
145
Il. 2.220-233.
146
Marks uses this example to argue that Thersites’ previous behaviour of abusing Odysseus
and Achilles indicates rivalry between soldiers of the same aristocratic class, i.e. each vying
for supremacy: Marks, 'The Ongoing Neikos', 5-6. I would suggest that Homer mentioned
Thersites’ previous abuses as further evidence of his disrespect for social barriers.
147
The translation is Murray’s, but see my discussion on this sentence below, p. 45, where I
offer alternative translation.
~37~
The Archaic Era
what are you unhappy about this time, or what do you lack?
Your huts are filled with bronze, and there are many women in
your huts, chosen spoils that we Achaians give you first of all,
whenever we take a city. Or do you still want gold also … or is
it some young girl for you to know in love, whom you will keep
apart for yourself?’
Regardless of any truth in his words, as a common soldier it was not Thersites’
place to speak out or to challenge his basileus. He could never have hoped to
gain anything from such an attack nor could he have expected to escape
unscathed. For not upholding the ‘correct status’ of his position within the
social hierarchy, for his lack of introspective aidōs, his disregard for the
nemesis of others, Thersites was thrashed by Odysseus (an act which would be
unusual between peers; another indication Thersites was not the equal of
Agamemnon, Odysseus, or Achilles):
Ὣς ἄρ’ ἔφη, σκήπτρῳ δὲ μετάφρενον ἠδὲ καὶ ὤμω

πλῆξεν· ὁ δ’ ἰδνώθη, θαλερὸν δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε δάκρυ·
σμῶδιξ δ’ αἱματόεσσα μεταφρένου ἐξυπανέστη
σκήπτρου ὕπο χρυσέου. ὁ δ’ ἄρ’ ἕζετο τάρβησέν τε,
ἀλγήσας δ’, ἀχρεῖον ἰδών, ἀπομόρξατο δάκρυ.148
So he [Odysseus] spoke, and with the sceptre struck his

[Thersites] back and shoulders; and Thersites cowered down,
and a big tear fell from him, and a bloody welt rose up on his
back from the golden sceptre. Then he sat down, and fear came
on him and, stung by pain, he wiped the tear away with a
helpless look.
Here is no hero, no warrior, no agathos! Thersites cries at pain; he feels the

shame of public humiliation; he presents as helpless; his lack of manliness is
revealed in his tears – this is an inferior being. It is an ironical symbolism and,
I believe, probably not a coincidence that Odysseus’ choice of weapon with
which to punish Thersites was that symbol of authority and themis – the
speaker’s sceptre.149 The physical symbol of themis had become an instrument
of enforcement and a restorer of those concepts represented by its abstract
concept ‘right order’, which were in turn made manifest as the welts on
Thersites’ back through the agency of Odysseus.
148
Il. 2.265-268.
149
Il. 2.265. As a symbol of authority, the Homeric sceptre is today represented by an army
officer's staff, a royal sceptre, a military baton, and perhaps in the term ‘staff of office’.
~38~
The Archaic Era
There is debate as to whether τῷ at 2.222: τῷ δ’ ἄρ’ Ἀχαιοὶ ἐκπάγλως

κοτέοντο νεμέσσηθέν τ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ (‘with him were the Achaians exceeding
resentful, and indignant in their hearts’), refers to Agamemnon or to Thersites
as the recipient of the Achaians’ nemesis, since grammatically τῷ could apply
to either.150 The Achaians had justification to feel resentment and anger
towards Agamemnon since he had deliberately misled them into believing they
were going home; he had been the cause of a deadly plague after he
dishonoured the priest, Chryses;151 and, it was Agamemnon who, because of
his quarrel with Achilles and his stubborn refusal to concede to Achilles
demands over the captive girl Briseis, was the cause of Achilles and his men
withdrawing from battle thereby weakening the fighting capability of the
combined force resulting in a higher death toll than would otherwise have been
the case. Their bitter feelings are tersely summed up by Odysseus (holding the
sceptre): Ἀτρεḯδη, νῦν δή σε, ἄναξ, ἐθέλουσιν Ἀχαιοὶ μᾶσιν ἐλέγχιστον
θέμεναι μερόπεσσι βροτοῖσιν152 (‘son of Atreus, now truly, O king, the
Achaians are minded to make you the most despised among all mortal men’).
Nevertheless, the more compelling argument is for τῷ to apply, not to

Agamemnon, but to Thersites. Had Homer been speaking of the Achaians’
nemesis towards Agamemnon I suggest a verb more akin to ‘rage’ would have
been used to better express the depth of their ongoing feelings of angst and
bitterness against him, such as χόλος, μῆνις or even λύσσα.153 Furthermore,
150
Supporting Thersites are: Eust., Iliadem 208; D. L. Cairns, 'Ethics, ethology, terminology:
Iliadic anger and the cross-cultural study of emotion,' in S. Braund & G. W. Most (eds),
Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, Yale Classical Studies, vol. XXXII,
Cambridge, 2003, 34, n. 106; Yamagata, Homeric Morality, 151; E. R. Lowry, Thersites: A
Study in Comic Shame, New York & London, 1991, 22-31; Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary,
140; Scott, 'Aidos and Nemesis in the Works of Homer', 25-26; Nagy, The Best of the
Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, 261; Finley, The World of
Odysseus, 111. Supporting Agamemnon are: Postlethwaite, 'Thersites in the 'Iliad'', 134-135:
whose line of reasoning involves the word order and perceives an intentional contrast being
drawn by the endings of lines 223-224, θυμῷ ... μύθῳ; Thalmann, 'Thersites', 18, n. 44; W.
Leaf (ed.), The Iliad: Edited with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices,
2nd edn, vol. 1, London, 1900, 65, commenting on 2.222.
151
Il. 1.9-12, 25, 93-100.
152
Il. 2.284-285
153
Cunliffe 420, col. 2, s.v. χόλος: (2) ‘anger’, ‘ire’, ‘wrath’, ‘rage’; 269, col. 2, s.v. μῆνις: (1)
‘wrath’, ‘ire’; 252, col. 2, s.v. λύσσα: ‘rage’, ‘fury’, ‘lust for battle’. Interestingly, Kirk argues
the words in the passage are too violent to be directed against Agamemnon and therefore τῷ
refers to Thersites: Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary, 140. Although his conclusion is deemed
correct his supporting argument is not, especially in view of the fact that the men had already
~39~
The Archaic Era
nemesis as an aorist in the passive voice (νεμέσσηθέν) indicates the Achaians

collectively felt ‘shame’ or ‘indignation’ towards either their own behaviour or
a member of the group. Given the situation, had Agamemnon been their target
it would not have been an emotion of the moment that was let loose, but rather
an ongoing feeling of sustained resentment over a period of time warranting,
not the aorist tense but the imperfect as it does for κοτέω in the same passage:
τῷ δ’ ἄρ’ Ἀχαιοὶ ἐκπάγλως κοτέοντο νεμέσσηθέν τ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ.154 Homer’s use
of the aorist signifies the Achaians’ nemesis occurred at the same time as
Thersites’ abuse of Agamemnon, while the imperfect κοτέω155 reflects their
continuous feelings towards Thersites’ most of the time, i.e. he was far from
liked. Despite their bitter feelings towards Agamemnon, the Achaians’
nemesis is, in this instance, directed towards Thersites, not only for his
behaviour towards a superior but also because his tirade had the dangerous
potential to bring shame and punishment on them all. Their fears created a
highly emotionally charged atmosphere which is relieved only when they are
able to laugh and applaud the thrashing Thersites receives from Odysseus:
But the Achaians, though they were troubled at heart, broke into
merry laughter at him, and one would turn to his neighbour and
say: ‘Surely Odysseus has before this performed good deeds
without number as leader in good counsel and setting battle in
array, but now is this deed far the best that he has performed
among the Argives, since he has made this scurrilous babbler
cease from his harangues. Never again, I think, will his proud
spirit set him on to rail at kings with reviling words’156
been fighting for nine long years with no end in sight, in which case the ‘violence of the
language’ is actually not strong enough had τῷ implied Agamemnon.
154
Cf. Seymour who sees τῷ as a reference to Agamemnon and κοτέοντο as an imperfect to
express ‘a continued state of feeling’, whereas νεμέσσηθέν is an aorist because it ‘refers to the
occasion which caused their anger’: T. D. Seymour, The First Three Books of Homer's Iliad:
with Introduction, Commentary and Vocabulary, Boston, 1898, 67. Seymour’s reasoning does
not address the use of the passive voice for νεμέσσηθέν, which I argue is indicative of a feeling
towards one of their own group, or towards themselves. Cf. Anthen who supports Seymour’s
arguments for the imperfect and aorist tenses but who nevertheless judges τῷ as a reference to
Thersites. C. Anthen, The First Three Books of Homer's Iliad, New York, 1844, 210-211.
155
Cunliffe 235, col. 1, s.v. κοτέω: ‘to bear resentment, cherish wrath, be in wrath’.
156
Il. 2.270-277: οἱ δὲ καὶ ἀχνύμενοί περ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ἡδὺ γέλασσαν· ὧδε δέ τις εἴπεσκεν ἰδὼν ἐς
πλησίον ἄλλον· “ὢ πόποι, ἦ δὲ μυρί’ Ὀδυσσεὺς ἐσθλὰ ἔοργε βουλάς τ’ ἐξάρχων ἀγαθὰς
πόλεμόν τε κορύσσων· νῦν δὲ τόδε μέγ’ ἄριστον ἐν Ἀργείοισιν ἔρεξεν, ὃς τὸν λωβητῆρα
ἐπεσβόλον ἔσχ’ ἀγοράων. Οὔ θήν μιν πάλιν αὖτις ἀνήσει θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ νεικείειν βασιλῆας
ὀνειδείοις ἐπέεσσιν.
~40~
The Archaic Era
Thersites’ characteristics confirm the arrogance of his over-confidence: he has

‘measureless speech’ (ἀμετροεπής), ‘many disorderly words’ (ἔπεα ἄκοσμά
πολλά),157 he is insultingly disrespectful to his superiors, and the fact that he
speaks in the assembly without the authority of the sceptre demonstrates his
arrogance. He is boastful by implying he is a soldier with foresight and a
leader amongst his peers: ὅν κεν ἐγὼ δήσας ἀγάγω, and suggests he has
captured Trojans ransomed by Agamemnon.158 All his boasts are unlikely to
be true given his severe physical handicaps which would have rendered him a
liability both to himself and to the whole Achaian contingent, and precluded
him from military activities. Despite this, he alleges personal participation by
using inclusive terms such as ‘we give’ (δίδομεν), ‘we seize’ (ἕλωμεν), ‘let us
return’ (νεώμεθα), ‘let us leave him alone’ (ἐῶμεν), ‘we defend’ (ἠμεῖς
προσαμύνομεν).159 He tries to be ‘one of the boys’ by ingratiating himself
with his fellow soldiers by humorously mocking and reviling his superiors,
which he thinks increases his public persona at the expense of those whom he
ridicules. In addition, he sees himself as a self-appointed spokesman in his use
of the second person plural: ὦ πέπονες, κάκ’ ἐλέγχε’, Ἀχαίδες, οὐκέτ’
Ἀχαιοί.160
At this juncture, and with his characteristics in mind, I propose a further

nuance: that Thersites is more than the representation of ‘ugliness’, violator of
themis, and negative epitome of the noun thersos, i.e. ‘over-confidence’,
‘reckless persistence’, ‘audacity’. I suggest Thersites is the embodiment of
these abstractions and a metaphor of all that is objectionable in the conceptual
demos exemplified by the collective Achaian soldiers. Such abstract
negativities are usually wisely suppressed through an introspective aidōs,
particularly in the presence of a superior. But, for the Achaians, their acute
disappointment at having their hopes of returning home dashed is felt
deeply,161 and their frustrated anger is let loose in an uncontrolled embodied
157
Il. 2.212, 213.
158
Il. 2.231.
159
Il. 2.228, 236, 238, 231.
160
Il. 2.235.
161
Il. 2.289-290: ‘For like little children or widow women they wail to each other in longing to
return home’.
~41~
The Archaic Era
form to revile and abuse the author of their misery. The intensity of their
emotions is so intense that its innate power takes on an independent and
unpredictable life of its own by becoming the embodiment of Thersites, Brazen
Audacity. Yet, as soon as this virago is unleashed, the Achaians realize its
inappropriateness, and instantly feel nemesis that they were unable to control
their emotions through a keener sense of aidōs.
This interpretation finds support in a re-examination of the grammatical

structure of νεμέσσηθέν at 2.223 as an aorist in the passive voice. In this form
I conclude that the nemesis felt by the Achaians came upon them at a single
given moment (aorist) and was directed towards behaviour of their own
making or from within themselves (passive); i.e. it is the nemesis they
intuitively feel towards their recklessly unleashed Brazen Audacity. The
instant it is let loose they recognize the potential danger, so that when the
highly-charged tension of the moment passes with Odysseus thrashing
Thersites as Brazen Audacity, they are able to laugh and jeer with relief and
thankful the punishment had not been more severe.
What excludes Thersites from humanity and separates him from the other
soldiers is his ugliness, his deformities, his handicaps, his total unsuitability as
a soldier, and his lack of patronym. Lack of patronym and ethnicity is unique
but Thersites as a representation and embodiment of the objectionable
behaviour of the common soldiers, who all come from diverse tribes, poleis,
and regions, can have no one place of origin or one family line. He is what
Stuurman, although for different reasons, describes as, ‘the allegorical
representation of a cultural stereotype.’162 Behaviour that is over-confident,
boastful and arrogant is ugly and deforming to the psyche, and has the
propensity to handicap the individual:163 all of which is evident in Thersites.
162
Stuurman sees in Thersites an agitator for equality of the masses and the representative of
an eighth-century political crisis, in which the stirrings of a democratic mentality was
emerging along with a challenge to the Homeric aristocratic values: Stuurman, 'The Voice of
Thersites', 184, 189.
163
Cf. Redfield: ‘Those who are dishonourable deserve ugliness and dirt as well; Thersites,
who speaks without measure or order, is appropriately ugly, lame, and deformed. Odysseus
inflicts upon him an appropriate humiliation by making him bleed and cry’: Redfield, Nature
and Culture in the Iliad, 161.
~42~
The Archaic Era
It was Thersites’ social class which sealed his punishment at Odysseus’ hands,
confirmed by the impunity with which Achilles is able to abuse Agamemnon
verbally in book i.164 Agamemnon’s suggestion of a retreat at Il. 14.80-95: οὐ
γάρ τις νέμεσις φυγέειν κακόν, οὐδ’ ἀνὰ νύκτα (‘for it is no shame to flee from
ruin, even by night’), is met with verbal abuse from Odysseus, which goes
unpunished. Similarly, high-born Nestor is able to propose a rebuke of
Menelaos, and although he suggests some may feel nemesis for him, he speaks
in the knowledge that as an equal he is free to make such comments:
ἀλλὰ φίλον περ ἐόντα καὶ αἰδοῖον Μενέλαον νεικέσω, εἴ πέρ μοι
νεμεσήσεαι, οὐδ’ ἐπικεύσω ὡς εὕδει, σοὶ δ’ οἴῳ ἐπέτρεψεν
πονέεσθαι.165
But Menelaos I will reproach, dear though he is and respected,
even if you should be indignant with me, nor will I hide my
thought, since he is sleeping and has allowed you to toil alone.’
οὕτως οὔ τίς οἱ νεμεσήσεται οὐδ’ ἀπιθήσει Ἀργείων, ὅτε κέν τιν’

ἐποτρύνῃ καὶ ἀνώγῃ.166
So will no man be indignant at him or disobey him of all the
Argives, when he urges any man on and commands him.
As agathoi, the verbal abuse meted out by Achilles, Odysseus and Nestor
commits no offence against themis or the ‘correct status’ of Homeric
aristocratic society. In contrast, Thersites was no agathos and his attack on
Agamemnon violated all Homeric concepts of ‘right order’, so that the nemesis
he received was rightly earned for his lack of retrospective aidōs.
nemesis and the thumos of man

Abstract concepts such as nemesis are given added strength when felt within
the θυμός; a word combination which adds potency and intensity to the
emotion experienced.167 The lexicographical definition of θυμός includes
various multifaceted nuances such as: ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘heart’, ‘mind’, ‘breath’,
164
Konstan argues that the norms of socially acceptable behaviour is different between social
classes: Konstan, 'Nemesis and Phthonos,' 77.
165
Il. 10.114-115.
166
Il. 10.129-130.
167
Examples of abstract concepts with thumos include: χαίρω = Il. 1.256, 7.191-192, Od.
1.311, 8.395, 8.483; ἔλπομαι = Il. 12.407, 15.288, Od. 3.275, 20.328; πείθω = Il. 4.104, 9.386,
Od. 7.258, 23.230; χόλος = Il. 4.494, 13.660, Od. 9.480; αἰδώς = Il. 15.561, 15.661.
~43~
The Archaic Era
‘desire’, ‘will’, ‘courage’, ‘strong feeling and passion’, the seat of ‘anger’,168
‘thought’, and the principle of ‘life’.169 This broad spectrum of definitions
demonstrates the fluidity of the word’s interpretational nuances.170 As a result,
the complexities and idiosyncratic vagaries in meaning are liable to change at
every use, or as Caswell argues: ‘Generations of classicists and readers of
Homer … have been making do with approximations in meaning which range
from ‘soul’ to ‘anger’.171 He goes on to explain his definition of θυμός:
the basis of consciousness and thus of all internal experiences …

its strength is closely connected with the physical condition of
the body and also helps determine how the individual functions
intellectually and emotionally … θυμός came to refer only to the
inner functions of the living person, whereas ψυχή came to refer
to the entity which survives death.172
According to Cornford, Caswell’s two ‘entities’, θυμός and ψυχή, are two
‘souls’ within Homeric man: ψυχή (and here Cornford includes ‘εἴδωλον’ as
synonymous with ψυχή)173 which escapes through the mouth at the moment of
death but survives in the afterlife; and, θυμός which contains the vital life-
force and manifests itself in the individual’s blood, but which does not survive
death.174 Cornford adds that θυμός: ‘is the soul as the principle of force and
motion.’175 To these two ‘souls’ Snell includes a third, νόος,176 and adds:
‘what we interpret as the soul, Homeric man splits up into three components
168
In Homer thumos is never anger itself only a seat of emotions such as anger and nemesis, or
as Cairns argues, a ‘psychic force’: Cairns, 'Ethics, ethology, terminology: Iliadic anger and
the cross-cultural study of emotion,' 21. By the fifth century thumos could mean anger: W. V.
Harris, 'The Rage of Women,' in S. Braund & G. W. Most (eds), Ancient Anger: Perspectives
from Homer to Galen, Yale Classical Studies, vol. XXXII, Cambridge, 2003, 123. In the
Roman era it was associated with ‘thumokatocha’ or spells for restraining anger: C. A.
Faraone, 'Thumos as masculine ideal and social pathology in ancient Greek magical spells,' in
S. Braund & G. W. Most (eds), Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, Yale
Classical Studies, vol. XXXII, Cambridge, 2003, 144.
169
LSJ9 810, col. 1, s.v. θυμός; Cunliffe 192-193, cols 1-2, 1, s.v. θυμός.
170
An in-depth analysis of Homeric thumos is found in: M. Clarke, Flesh and Spirit in the
Songs of Homer, Oxford, 1999, 61-126; C. P. Caswell, A Study of Thumos in Early Greek
Epic, Leiden, 1990, 11-63.
171
Caswell, A Study of Thumos in Early Greek Epic, 1.
172
Caswell, A Study of Thumos in Early Greek Epic, 1, 62-3.
173
Whether ψυχή and εἴδωλον are the same is doubtful. Cf. B. Snell, The Discovery of the
Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought, trans. T. G. Rosenmeyer, Oxford, 1953, 9.
174
Clarke, Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer, 54.
175
F. M. Cornford, From Religion to Philosophy: A Study in the Origins of Western
Speculation, London, 1912, 109-110; cf; Snell, The Discovery of the Mind, 9.
176
LSJ9 1180, col. 2, s.v. νόος: (1) ‘mind, as employed in perceiving and thinking, sense, wit’.
(2) ‘to have sense, be sensible’, (5) ‘reason, intellect’; similarly Cunliffe 281, col. 1, s.v. νόος.
~44~
The Archaic Era
each of which he defines by the analogy of physical organs. Our transcription

of psyche, noos and thymos as ‘organs’ of life, of perception, and of (e)motion
are, therefore merely in the nature of abbreviations’.177 Clarke, on the other
hand, sees νόος as similar but distinct from θυμός.178 Redfield understands
θυμός as: ‘the seat of the affective life – of passions, wishes, hopes, and
inclinations’, and he associates it with ‘breath’.179 He adds that: ‘thumos is the
seat of the whole practical consciousness, from instant rage and pain to
planning and deliberation on the basis of lessons laboriously learned’.180
These interpretations show that θυμός can be spiritual, physical and/or

emotional, and is made manifest by blood and/or breath (which as proof of its
existence would be seen in physical ‘breath’ visible in the moving diaphragm).
It can be involved in all aspects of human consciousness: a desire to eat or
drink, πιέειν ὅτε θυμὸς ἀνώγοι (Il. 4.263); a knowledge of kindliness, θυμὸς
ἐνὶ στήθεσσι φίλοισιν ἤπια δήνεα οἶδε (Il. 4.360-361); firm resolve, θυμὸς
ἐπέσσυται ὄφρ’ ἐπαμύνω (Il. 6.361, 1.173); an ability to feel terror, ὀρίνθη
θυμός (Il. 5.29); a capacity for sorrow, ἄλγος ἱκάνει θυμὸν ἐμόν (Il. 3.97-8); to
sense pain, κῆδε δὲ θυμόν (Il. 5.400); rouse spirits, Τρωσὶν θυμὸν ἐγεῖραι (Il.
5.510), and, ὄτρυνε μένος καὶ θυμὸν ἑκάστου (Il. 5.470, 5.792, 6.72).
Since there is no interpretational consistency, with a nuanced meaning varying

according to circumstances or situations, to better understand thumos as an
intensifier of the abstract nemesis I have analysed each occurrence within its
context. First, Il.2.223: τῷ δ’ ἄρ’ Ἀχαιοὶ ἐκπάγλως κοτέοντο νεμέσσηθέν (aor.
ind. pass. 3rd pl.) τ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ, is a sentence charged with a passionate intensity
of emotion felt by the Achaians towards Thersites who has verbally abused
Agamemnon. To exclude ἐνὶ θυμῷ would leave the Achaians experiencing
mere indignation, but its inclusion reveals the greater depth of their nemesis, so
that: ‘they were shamed within their hearts’.181 Two further examples, fraught
177
Snell, The Discovery of the Mind, 15.
178
Clarke, Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer, 53.
179
Cf. Il. 5.696-8: ‘his breath (ψυχή) left him, and down over his eyes a mist was shed. But he
caught his breath again (ἀμπνύνθη), and the breath (πνοιὴ) of the North Wind as it blew on
him (ἐπιπνείουσα) made him live again after he had painfully breathed out his spirit (θυμόν)’.
180
Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad, 173-174.
181
Translation: author.
~45~
The Archaic Era
with emotional intensity, concern the recovery of comrades’ bodies: Il. 16.544:
ἀλλὰ, φίλοι, πάρστητε, νεμεσσήθητε (aor. imperat. pass. 2nd pl.) δὲ θυμῷ, is
spoken by Glaukos who is fervently urging Aineias and Hektor to fight with
him to recover Sarpedon’s body to prevent the Myrmidons from mutilating the
corpse and stripping it of its armour. Instead of mere indignation, the inclusion
of θυμῷ has Glaukos saying: ‘but friends, take a stand and feel appalled in the
breath of your very soul’;182 and, at Il. 17.254: ἀλλά τις αὐτὸς ἴτω,
νεμεσιζέσθω (pres. imp. mid/pass 3rd sg.) δ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ Πάτροκλον Τρῳῇσι
κυσὶν μέλπηθρα γενέσθαι, the potency of the imperative νεμεσιζέσθω results in
an urgent and heartfelt appeal of: ‘be scandalized at heart’, by Menelaos to the
Achaians to prevent Patroklos’ body from being mauled and torn apart by
Trojan dogs.183 At Od. 1.119: νεμεσσήθη (aor. ind. pass. 3rd sg.) δ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ,
Telemachos is ashamed of the disrespectful manner in which his mother’s
suitors treat a stranger in his father’s house. Although the situation is beyond
his control he still feels an introspective heartfelt nemesis (‘utter shame in his
heart’) since the stranger’s treatment is a reflection on the household and a
violation of the guest/host friendship custom. A different nuance is understood
at Od. 4.158: ἀλλὰ σαόφρων ἐστί, νεμεσσᾶται (pres. subj. mid/pass 3rd sg.) δ’
ἐνὶ θυμῷ, where Peisistratos speaks of Telemachos as feeling nemesis (respect
or awe) in the presence of an elder (Menelaos).184 The inclusion of ἐνὶ θυμῷ
emphasizes Telemachos’ feelings of awkwardness and embarrassment.
Consequently, when a stronger and more intensified emotion is needed the
verb νεμεσάω or νεμεσίζομαι is given added potency by being combined with
θυμός, is possibly an imperative, and/or is in the passive or middle voice.
Consider the following words spoken by Poseidon towards the Achaians whom
he thinks are not doing their best in the fighting: ὑμῖν δὲ νεμεσσῶμαι περὶ
κῆρι’.185 Here κῆρ,186 the physical heart where visible physical changes such as
182
183
Cairns comments that nemesis is the result of a breach of aidōs (implied): Cairns, Aidos, 85.
184
The feeling is similar to some cultural observances of keeping ones’ eyes cast down in the
presence of a superior as a mark of respect or humility, or the expected gesture from a female
in the presence of a male.
185
Il. 13.119. This is Homer’s sole use of the combination of nemesis with kȇr.
186
LSJ9 948, col. 1, s.v. κῆρ: the heart. According to LSJ9 authors the emphatic dative κῆρι
intensifies the emotion and is used in Homer as an adverb ‘with all the heart, heartily’. In
~46~
The Archaic Era
a faster heartbeat occur, adds strength, so that περὶ κῆρι profoundly increases
the emotional strength of the nemesis being expressed.187 Since Poseidon
intended to shock the Achaians into action: ὑμῖν δὲ νεμεσσῶμαι περὶ κῆρι, may
well be expressed as: ‘but with you I have scornful contempt at heart’. His
whole speech rings with the disdain he feels towards the Achaians who, in his
opinion, have not lived up to their full potential as agathoi, and he
contemptuously ridicules their aretē by calling them πέπονες (weaklings),188
and νέοι (youths; used here in a derogatory sense as in ‘call yourselves men,
you are nothing but boys’). His diatribe continues with another word for
physical heart, φρήν: ἀλλα’ ἐν φρεσὶ189 θέσθε ἕκαστος αἰδῶ καὶ νέμεσιν (‘but
put into your hearts, each of you, shame and (fear of) nemesis’).190 Poseidon’s
contemptuous comments spring not only on account of the Achaians’ lack of
enthusiasm for fighting, but also because any weakness shown by them would
reflect badly against him as their champion, making him look ineffectual and
invoke nemesis from the other gods towards him, an aspect discussed in more
detail below.191
Other strengthening word combinations include the adverbs, κρατερῶς and

ὑπερφιάλως.192 While κρατερῶς ἐνεμέσσα at Il. 13.16 and 13.353 can be
rendered as ‘mightily indignant’, the addition of ὑπερφιάλως elsewhere in
Homer can affect the intensity of the nemesis experienced from a relatively
mild emotion to one of fierce anger. This is demonstrated in Idomeneos’
speech to Meriones: ἀλλ’ ἄγε, μηκέτι ταῦτα λεγώμεθα νηπύτιοι ὣς ἑσταότες,
addition, κῆρ is strengthened further when combined with περί to become ‘exceedingly’ or
‘throughout’; cf. Cunliffe 226, col. 2, s.v. κῆρ: ‘heart’, ‘breast’, ‘soul’, ‘mind’, ‘as the seat of:
life, intelligence, spirit, courage, anger, wrath, passion, desire, emotions’, ‘one's character or
disposition’. So, unlike LSJ9 Cunliffe gives κῆρ a similar meaning and intensity to θυμός.
187
Other instances of περὶ κῆρι (without nemesis) similarly demonstrate this: Il. 4.46, 53,
13.206, 430, 24.42, 61, 423, 435; Od. 5.36, 6.158, 7.69, 15.245, 19.280, 23.339.
188
πέπων is used here in a derogatory sense, but it can also be used positively as, ‘my good
fellow’: LSJ9 1364, col. 1, s.v. πέπων; Cunliffe 323, col. 1, s.v. πέπων: Il. 5.109, 6.55, 9.252.
189
LSJ9 1954, col. 2, s.v. φρήν: (2) ‘the heart and parts near the heart, the breast’, ‘the seat of
the passions and affections’; ‘the heart, mind, understanding, reason’; (4) φρένες is also used
in Homer in the sense of ‘the seat of life or life itself’, as opposed to ψυχή (the departed soul)’.
190
Il. 13.119-122, (translation: author). Just as 13.119 is the only instance of κῆρ in
combination with νέμεσις, 13.122 is the only occasion that φρήν is combined with νέμεσις.
191
Below, pp. 50-51.
192
LSJ9 990, col. 2, s.v. κρατερῶς: ‘strongly’, ‘vehemently’, ‘stoutly’; Cunliffe 236, col. 2, s.v.
κρατερῶς: ‘highly’ ‘intensely’; LSJ9 1870, col. 1, s.v. ὑπερφιάλως: ‘exceedingly’,
‘excessively’; Cunliffe 397, col. 1, s.v. ὑπερφιάλως: (3) ‘excessively’, ‘greatly’.
~47~
The Archaic Era
μή πού τις ὑπερφιάλως νεμεσήσῃ193 (‘but come, no longer let us loiter here and
talk in this way like children, lest perhaps some man reproach us excessively’),
and again in connection with Penelope’s suitors as an emotion against one of
their own for ill-treating a beggar (Odysseus in disguise): οἱ δ’ ἄρα πάντες
ὑπερφιάλως νεμέσησαν194 (‘but they all were filled with exceeding
indignation’).195 Yet, when this same ‘beggar’ asks to string Odysseus’ bow
the suitors react with ‘offended fury’ (‘οἱ δ’ ἄρα πάντες ὑπερφιάλως
νεμέσησαν’).196 The difference between the two situations involving the
suitors is that in the first the emotion is felt by agathoi towards a fellow
agathos, in the second it is as a reaction against an insult to their aretē by a
‘beggar’ who had the effrontery to suggest he might succeed in stringing the
bow when they had failed, and as such demanded a far more extreme
emotional response.
While the emotional intensity of nemesis can, under certain circumstances and
in certain word combinations, be something more akin to anger even rage, the
opposite is true for its negation οὐ, which can be an apology for a strong
emotion. For example: τῶν μὴ σύ γε μῦθον ἐλέγξῃς μηδὲ μόδας· πρὶν δ’ οὔ τι
νεμεσσητὸν κεχολῶσθαι197 (‘do not scorn their words, nor their coming here,
though before now no man could blame you for being angry’); μῆτερ ἐμή, τὸ
μὲν οὔ σε νεμεσσῶμαι κεχολῶσθαι198 (‘my mother, I do not blame you for
being angry’); πρὶν δ’ οὔ τι νεμεσσητὸν κεχολῶσθαι199 (‘but till then no one
could blame you for being wrathful’); αὐτὰρ μὴ νῦν μοι τόδε χώεο μηδὲ
νεμέσσα200 (‘but do not now be angry with me for this, nor full of
indignation’), οὐ μὲν γάρ τι νεμεσσητὸν βασιλῆα ἄνδρ᾽ ἀπαρέσσασθαι ὅτε τις
πρότερος χαλεπήνῃ201 (‘there is no shame for a basileus to make amends to
another man, when he is the first to became angry’). These examples illustrate
193
Il. 13.292-293.
194
Od. 17.481.
195
Cf. below p. 61, where this passage is discussed further.
196
Od. 21.285. (translation: author).
197
Il. 9.523.
198
Od. 18.227.
199
Od. 22.59.
200
Od. 23.213.
201
Il. 19.182-183.
~48~
The Archaic Era
the way in which a softening of the perceived, although recognized as

justifiable, anger of another is achieved through the addition of nemesis’
negation, οὐ.
Figure 4: Rhapsode and accompanying aulos-player; Attic red-figure amphora; ca. 480-490; BM
1843,1103.34 (source: museum)..
Such complexities as to the extent to which different word combinations might

intensify the emotions in Homer’s poems pertain solely to modern-day readers;
Homer’s audiences would have had no such difficulty since the epics were
performed orally.202 For example, in figure 4 a rhapsode (with a staff/sceptre
of authority) recites an epic which begins: ΗΟΔΕΠΟΤΕΝΤYPIΝΘI (Ωδε ποτ
έv Tύρινθι) ‘As once in Tiryns ...’ whilst accompanied (on the other side) by a
aulos player.203 With the fluctuations in the rhapsode’s voice, or at some
crucial moment of the story being reached, the musician could vary the pace,
pitch and melody of his tune to coincide with an emotional moment in the tale.
In this way, all the dramatic subtleties and emotional nuances would have been
202
K. Friis Johansen, The Iliad in Early Greek Art, Copenhagen, 1967, 231; cf. Plut. Alk. 7.1.
203
Attributed to the Kleophrades Painter: ARV2 183.15, 1632; CVA British Museum 3, iii I c
pl. 8, 2a-d (173). The rhapsodes’ words may be the beginning of a line from Euripides’ lost
tragedy Bellerophron, in which Tiryns was prominent: (cf. Il. 6.144-221 about Bellerophron);
R. Graves, The Greek Myths, revised edn, 1992, Harmondsworth, 1955, 252-256.
~49~
The Archaic Era
easily perceived in the different sounds, pitches and tenors of the rhapsode’s
voice as he sang the epic tales. Without a rhapsode’s melodious voice and
musical accompaniment, modern-day readers are left with differing personal
interpretations of the emotions originally intended.
The Loeb translator, Murray, has at times sought to add multifaceted meaning
in the texts, including personal interpretations of thumos in combination with
nemesis which further illustrate the diversity of interpretational nuances. At
Od 2.138 he suggests thumos as ‘conscience’: ὑμέτερος δ’ εἰ μὲν θυμὸς
νεμεσίζεται αὐτῶν (‘and for you, if your own conscience is offended at these
things’); and, Il. 15.211 where he sees thumos as the seat of ‘wrath’: ἀλλ’ ἤ τοι
νῦν μέν κε νεμεσσηθεὶς ὑποείξω· ἄλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, καὶ ἀπειλήσω τό γε θυμῷ
(‘but in fact I will yield for now, despite my indignation; but another thing will
I tell you, and make this threat in my wrath’).204 In looking beyond the
narrower interpretations of the lexicographers, Murray’s individualistic
readings have, through textual means, gone some small way to parallel the
sounds, pitches and emphasis of the rhapsode’s voice.
nemesis and the gods

As an emotion nemesis was not the sole prerogative of mankind – it could also
be experienced by the gods towards mortals and non-mortals alike. In the
divine realm nemesis could, in common with mortals, be aroused at witnessing
inappropriate behaviour, but more usually it resulted when their rights, power,
status, or authority were thought to have been slighted or threatened. It was
also an emotion which could be directed towards the god’s philoi (those
beloved and championed by him/her) if it was thought they were showing
weakness or cowardice, since this behaviour reflected adversely on the god as
an indicator of the god’s inability or lack of power to support his philoi.205
Poseidon’s previously discussed emotive outburst towards the Achaians when

he considers their fighting commitment to be waning, and where he berates
them to listen to their internal aidōs lest they have nemesis from others,
204
Cf: Cairns, 'Ethics, ethology, terminology: Iliadic anger and the cross-cultural study of
emotion,' 21.
205
LSJ9 1939, col. 1, s.v. φίλος.
~50~
The Archaic Era
emphasizes the intensity of Poseidon’s emotions – he was livid with them:

ὑμῖν δὲ νεμεσσῶμαι περὶ κῆρι’.206 Poseidon hoped the strength of his words
would anger and rouse the Achaians into action for fear of being shamed.
Poseidon’s motive was two-fold: not only did he want the Achaians to fight
and win glory, but he had an additional personal concern – if the gods thought
the Achaians showed weakness this would reflect against him as their
champion, making him look ineffectual and invoke nemesis (here ‘disdain’
would be appropriate) from the other gods towards him. Ultimately, the
Greeks heeded Poseidon, god of the sea, and they fought to protect the ships
that sailed on that sea as true philoi of Poseidon.
Similarly, Apollo has nemesis towards the Trojans whom he chastises as they
give ground to the Argives: νεμέσησε δ’ Ἀπόλλων Περγάμου ἐκκατιδών,
Τρώεσσι δὲ κέκλετ’ ἀῦσας· ‘ὄρνυσθ’ ἱππόδαμοι Τρῶες, μηδ’ εἴκετε χάρμης
Ἀργείοις’.207 (‘And Apollo, looking down from Pergamos, was indignant, and
called with a shout to the Trojans: ‘rouse yourselves, horse-taming Trojans,
give not ground in fight before the Argives’). Apollo feared a Trojan defeat or
retreat would be seen by the other gods as a reflection on his inability to aid
them as their champion, and he would be the recipient of nemesis from his
peers. Bonanno sees Apollo as the: ‘protector of doors and city walls’, and the
nemesis he threatens against the Trojans is because they: ‘leave free space for
the enemy, putting the city at risk that he contributed to build’.208 I do not
think this was uppermost in Apollo’s mind; more likely he feared being the
recipient of nemesis from the other gods if his philoi showed weakness because
their fighting skills were a reflection on his capacity to support them.
In a slightly different nuance, Hera, champion of the Achaians, has nemesis

towards Hektor for boasting to his kinsmen that as they have Zeus’ support
they cannot fail.209 His words and the way in which they are delivered were
206
Il. 13.119. Discussed above, pp. 46-47.
207
Il. 4.507-509.
208
Bonanno, '"She Suddered on her Throne"', 100. In any event, Apollo (together with
Poseidon) is said to have built the walls of Troy not the city of Troy itself: Il. 7.452.
209
Il. 8.170-176: ‘from the mountains of Ida Zeus the counsellor thundered, giving the Trojans
a sign and victory to turn the tide of battle ... and Hektor shouted aloud and called to the
Trojans: “I recognize that the son of Kronos has readily assented to victory and great glory for
me, and for the Danaans woe.”’
~51~
The Archaic Era
offensive to Hera: Ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχόμενος, νεμέσησε δὲ πότνια Ἥρη210 (‘so he

spoke boastfully, and queenly Hera was indignant’). The strength of her
reaction is so acute that she: ‘shuddered on her throne and made high Olympus
quake’. A reaction, no doubt, given added impetus by Zeus’ apparent
indication to Hektor of a Trojan triumph, which she would see as yet another
slight by her brother-husband towards her as she adds this to her mental list of
personal affronts in their incessant agon. Yet, their quarrels were of such long-
standing that when Zeus has cause for nemesis against Hera he simply shrugs it
off:211 Ἥρῃ δ’ οὔ τι τόσον νεμεσίζομαι οὐδὲ χολοῦμαι· αἰεὶ γάρ μοι ἔωθεν
ἐνικλᾶν ὅττι κεν ἔπω212 (‘but against Hera I have not such great indignation or
wrath, since she is always in the habit of thwarting me in whatever I have
decreed’).
The gods could also feel nemesis towards each other, usually as a reaction to a
perceived challenge to their personal status, power, or authority. For example,
Hera, in a pique at her son Ares’ successful killing of many of her Achaian
philoi, asks Zeus if he does not have nemesis for Ares’ violence and disregard
for themis: Ζεῦ πάτερ, οὐ νεμεσίζῃ Ἄρῃ τάδε καρτερὰ ἔργα ... ὃς οὔ τινα οἶδε
θέμιστα.213 Equally, when Athena wounds Ares in punishment for his
interference he, after first bellowing and wailing like a baby, asks Zeus if he
does not have nemesis for her violence against him: Ζεῦ πάτερ, οὐ νεμεσίζῃ
ὁρῶν τάδε καρτερὰ ἔργα.214 Both Hera and Ares act like juveniles as each
sought to ‘tell tales’ on the other, and Zeus appropriately answers Ares by
calling him a ‘renegade’ (ἀλλοπρόσαλλε) who ‘whines’ (μινύριζε).
Even Zeus could invoke nemesis from the other gods. Twice Poseidon uses
the same phraseology to express his nemesis towards Zeus when the latter’s
interference gives the Trojans the advantage: ἐλέαιρε δ’ Ἀχαιοὺς Τρωσὶν
δαμναμένους, Διὶ δὲ κρατερῶς ἐνεμέσσα215 (‘and he had pity on the Achaians
that they were being overcome by the Trojans, and against Zeus he was
210
Il. 8.198.
211
Il. 8.381-408; Hera was plotting with Athena to give armed assistance to the Achaians.
212
Il. 8.407; cf. also: 8.421where the 3rd person νεμεσίζεται is used in a similar context.
213
Il. 5.757-761.
214
Il. 5.872.
215
Il. 13.15-16, 353, (translation: author).
~52~
The Archaic Era
mightily resentful’). When Zeus orders Poseidon out of the battle Poseidon
reluctantly obeys, but with strong feelings of nemesis towards Zeus: ἀλλ’ ἦ τοι
νῦν μέν κε νεμεσσηθεὶς ὑποείξω216 (‘but in fact I will yield for now, despite
my indignation’). Poseidon’s nemesis for his brother Zeus is due almost
certainly to his resentment of Zeus’ persistent assumption of authority over
him and all the other gods.217 Similarly, when Hera carries an ultimatum to the
other gods from Zeus, she feels nemesis towards him for his assumption of
authority over them all and his expectation that they will all give in to his
whims, which they generally do for fear of the consequences: ἡ δὲ γέλασσε
χείλεσιν, οὐδὲ μέτωπον ἐπ’ ὀφρύσι κυανέῃσιν ἰάνθη· πᾶσιν δὲ νεμεσσηθεῖσα
μετηύδα218 (‘and she laughed with her lips, but her forehead above her dark
brows relaxed not and, moved with indignation, she spoke among them all’).
In this example nemesis is a visible and physical expression on Hera’s brow.
The gods might also feel nemesis towards one of their own for conduct
considered inappropriate. This is Ares’ fear when, on hearing of the death of
his son Ascalaphos, says to the gods: μὴ νῦν μοι νεμεσήσετ’, Ὀλύμπια δώματ’
ἔχοντες, τίσασθαι φόνον υἷος ἰόντ’ ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν (‘do not blame me now,
you who have dwellings on Olympus, when I go to the ships of the Achaians
and avenge the slaying of my son’).219 Ares is aware his intentions would
normally warrant blame or indignation from the other gods, so in order to
deflect their nemesis he argues the extenuating circumstances and asks them
not to judge him since his planned actions are appropriate in the circumstances.
His words show the gods felt a need to justify themselves to avoid judgement.
Just as an agathos was expected to always maintain his aretē-standards, the

gods were also expected to maintain their aretē (here interpreted as dignity or
majesty),220 particularly in the presence of a mortal. When Priam is guided by
Hermes to Achilles’ tent to beg for Hektor’s body the god, for fear of
compromising his dignity, refrains from entering because, as he explains, for a
216
Il. 15.211.
217
Il. 13.355.
218
Il. 15.101-103.
219
Il. 15.115; cf. Od. 4.195, 19.264, for examples concerning mortals.
220
Cunliffe 53, col. 2, s.v. ἀρετή, (5) ‘majesty, dignity, rank’.
~53~
The Archaic Era
god to be entertained by mortals would be an act that would evoke nemesis

(from the other gods): ἀλλ’ ἦ τοι μὲν ἐγὼ πάλιν εἴσομαι, οὐδ’ Ἀχιλῆος
ὀφθαλμοὺς εἴσειμι· νεμεσσητὸν δέ κεν εἴη ἀθάνατον θεὸν ὧδε βροτοὺς
ἀγαπαζέμεν ἄντην221 (‘but, now I will go back, and not come into Achilles’
sight; it would be a shameful thing that an immortal god should thus openly be
entertained by mortals’).
To be the subject of divine gossip may also invoke nemesis. Certainly, this is
Hera’s artful excuse when she refuses her brother-husband Zeus’ ‘desire to lie
in love’ out in the open on Mt. Ida in the day-time. She claims that such
behaviour would be a justifiable cause for nemesis from the other gods, since,
if their act was witnessed, the other gods would hear of it and be shocked.
Hera argues they would be a subject of gossip and the gods would be
scandalized by their choice of time and place for such an activity, and she
would be shamed: νεμεσσητὸν δέ κεν εἴη222 (‘that would be a shameful
thing’).223 Here the ‘shameful thing’ is both the ‘indignation’ of the gods if
their act were carried out so blatantly in contempt of normal conventions and
thus themis, and the ‘embarrassment’ to them both if found in such a
mortifying situation. That the gods had a fear of invoking nemesis
demonstrates they were constrained by very human weaknesses, traits, and
flaws.
An important use of divine nemesis as an appraisal on the behaviour of a

mortal (albeit semi-divine) who has broken the ethical code for an agathos,
signals the genesis of nemesis as a moral and ethical judgement of
condemnation by the gods on mortals.224 The occasion involves Achilles and
221
Il. 24.462-464. Hermes has revealed himself to Priam as a god and is not in disguise as a
mortal, in contrast to Athena who accepts Telemachos’ hospitality in the Odyssey where she is
in disguise and not recognized as a goddess, and so cannot be held blameworthy by the other
gods: Scott, 'Aidos and Nemesis in the Works of Homer', 28.
222
Il. 14.330-336.
223
‘Inappropriateness of place’ is also Cairns’ suggestion for Hera’s (feigned) reason to refuse
Zeus: Cairns, Aidos, 123; see also, Scott, 'Aidos and Nemesis in the Works of Homer', 28.
224
Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad, 213; J. V. O'Brien, The Transformation of Hera:
A Study of Ritual, Hero, and the Goddess in the Iliad, Maryland, 1993, 93. Rutherford
comments: ‘passages like Apollo’s expression of divine displeasure [nemesis] in Il. 24.53,
perhaps show the germs of the later meaning’: R. B. Rutherford, Homer: Odyssey Books XIX
and XX, Cambridge, 1992, 146. Konstan avoids the aspect of divine moral judgement,
interpreting the passage as: ‘perfectly in line with the gods’ tendency to take offence at mortal
~54~
The Archaic Era
his incessant and inappropriate abuse of Hektor’s body, which results in

Apollo threatening a collective divine nemesis against him unless he ceases.225
There is a sense of hybris in Achilles’ conduct and possibly an early implied
hybris/nemesis dichotomy, although this is not articulated:
αὐτὰρ ὅ γ’ Ἕκτορα δῖον, ἐπεὶ φίλον ἦτορ ἀπηύρα, ἵππων

ἐξάπτων περὶ σῆμ’ ἑτάροιο φίλοιο ἕλκει· οὐ μήν οἱ γε κάλλιον
οὐδέ τ’ ἄμεινον. μὴ ἀγαθῷ περ ἐόντι νεμεσσηθέωμέν οἱ ἡμεῖς·
κωφὴν γὰρ δὴ γαῖαν ἀεικίζει μενεαίνων.226
But this man (Achilles), when he has deprived noble Hektor of

life, ties him behind his horses and drags him about the grave-
mound of his beloved comrade; surely this will bring neither
honour nor benefit for him. He should beware lest we have
nemesis for him agathos though he is; for in his rage he
disfigures the silent earth.227
Previously, in book nine, Achilles had seemingly abandoned societal standards

of behaviour (themis) in his dismissal of heartfelt appeals for pity (ἐλέαιρε!)
and to aidōs,228 but in books twenty-three and four he reaches an epitome of
savagery in his treatment of Hektor’s body that stretches over twelve days, in
revenge for Patroklos’ death.229 The intense grief felt by Achilles disposed
him to defile Hektor’s body vengefully, and to intend the body to be consumed
by dogs, despite Hektor’s dying pleas that this not be his fate.230
From a twenty-first century AD perspective it is easy to use words such as

‘savagery’ and ‘barbarity’ to describe Achilles’ actions against Hektor, but
seemingly Homer’s gods also viewed him with abhorrence in their various
descriptions of him as ‘murderous’ (ὀλοῷ), ‘has known savagery like lions’
(λέων δ’ ὣς ἄγρια οἶδεν), ‘has lost pity’ (ἔλεον μὲν ἀπώλεσεν), and ‘has no
audacity or insolence’: Konstan, The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks, 117; Konstan, 'Nemesis
and Phthonos,' 77. Another potential indication of divine moral judgement is found at, Od.
14.284, when Zeus feels nemesis for the kaka erga of mortals, although here the emotion is
likely to be subjective since it refers to bad deeds done to strangers or guests and violates the
prerogatives of Zeus Xenios.
225
Not all the gods support this threat against Achilles. Those who do not are: Poseidon,
Athena, and Hera who are opposed to any compassion for Hektor: Il. 24.21-63.
226
Il. 24.50-54.
227
228
Il. 9.302, 640.
229
Il. 22.395-404, 24.14-18.
230
Il. 22. 337-360.
~55~
The Archaic Era
shame’ (οὐδέ οἱ αἰδὼς γίγνεται).231 These and phrases such as: ἀεικέα μήδετο
ἔργα (‘he devised unseemly acts’) and κακὰ δὲ φρεσὶ μήδετο ἔργα (‘he devised
bad deeds in his mind’),232 infer a divine moral judgement on Achilles’
behaviour, despite Bassett’s argument to the contrary.233 Significantly, the
gods’ outrage against Achilles did not arise because of his treatment of
Hektor’s body prior to Patroklos’ funeral, nor from his intention to feed the
body to the dogs,234 since such acts were customary and would have been
Achilles fate had he been killed first.235 What was offensive to the gods was
Achilles’ prolonged and relentless abuse of the body after Patroklos’ funeral,236
as Bassett states: ‘no law of Greek chivalry in the Heroic Age was broken by
Achilles’ treatment of Hektor’s body until Patroklos was buried ... but his
persistence in dragging the body after the funeral of Patroklos was
unknightly’.237 Achilles raged too long, and the gods, angered at his lack of
self-control, judged him and threatened nemesis.
The inspiration for the scene in figure 5 was Homer’s story,238 which depicts a
condensed compilation of Achilles’ defilement of Hektor’s body. Hektor’s
231
Il. 24.39-45.
232
Il. 22.395, 23.24, 176.
233
Bassett argues against moral judgement, citing other instances of similar phraseology
where, in his opinion, the poet is not expressing moral criticism of either the perpetrator or the
act: S. E. Bassett, 'Achilles' Treatment of Hector's Body,' TAPA 64, 1933, 44. He may be
correct at: Il. 7.478 (used by Zeus), Od. 14.243 (spoken by Odysseus), and Od. 3.166 (spoken
by Nestor), but a moral inference is evident at: Od. 3. 265, 11.429 (infidelity of Klytemnestra),
Od. 16.107 (of Helen), Od. 23.222 (suitors’ behaviour), and in the passages quoted above.
234
Bassett, 'Achilles' Treatment of Hector's Body', 51. See also Redfield’s comments on this
point: Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad, 285 n. 76.
235
Il. 16.836, 17.226. Enemy bodies left for dogs and birds to devour: Il. 1.1-5: ‘wrath ... made
the men themselves to be the spoil for dogs and birds of every kind’; Il. 3.259: ‘the dogs and
birds would have torn him as he lay on the plain’; Il. 4.237, ‘their tender flesh vultures will
surely devour’; Il. 11.394: ‘while he, reddening the earth with his blood, rots away, more birds
around him than women’; Il. 11.452: ‘the birds that eat raw flesh will rend you’; Il. 11.818:
‘thus then were you destined, far from your friends and your native land, to glut the swift dogs
in Troy’; Il. 13.831: ‘you will glut the dogs and birds of the Trojans’; Il. 17.150: ‘Sarpedon …
you left behind to the Argives to be their prey and booty’; Il. 17.254: ‘Patroklos should become
a plaything to the dogs of Troy’; Il. 18.271: ‘many of the Trojans will the dogs and vultures
devour’. Bassett argues such forms of revenge for the death of a kinsman was an accepted
aspect of the time and was demanded of the agathos as part of his code of honour: Bassett,
'Achilles' Treatment of Hector's Body', 41-65, esp. 41, 49, 60. Conversely, Murray sees
Achilles’ behaviour as extreme even for its time: Murray, The Rise of the Greek Epic, 141.
236
There are examples of mutilations of bodies in the Iliad, but these are of short duration and
do not drag on for days: Il. 11.146, 13.202-203, 14.496-500.
237
Bassett, 'Achilles' Treatment of Hector's Body', 60.
238
Attributed to either the Antiope Group (Vermeule) or the Leagros Group (Beazley): LIMC i
Achilleus 586 (A. Kossatz-Deissmann), LIMC v Iris 1, 142 (A. Kossatz-Deissmann), LIMC vii
~56~
The Archaic Era
despairing parents, Priam and Hekabe, stand to the left at one of the gates of
Troy, with Priam leaning for support on his staff and Hekabe wailing and
tearing at her hair, as Homer describes: ‘so was his head befouled with dust;
but his mother tore her hair and from her flung far her gleaming veil and
uttered a cry exceeding loud at sight of her son. And a piteous groan did his
father utter’.239 At centre, Achilles mounts his chariot with the intention of
dragging Hektor’s body around Patroklos’ tumulus. To the far right is
Patroklos’ tumulus complete with bearded chthonic snake and the winged fully
armed eidolon of Patroklos emerging in apparent delighted anticipation at the
mutilation of Hektor’s body. Hastily running towards Achilles and Hektor’s
parents is the messenger goddess Iris who, in her turmoil throws up her hands
in despair at Achilles’ pitiless violation of Hektor’s corpse beyond the
acceptable time-frame.240 Iris’ body language reveals the urgency of the
warning message she brings to Achilles lest he suffer the gods’ nemesis, their
judgemental righteous indignation that hints at future retribution. Seemingly
unperturbed, Achilles ignores the anxious goddess, intent only on acting out
his wrath and vengeful hatred on dead Hektor as he glances back towards
Hektor’s parents, unmoved by their grief. The story told in the scene on this
hydria has, of necessity, been condensed. The sequence in the Iliad is more
complex: here it is the goddess Iris who is sent by Zeus to summon Thetis.
Once Thetis arrives in Zeus’ presence she is requested to persuade her son,
Achilles, to return Hektor’s body to Priam. Zeus then sends Iris to Priam to
tell him to go to Achilles as a suppliant to ransom Hektor’s body.241
Ultimately the divine nemesis threatened against Achilles is unfulfilled with no

actual consequence or resolution, despite his continued abuse of Hektor’s
body. The passage illustrates a hint of the shifting milieu of nemesis as it
began to have a judgemental influence in moral assessments by gods on
mortals.
Priam 57 (J. Neils), LIMC iv Hekabe 23 (A-F. Laurens); ABV 356-357; Para. 164, fig. 31bis;
CVA Boston 2, iii H, 24-25 pl. 82; Shapiro, Myth into Art, 30-31, figs 16, 17; Vermeule,
Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry, 111-112, fig. 27; Friis Johansen, The Iliad in
Early Greek Art, 149, fig. 55.
239
Il.22.405-429; 24.14-18;
240
She is unlabelled but identified as Iris: LIMC v Iris 1, 142 (A. Kossatz-Deissmann).
241
Il. 24.74-77; 24.105-116; 24.143-158.
~57~
The Archaic Era
Figure 5: Achilles about to drag Hektor’s body while the goddess Iris delivers a warning message
from the gods; Attic black-figure hydria; ca. 520-510; Boston MFA 63.473 (source: museum).
nemesis and the suitors

Lack of regard for aidōs and nemesis is epitomized by the excesses and
dissipations in the behaviour and attitude of Penelope’s debauched and
egotistical suitors, who behaved with reckless disregard for aidōs within
themselves and exhibited no fear of nemesis from men or gods. Their
behaviour demonstrates that the fundamental principle of a personal awareness
of aidōs and nemesis was wholly dependant on the individual’s own sense of
what constitutes honour and shame, and the importance that individual laid on
themis.242 Penelope’s suitors displayed none of the aretē-virtues expected in
an agathos and had no consideration for any such principles, and so failed
society’s predetermined standards of aretē.243
242
Murray’s comments regarding aidōs apply equally to nemesis: ‘Aidòs [nemesis] is a mere
emotion, and therefore incalculable, arbitrary, devoid of principle. A man may happen not to
feel the emotion, and then you have nothing to appeal to. Or again, if he has the emotion, there
is no way of judging its strength’: Murray, The Rise of the Greek Epic, 89.
243
Examples at: Od. 1.250, 2.52-58, 64-65, 16.106, 17.124, 21.147, 22.40.
~58~
The Archaic Era
The suitors were arrogant, licentious, and parasitic pests who are described by
Menelaos as ἀνάλκιδες (impotent, unwarlike).244 They spent their time
enjoying extravagant feasts, making free with Odysseus’ provisions and
possessions, and pursuing their unwilling hostess: violations of decent social
behaviour by the standards of any age.245 The feelings of nemesis aroused in
others towards them was not solely for their bad behaviour and their lack of
aidōs, but also for their failure to exhibit any regard for the convention of
reciprocity in regard to the Homeric custom of guest-friendship,246 seen in their
extravagant consumption of the household provisions without recompense;
their omission to offer the customary courtship-gifts as suitors for Penelope’s
hand; and, their ‘lack of a sense of the need for restitution’.247
Consequently, the suitors, as well as those members of the Ithacan assembly

who failed to condemn their excesses, become the recipients of Odysseus’ son,
Telemachos’, wrath. His anger at their wanton and destructive behaviour spills
over in his heartfelt, yet ultimately futile, address to the assembly (note the
multiple use of imperatives reinforcing Telemachos’ emotional feelings):
νεμεσσήθητε καὶ αὐτοί, ἄλλους τ’ αἰδέσθητε περικτίονας

ἀνθρώπους, οἳ περιναιετάουσι· θεῶν δ’ ὑποδείσατε μῆνιν, μή τι
μεταστρέψωσιν ἀγασσάμενοι κακὰ ἔργα.248
Feel nemesis yourselves, and aidōs before your neighbours who

dwell round about, and fear the wrath of the gods, lest it happen
that they turn against you in anger at evil deeds.249
The verb νεμεσσήθητε is an aorist passive imperative, and is used by

Telemachos to implore the assembly to feel introspective nemesis for allowing
the situation in his father’s household to continue. Despite his appeal
244
Od. 4.334; 17.125. LSJ9 111, col. 2, s.v. ἄναλκις: ‘without strength, impotent, feeble, of
unwarlike men’; Cunliffe 33, col. 1, s.v. ἄναλκις: ‘incapable of offering defence or resistance,
spiritless, cowardly’.
245
Their arrogant behaviour is illustrated throughout the Odyssey, for example: Od. 1.91-92;
250, 2.52-58; 16.106-111; 21.312-13; 22.413-416; 23.65-57; cf. Odysseus’ accusations against
them: Od. 22.35-41; their improper conduct went as far as plotting to kill Telemachos and
Odysseus should he return: Od. 4.771; 16.371-272, 383-386, 421, 448; 17.79-80.
246
Finley, The World of Odysseus, 99-103.
247
J. Barnouw, Odysseus, Hero of Practical Intelligence, Lanham, 2004, 238.
248
Od. 2.64-67.
249
Telemachos is appealing to the three main Homeric forces of restraint against bad
behaviour, nemesis, aidōs, and a fear of the gods.
~59~
The Archaic Era
Telemachos finds just one supporter, Mentor, who also censures the assembly
but to no avail: νῦν δ’ ἄλλῳ δήμῳ νεμεσίζομαι οἶον ἅπαντες ἧσθ’ ἄνεῳ, ἀτὰρ
οὔ τι καθαπτόμενοι ἐπέεσσι μαύρους μνηστῆρας καταπαύετε πολλοὶ ἐόντες250
(‘rather, it is with the rest of the people that I am indignant, that you all sit thus
in silence, and utter no word of rebuke to make the suitors cease, though you
are many and they but few’). No-one, it seems, will condemn the suitors.
Telemachos’ mention of ‘the wrath of the gods’ (θεῶν δ’ ὑποδείσατε μῆνιν)

suggests the emergence in Homer of a belief that the gods take an interest in
human morality; although any interest might be restricted to those
transgressions impinging on a particular gods’ prerogatives, in this instance the
suitors’ abuse their obligations as guests, the prerogative of Zeus Xenios.251
Telemachos warns that since the Ithacans feel no aidōs at their inaction nor any
introspective nemesis then, in the gods’ eyes, their failure to act would count
amongst the collective κακὰ ἔργα. He warns that deliberately motivated
human transgressions enacted with indifference to moral justice and conscious
failures of ‘right order’, or themis, have the potential to provoke divine anger
and punishment. His words make clear it was not only inappropriate deeds
that brought a judgement of nemesis from others, nemesis could also be evoked
by inaction in the face of ‘evil deeds’ (reminiscent of the adage: ‘all that is
needed for the forces of evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing’).
The juxtaposition of ‘nemesis’, ‘aidōs’, ‘fear of the gods’, and ‘evil deeds’,
feasibly introduces a hint of an Homeric awareness of cause and effect, two
elements of a single concept which would evolve into the hybris/nemesis cycle
in ca. fifth century, to be discussed.252 While the concept was yet to evolve it
is evident there was a conviction the gods punished hybris,253 as evident in
Odysseus’ words to Eumaios concerning the suitors:
250
Od. 2.239-241.
251
Zeus as the avenger of suppliants and strangers: Od. 9.270; cf. Il. 13.623-627.
252
Discussed below, pp. 116, 146, 184, 287. Fisher notes just two instances of a firm
connection between hybris and nemesis in the Classical era: Eur. Phoen. 182; Soph. Elekt. 792:
Fisher, Hybris, 300, 427-428, n. 79, and passim; see also: P. J. Finglass (ed.), Sophocles:
Electra, Cambridge, 2007, 346.
253
LSJ9 1841, cols 1-2, s.v. ὕβρις: ‘wanton violence’, ‘insolence’; Cunliffe 393, col. 1, s.v.
ὕβρις: ‘wanton disregard of decency or of the rights or feelings of others, an overbearing or
~60~
The Archaic Era
αἲ γὰρ δή, Εὔμαιε, θεοὶ τισαίατο λώβην, ἣν οἵδ’ ὑβρίζοντες

ἀτάσθαλα μηχανόωνται οἴκῳ ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ, οὐδ’ αἰδοῦς μοῖραν
ἔχουσιν254
Ah, Eumaios, would that the gods might take vengeance on the
outrage with which these men in their insolence devise wicked
folly in another’s house, and have no sense of shame
Yet, despite their licentiousness, there was seemingly some behaviour that
even the suitors deemed inappropriate. When Antinoos physically and
verbally abuses Odysseus disguised as a beggar, the others are filled with
nemesis:255 οἱ δ’ ἄρα πάντες ὑπερφιάλως νεμέσησαν256 (‘and they were all
were filled with exceeding indignation’). Later it becomes clear that their
nemesis was not indignation on account of Antinoos’ treatment of the ‘beggar’,
nor was it anger at unseemly behaviour in a fellow agathos, rather it was self-
interested indignant disapproval of Antinoos borne of a collective fear that the
‘beggar’ may perchance be some god in disguise, since this is what gods do in
order to observe: ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίην ἐφορῶντες257 (‘the hybris
and the righteousness of men’), and they might all consequently suffer some
divine punishment for Antinoos’ behaviour.258
At another time, Leiodes, who is spoken of as having nemesis for his fellow-
suitors most of the time: πᾶσιν δὲ νεμέσσα μνηστήρεσσιν,259 rises to try and
string Odysseus’ bow. Upon failing to do so he declares no-one can manage it;
a statement which invokes a reciprocal arousal of nemesis:
Ἀντίνοος δ’ ἐνένιπεν ἔπος τ’ ἔφατ’ ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζε·

‘Λειῶδες, ποῖόν σε ἔπος φύγεν ἕρκος ὀδόντων,
dominating spirit or demeanour, a spirit of wanton aggression or violence’. For example: Od.
1.227, 1.368, 4.321, 15.329, 16.86, 17.565, 23.64. For discussions surrounding the differing
interpretational nuances, see: D. L. Cairns, 'Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big,' JHS 116,
1996, 1-32; Fisher, Hybris, esp. 148, and passim; D. Cohen, 'Sexuality, Violence, and the
Athenian Law of 'Hubris',' G&R 38, no. 2, 1991, 171-188; N. R. E. Fisher, ''Hybris' and
Dishonour: II,' G&R 26, no. 1, 1979, 32-47; N. R. E. Fisher, ''Hybris' and Dishonour I,' G&R
23, no. 2, 1976, 177-193; D. M. MacDowell, ''Hybris' in Athens,' G&R 23, no. 1, 1976, 14-31;
cf. L. MacLeod, Dolos & Dike in Sophokles' Electra, Leiden, 2001, 127-129.
254
Od. 20.169-171.
255
Od. 17.462-463, 477-480.
256
Od. 17.481.
257
Od. 17.487; cf. Od. 16.57-58: ‘for all strangers and beggars are from Zeus’.
258
Also: Od. 2.64-65, 21.147, 22.40, cf. Od 17.481, for further examples of the suitors feeling
nemesis against one of their own.
259
Od. 21.147.
~61~
The Archaic Era
δεινόν τ’ ἀργαλέον τε – νεμεσσῶμαι δέ τ’ ἀκούων.260
Antinoos rebuked him, and spoke, and addressed him: ‘Leiodes,

what a word has escaped the barrier of your teeth, a dread word
and grievous! I am angered to hear it.
Antinoos’ nemesis is the result of Leiodes implying that if he could not string
the bow then no-one could. His words are both an indirect insult on the self-
perceived aretē skills of the other agathoi and a hybristic self-compliment
since it insinuates Leiodes regards himself to be superior in bow-stringing.
The suitors’ lack of aidōs and disdain for nemesis reflected badly not only on
them but also, by association, on those who were more right-thinking and who
considered the suitors had shamed Odysseus’ house.261 Telemachos, who, in
his father’s absence is the host, feels this nemesis when a stranger (Athena in
disguise) is ignored by the suitors and left standing at the door: νεμεσσήθη δ’
ἐνὶ θυμῷ ξεῖνον δηθὰ θύρῃσιν ἐφεστάμεν.262 Telemachos’ deep shame is felt
within his very heart (νεμεσσήθη δ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ) at the insult to the stranger, and
senses that his father’s house has been disgraced by the suitors’ behaviour.
Yet, as he attends to the guest’ needs he asks the stranger not to have nemesis
for him, as he is about to list his grievances concerning the suitors, ever
mindful that a good host does not criticize his guests: ξεῖνε φίλ’, ἦ καὶ μοι
νεμεσήσεαι ὅττι κεν εἴπω.263 This significant use of nemesis is an early
example of a fear of nemesis not related to deeds but to inappropriate speech,
an aspect discussed in more detail below.264 Athena’s response is meaningful:
ὥς τέ μοι ὑβρίζοντες ὑπερφιάλως δοκέουσι δαίνυσθαι κατὰ

δῶμα. νεμεσσήσαιτό κεν ἀνὴρ αἴσχεα πόλλ’ ὁρόων, ὅς τις
πινυτός γε μετέλθοι.265
with such outrageous arrogance do they seem to me to be

feasting in your palace. Full of nemesis would a man be at
seeing these many shameful deeds, some prudent one who
should come among them.266
260
Od. 21.167-169.
261
See Fisher for a discussion on the shame reflecting against the house: Fisher, Hybris, 165.
262
Od. 1.119.
263
Od. 1.158.
264
Inappropriate speech as a cause of nemesis is evident in Herodotos: pp. 175-176.
265
Od. 1.227-229.
266
~62~
The Archaic Era
Athena reveals she understands human emotions, and she empathizes with
those victims of the αἴσχεα πόλλ’ ὁρόων committed by the suitors. Her words
are a divine affirmation that the suitors’ hybristic behaviour is worthy of
nemesis (here ‘blame’) and she tacitly infers sanction for any future retribution.
Just as there was a hint of a cause and effect scenario in the juxtaposition of the
words nemesis and aidōs in Telemachos’ speech to the assembly discussed
above,267 it is tempting to conclude a hybris/nemesis cycle in Athena’s speech
from the close proximity of hybris and nemesis. Yet, as a duality this concept,
although implicit, is not yet a verbalized fact and it would be pre-emptive to
suppose that it was.
The punishment which ultimately befell the suitors was doubly deserving for
an additional reason: their behaviour was insidious, in that it encouraged
disobedience, immorality, and disrespectful behaviour from those who
observed it – the servants. The suitors, as agathoi with social standing were in
a position of regard, were looked up to as leaders of the community, and their
behaviour should have been the model for others to follow. Yet their conduct
displayed none of the aretē-virtues; on the contrary it lowered the moral tone
within the palace environment. So, instead of viewing the suitors’ behaviour
with abhorrence some, including Melanthios the goatherd and twelve of the
fifty female servants, became insolent (ἀτιμάζουσι and ἀεικέα μηχανόωντο)268
and fell in with the suitors, a crime for which they were all later put to death.269
It was these deaths for which the suitors were directly culpable since it was
they who had set the example by encouraging a belief amongst the household
staff that licentiousness went unpunished.
For their crimes and their lack of regard for the principles of nemesis and
aidōs, Odysseus verbally assaults them before taking his murderous revenge:
ὦ κύνες, … οὔτε θεοὺς δείσαντες, οἳ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν,

οὔτε τιν’ ἀνθρώπων νέμεσιν κατόπισθεν ἔσεσθαι·
270
νῦν ὑμῖν καὶ πᾶσιν ὀλέθρου πείρατ’ ἐφῆπται.
267
Above pp. 59-60.
268
Od. 22.417-418, 462-464.
269
Od. 22.440-445, 474-477.
270
Od. 22.35, 39-40.
~63~
The Archaic Era
You dogs! … having no fear of the gods, who hold broad

heaven, or that any nemesis (blame/outrage) of men would
follow. Now over you one and all have the cords of destruction
been made fast.
With Telemachos and Athena at his side,271 Odysseus’ vengeance was

unleashed, with Zeus confirming this had been Athena’s plan: ‘did you not
yourself devise this plan, that Odysseus well and truly should take vengeance
on these men at his coming?’.272 Athena was operating not only with the tacit
sanction of Zeus: ‘do as you will, but I will tell you what is fitting’,273 but more
specifically of Zeus Xenios for affronts committed against the social and
religious obligations of hospitality applicable to host and guest, as well as the
moral law of such obligations.274 Odysseus, as her retributive instrument, was
acting out a: ‘role as a guardian of society and an instrument of divine justice
dispensing … punishment on those who have subverted the basic institutions
that define civilization: marriage, inheritance, property rights, the agora,
sacrifice, supplicancy, and most pertinent here, guest-friendship or ξενία.’275
Figure 6: Odysseus killing the suitors in the presence of two maid-servants; Attic red-figure
skyphos from Tarquinia; ca. 440; Pergamon Museum Berlin F2588 (source: Furtwängler &
Reichhold).
271
Athena assisting Odysseus: Od. 22.226-235, 256, 273, 297; Athena encouraging Odysseus:
20.30, 22.224-233; Zeus ‘thundering’ at the deeds of the suitors: Od. 21.413-415; prayers to
Zeus for an end to the suitors: Od. 20.98-121.
272
Od. 24.479-480: οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτον μὲν ἐβούλευσας νόον αὐτή, ὡς ἦ τοι κείνους Ὀδυσεὺς
ἀποτίσεται ἐλθών. Other references to Athena’s planning: Od. 13.303, cf. 13.386.
273
Od. 24.481: ἕρξον ὅπως ἐθέλεις· ἐρέω δέ τοι ὡς ἐπέοικεν.
274
Cf. Od. 14.284, where Zeus Xenios is said to feel nemesis at kaka erga in his capacity as
protector of guests.
275
S. Reece, The Stranger’s Welcome: Oral Theory and the Aesthetics of the Homeric
Hospitality Scene, Michigan, 1993, 182.
~64~
The Archaic Era
The suitors died without kleos, time, or glory.276 Theirs was a shameful death
by arrows (figure 6),277 not an heroic manly death by spears or sword on some
battlefield. The cause of their humiliation was the result of their disregard for
the conventions of their society, aptly summed up by Odysseus and Penelope:
τούσδε δὲ μοῖρ’ ἐδάμασσε θεῶν καὶ σχέτλια ἔργα· οὔ τινα γὰρ τίεσκον
ἐπιχθονίων ἀνθρώπων (‘these men here has the fate of the gods destroyed and
their own reckless deeds, for they honoured no one of men upon the earth’).278
It was the suitors’ wanton behaviour, their lack of a personal sense of aidōs,
and their indifference to nemesis from others which sealed their fate.
The motif of the suitors is presented in a way that highlights the extremity of
their hybris, enabling their ultimate fate to be seen as justified retribution,
which is recognized by Penelope as the work of some anonymous deity:
ἀλλά τις ἀθανάτων κτεῖνε μνηστῆρας ἀγαυούς, ὕβριν

ἀγασσάμενος θυμαλγέα καὶ κακὰ ἔργα.279
some one of the immortals has killed the lordly suitors in wrath
at their grievous insolence and their evil deeds.
This passage illustrates Penelope’s conviction that one of the gods has enacted
vengeance against the suitors for their evil deeds,280 and confirms that divine
276
Od. 22.416: ἀεικέα πότμον.
277
Attributed to the Penelope Painter. The scene depicts the suitors as they cower, cringe,
recoil, and grovel in a vain attempt to hide from Odysseus’ arrows, with one shot in the back
whilst trying to flee, another attempts to use a table as a shield, and yet another vainly tries to
ward off the arrows with the only thing to hand, a piece of fabric. ARV2 1300.1; LIMC vi
Mnesteres 9 (O. Touchefeu-Meynier); Beazley Archive no. 216788; Para. 475; I. Kader (ed.),
Penelope Rekonstruiert: Geschichte und Deutung einer Frauenfigur; Sonderausstellung des
Museums für Abgüsse Klassischer Bildwerke, München, 9. Oktober 2006 bis 15. Januar 2007,
München, 2007, 47, fig. 2.23; R. Bol, Amazones Volneratae, Mainz, 1997, pl. 148A; Shapiro,
Myth into Art, 62, figs. 38-39; J. Boardman, Athenian Red-Figure Vases: The Classical Period,
London, 1989, fig. 246; K. Schefold & F. Jung, Die Sagen von den Argonauten von Theben
und Troia in der klassischen und hellenistische Kunst, München, 1989, 321, fig. 280; E. Pfuhl,
Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting, trans. J. D. Beazley, 1955, London, 1924, 74
and figs. 98-99; E. Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen, München, 1923, fig. 559; A.
Furtwängler & K. Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, München, 1904-1932, pl. 138, 2.
278
Od. 22.413-414, 23.65. The suitors are given a last mention in the underworld where they
follow Hermes, ‘gibbering like bats’: Od. 24.5-9. Paris also violated the laws of respect and
reciprocity when he abducted Menelaos’ wife and palace treasures, actions which similarly
resulted in an untimely end.
279
Od. 23.63-65.
280
Other examples of the belief that the gods punish human hybris include: Od. 1.368-380:
μητρὸς ἐμῆς μνηστῆρες ὑπέρβιον ὕβριν ἔχοντες ... ἐγὼ δὲ θεοὺς ἐπιβώσομαι αἰὲν ἐόντας, αἴ κέ
ποθι Ζεὺς δῷσι παλίντιτα ἔργα γενέσθαι· νήποινοί κεν ἔπειτα δόμων ἔντοσθεν ὄλοισθε.
(‘Suitors of my mother, arrogant in your insolence ... but I will call upon the gods that are
~65~
The Archaic Era
punishment for acts of hybris was a recognizable concept in the Homeric

poems. (Homer uses hybris a total of twenty-eight times in the Odyssey and of
these twenty involve the suitors; the Iliad employs the word just four times.)
It will be in the fifth century that such justified retribution will be termed
nemesis, and when the concept will represent a far more powerful force. At
this later time still to come, the punishment that flows will be dispensed by the
goddess Nemesis, authorized to exact retribution for reprehensible acts.281
nemesis and Helen

Helen is a complex character who has received extensive attention from Homer
to the present era.282 Indeed, it is her very complexity that reinforces the
mystery which continues to surround her: was she forcibly abduced against her
will;283 did she willingly abandon her home, her husband and her daughter
Hermione for the sake of Trojan Paris;284 was she the unwitting tool of some
god with a hidden agenda, for even Priam seems to place the blame for the war
not on her but the gods: οὔ τί αἰτίη ἐσσί, θεοί νύ μοι αἴτιοί εἰσιν;285 or more
enigmatically, was she even in Troy at all since Herodotos speaks of her as
being safely in Egypt during the war?286 Helen’s culpability as the human
catalyst for the war, although implied by herself and others,287 is not discussed
forever, in hopes Zeus may grant that deeds of requital occur. Without atonement, then, would
you perish within my halls.’); Od 20.367-370; 24.351-353. It is only Od. 2.64-67 that a want
of aidōs and nemesis is ranked amongst the kaka erga that can result in the gods’ punishment.
281
Below, p. 109.
282
Helen and Nemesis (the goddess) is discussed extensively later in the thesis at various
points. The current discussion pertains solely to Helen’s representation in Homer.
283
Hdt. 2.113, 5.94.
284
Sappho F16; Alcaeus FF44, 283.
285
Il. 3.164.
286
Hdt. 2.112-120: Herodotos logically argues Priam would have given Helen up had he had
her, rather than witness the death and bloodshed of his people and the destruction of his city.
Evidence for Helen as an eidolon at Troy with her physical body elsewhere is found in: Hes.
F298; Eur. Hel. 44-45, 605-607; Stesich. F192, PMG F15, PLG F32, Diehl F11; Pl. Phaedr.
243a; Pl. Rep. 9.586c; P.Oxy. 2506 F26 col. i; M. de Bakker, 'Herodotus' Proteus: Myth,
History, Enquiry and Storytelling,' in E. Baragwanath & M. de Bakker (eds), Myth, Truth, and
Narrative in Herodotus' Histories, Oxford, 2012, 109, n. 6; E. Vandiver, 'Strangers are from
Zeus: Homeric Xenia at the Courts of Proteus and Croesus,' in E. Baragwanath & M. de
Bakker (eds), Myth, Truth, and Narrative in Herodotus' Histories, Oxford, 2012, 146-150, n.
14. De Jong argues against Herodotos: I. J. F. de Jong, 'The Helen Logos and Herodotus'
Fingerprint,' in E. Baragwanath & M. de Bakker (eds), Myth, Truth, and Narrative in
Herodotus' Histories, Oxford, 2012, 139-140.
287
Il 2.161, 177: Ἀργείην Ἑλένην, ἧς εἴνεκα πολλοὶ Ἀχαιῶν ἐν Τροίῃ ἀπόλοντο (‘Argive
Helen, for whose sake many Achaians have perished in Troy’); Il. 9.337-339: τί δὲ δεῖ
~66~
The Archaic Era
in any detail by Homer. Instead, fragmentary details of her complicity, real or

imagined, are found in other literary works such as the Kypria, to be discussed.
If a character called Helen was the cause of war, I would argue she was the
indirect pretext, the real reason being ‘righteous indignation’: a collective
nemesis consequent upon Helen’s abduction by Paris who demonstrated no
aidōs nor any fear of nemesis from others, and who had violated the institution
of guest-friendship, χενία. His actions left the Greeks humiliated and
dishonoured, and they demanded justice for the wrong done to them: τῶν τε
ἀδικημάτων δίκας αἰτέειν.288 Paris’ action brought Greeks together to fight for
a common goal,289 the redemption of their pride and honour by punishing
Paris, his family, and Troy itself, since he had embroiled his whole society in
his wrong-doing through their failure to censure him or to offer restitution.
Helen’s allure is expressed by the Trojan elders, who speak of her mesmerizing
physical beauty:290 οὐ νέμεσις Τρῶας καὶ ἐυκνήμιδας Ἀχαιοὺς τοιῇδ’ ἀμφὶ
γυναικὶ πολὺν χρόνον ἄλγεα πάσχειν· αἰνῶς ἀθανάτῃσι θεῇς εἰς ὦπα ἔοικεν
(‘there is no blame/shame that the Trojans and well-greaved Achaians should
for such a woman long suffer woes; she is dreadfully like immortal goddesses
to look on’).291 The words of the old men suggest that, although Helen is a
dreaded (αἰνῶς) harbinger of death, she is a prize and a possession worth the
consequences of war, and as such there can be no nemesis (blame) in wanting
to possess her whatever the cost.292 In their opinion her beauty and sexual
πολεμιζέμεναι Τρώεσσιν Ἀργείους; τί δὲ λαὸν ἀνήγαγεν ἐνθάδ’ ἀγείρας Ἀτρεḯδης; ἦ οὐχ

Ἑλένης ἕνεκ’ ἠυκόμοιο, (‘But why must the Argives wage war against the Trojans? Why has
he gathered and led here an army, this son of Atreus? Was it not for fair-headed Helen’s
sake?’). Helen blaming herself for the war: Il. 3.180, 6. 344, 356; Od. 4.145.
288
Hdt. 2.118.
289
Cf: Isok. 10.67.
290
For a discussion of Helen as a femme fatale who is constantly surrounded by himeros see:
N. Loraux, The Experiences of Tiresias, trans. P. Wissing, Princeton N J, 1995, 197-198.
291
Il. 3.156-157. In the Odyssey Helen is similarly linked with the heavens as she embroiders
a peplos which ‘shone like a star’, likening her to a celestial body: Od. 15.108. Stone describes
Helen’s magnetism as: ‘surpassingly beautiful but the very embodiment of Eros’: T. Stone,
Zeus: A Journey Through Greece in the Footsteps of a God, New York, 2008, 156.
292
Suzuki sees Helen as objectified as a duality by the warriors: ‘they read her as an emblem
of doubleness, whose dual significance as a goddess like beauty and a scourge of war reflects
their ambivalence toward the war which brings them both glory and death’: M. Suzuki,
Metamorphoses of Helen: Authority, Difference, and the Epic, Ithaca, 1989, 43. That there is
no nemesis in desiring Helen is described by Stimilli as: ‘the redemption of beauty from guilt’:
D. Stimilli, The Face of Immortality: Physiognomy and Criticism, New York, 2005, 120.
~67~
The Archaic Era
allure transcends all mortal mores and just as victory in war is a beautiful goal,
so too is Helen a beautiful prize worthy of the sacrifice of war; confirming her
as nothing more than objectified war-booty to be possessed, exploited, and
have done with what the victor will. She is, as Clader describes: ‘a divine
manifestation of both the chilling fear of death in war and the goal or prize to
be won at the end of it’.293 The old men speak of Helen’s exceptional and
incomparable beauty as the epitome of men’s fantasy of female physical
perfection, but fantasy is an illusion, an eidolon.
The personality of Homer’s Helen is in direct contrast to her more common

portrayal as a wanton, shameless woman without a conscience.294 In Homer
she seems to have ethical self-awareness, to feel her shame, and to feel aidōs at
what she is:295 she curses that she had been born at all,296 she wishes that death
had been her lot before she could have betrayed Menelaos, 297 she is full of
guilt, self-blame, and acknowledges she is deserving of blame from others.298
The insulting self-abuse she hurls at herself, such as: στυγερή’ (loathsome),299
and: κυνὸς κακομηχάνου ἀκρυοέσσης (‘a cold bitch of evil machinations’)300
followed by a wish for death, expresses the aidōs she feels and the nemesis she
believes is her due. An interesting uniqueness of Homer’s Helen is that she is
the only protagonist to feel nemesis against herself.
293
Clader sees Helen as: ‘Homer’s personification of the Cause of War’, and as a constant
victim of rape: L. L. Clader, Helen: The Evolution from Divine to Heroic in Greek Epic
Tradition, Leiden, 1976, 23, cf. 71 for Helen and rape.
294
Σ Eur. Orest. 249: ‘Stesichoros writes that when Tyndareos was sacrificing to the gods he
forgot Aphrodite: the goddess was angered and made his daughters twice-wed and thrice-wed
and husband-deserters’; Stesich. F223; Hes. F247; Alk. F283: ‘and crazed by the Trojan man
[Paris], the deceiver of his host, she accompanied him over the sea in his ship, leaving in her
home her desolate(?) child and her husband’s bed with its rich coverlet, (since) her heart
persuaded her (to yield?) to love (through the daughter of Dione?) and Zeus [lacunae] laid low
on the Trojans’ plain for that woman’s sake, and many chariots (crashed?) in the dust, and
many dark-eyed (warriors) were trampled, and (noble Achilles rejoiced in?) the slaughter …’;
cf. Alk. F42; Aischyl. Ag. 1455-1461: ‘Io Io, demented Helen, who alone brought death to so
many, so very many souls at Troy, now you have adorned yourself with a final adornment,
never to be forgotten, through the shedding of blood that nothing can wash away!’
295
M. Ebbott, 'The Wrath of Helen: Self-Blame and Nemesis in the Iliad,' in G. Nagy (ed.),
Greek Literature, Homer and Hesiod as Prototypes of Greek Literature, vol. 2, New York,
2001, 4, 12.
296
Il. 6.344-348.
297
Il. 3.173-175.
298
Il. 3.410; 24.761-775. The only other mortal (semi-divine) character to abuse Helen is
Achilles when he describes her as: ῥιγεδανὴ Ἑλένη (‘Helen at whose name one shudders’).
299
Il. 3.404.
300
Il. 6.344.
~68~
The Archaic Era
Helen uses the term κύων (bitch) of herself four times,301 and in each it is an
inference to her shame as the cause of war. Lattimore and Hammond translate
κύων as ‘slut’ or ‘whore’.302 Others go further by explaining Helen through
the behaviour of dogs, in particular the ‘unabashed sexual and excremental
interests’ of dogs, and the behaviour of bitches on heat; wanton traits they see
in Helen,303 although Graver argues against the connection.304 Clader suggests
Helen’s reference to herself as a ‘bitch’ has a direct association to the fear
Homeric warriors held of being denied burial and being thrown to enemy dogs
to be eaten, i.e. Helen as a devourer of men.305
The scorn Helen pours on herself occurs when she is bemoaning her fate and
wishing she had not left home – a home for which she now pines,306 and she
has begun to feel the inadequacy of Paris as a warrior, a husband, and as a
moral human being, especially when compared to Menelaos.307 Helen has
come to realize Paris is not the man she thought, he is lacking in personal aidōs
and has invoked nemesis from many whilst remaining seemingly impervious to
such feelings against him. She also doubts his aretē, especially since it was
necessary for Aphrodite to rescue him when defeat and death at the hands of
Menelaos seemed imminent.308 Her bitter disenchantment, together with a hint
she has actually come to dislike Paris, comes through in her plaintive words:
ἀνδρὸς ἔπειτ’ ὤφελλον ἀμείνονος εἶναι ἄκοιτις, ὃς ᾔδη νέμεσίν τε καὶ αἴσχεα
πόλλ’ ἀνθρώπων (‘I wish that I had been the wife of a better man, one who
could perceive the censure and the many revilings of men’).309 Despite any
culpability as the authoress of her own misfortunes her words invoke a degree
301
Il. 3.180, 6. 344, 356; Od. 4.145. Lykoph. 87 similarly refers to her as ‘a bitch’.
302
M. Hammond, The Iliad: A New Prose Translation, Harmondsworth, 1988, iii.180; R.
Lattimore, The Iliad of Homer, Chicago, 1961, iii.180; cf. Lattimore’s translation of: Od.
11.424, κυνῶπις (sluttish); Od. 19.372, κύνες (sluts).
303
Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary, 77; S. Lilja, Dogs in Ancient Greek Poetry, Helsinki, 1976,
22.
304
M. M. Graver, 'Dog-Helen and Homeric Insult,' Classical Antiquity 14, no. 1, 1995, 43-59,
esp. 51. Graver argues Helen’s self-deprecating insult of κύων should not be read as ‘whore’,
or ‘slut’, but ‘dog’ or ‘dog-like’.
305
Clader, Helen, 17-18.
306
Il. 3.176, 180; cf. 3.139.
307
Il. 6. 344-354. Cf. Cairns, who suggests the sight of Paris and Menelaos on the battle-field
causes Helen to regret leaving her home: Cairns, Aidos, 123.
308
Il. 3.381.
309
Il. 6.350-351, (translation: author). Homer relates that Paris was ‘hated by all like the black
death’: Il. 3.454-455.
~69~
The Archaic Era
of sympathy: she has abandoned everything: home, husband, child, and

security, for a sexual whim perhaps not of her own making,310 and now she
despises Paris as the cause of her present situation, as she longs for those dear
things left behind. On the other hand, it is wondered if she protests too much
and whether her self-denunciation is purely self-indulgent, vain, self-pitying,
and perhaps a means of attracting sympathy and deflecting blame.311
Paris’ attraction as a sexual partner has similarly lost any appeal for Helen
since she refuses to agree to Aphrodite’s demand to participate in sex with
him: κεῖσε δ’ ἐγὼν οὐκ εἶμι – νεμεσσητὸν δέ κεν εἴη – κείνου πορσανέουσα
λέχος· Τρῳαὶ δέ μ’ ὀπίσσω πᾶσαι μωμήσονται· ἔχω δ’ ἄχε’ ἄκριτα θυμῷ312
(‘There I will not go – it would be shameful – to share that man’s bed; all the
women of Troy will blame me afterwards; and I have measureless griefs at
heart’). At first it is difficult to see a reason for nemesis in this context since
what Aphrodite is proposing is within the bounds of marriage and would not
offend against themis. On the other hand, for an agathos to indulge in a sexual
act in his ‘vaulted, scented bed-chamber’ when he should be fighting for the
survival of his city and its people is deserving of censure and blame.313 The
passage also shows Helen as anxious not to incite further feelings of criticism
or contempt from the Trojan wives who would condemn her for participating
in sex with Paris when he should be out defending Troy. She believes it is on
her account these women have lost husbands, sons, fathers and lovers, and here
she is, the cause of all their woes, a harlot in their eyes, fornicating with her
lover while they suffer the grief of their losses. Despite her misgivings, Helen
is ultimately persuaded to comply with Aphrodite’s demand.
310
Il. 2.356 together with ἁρπάξας (snatch away) at Il. 3.444 suggest Helen may have been a
victim of rape.
311
Il. 6. 344, 356; Od. 4.145. Helen’s words to Hektor at Il. 6.344-358, where she twice uses
‘bitch’ of herself, may be an attempt to woo or seek attention from Hektor. Karanika suggests
Helen’s self-reproach is a clever way of insinuating and manipulating blame onto others: A.
Karanika, Voices at Work: Women, Performance, and Labor in Ancient Greece, Baltimore,
2014, 26-27.
312
Il. 3.410-412.
313
Il. 3.382: θαλάμῳ εὐώδεϊ κηώεντι.
~70~
The Archaic Era
Figure 7: Hektor taking leave of Andromache before entering the battle; Chalcidian black-figure
krater; ca. 540; Martin von Wagner Museum der Universität, Würzburg, no. 160.
The krater in figure 7 depicts Hektor’s poignant farewell to Andromache

before departing for battle.314 Behind Hektor is Kebriones mounted on a horse
while holding the reigns of Hektor’s horse. To the left are Helen and Paris
with winged shoes, possibly a visual inference to Paris’ recent rescue by
Aphrodite from certain death. There are two additional noteworthy aspects to
the scene: Helen, who stands with her right hand on her hip while turning her
head away from Paris as he takes his leave – clearly she has tired of him, is
disillusioned, no longer respects him, and she turns away in scornful contempt;
and, Paris himself, who is armed with, not the manly spears to fight heroically
in close combat, but the coward’s bow and arrow enabling him to be removed
from relative danger and shoot off his arrows towards the enemy from afar.
314
The Inscription Painter: LIMC i Alexandros 68 (R. Hampe), LIMC iv Helene 193 (L.
Kahil/N. Icard), LIMC i Andromache I, 4 (O. Touchefeu-Meynier), LIMC iv Hektor 13 (O.
Touchefeu-Meynier); Woodford, Images of Myths in Classical Antiquity, 16 fig. 6; Schefold,
Gods and Heroes in Late Archaic Greek Art, 220, fig. 271; E. Simon, Führer durch die
Antikenabteilung des Martin von Wagner Museums der Universität Würzburg, Mainz, 1975,
83-87, pl. 17. Source: http://pages.uoregon.edu/klio/im/gr/br-age/hect&andro.jpg.
~71~
The Archaic Era
At Il. 3.141-142 a remorseful Helen veils herself:315 αὐτίκα δ’ ἀργεννῇσι

καλυψαμένη ὀθόνῃσιν ὁρμᾶτ’ ἐκ θαλάμοιο τέρεν κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσα (‘and
immediately she veiled herself with shining linen, and started out of her
chamber, letting fall her tears’). The words are spoken when she is feeling
homesick for Sparta, her husband Menelaos, and her parents. She is no longer
enamoured of Paris, she feels the shame of what she is and the war she has
caused. She drapes herself in a shining white linen veil, symbolic of her aidōs
(shame and humility),316 leaves the palace and approaches the Scaean gates of
Troy, the symbolic boundary between Paris and her new life in Troy and
Menelaos and her old life in Sparta. Later, to escape the notice of the Trojan
women she again puts on her bright shining mantle (κατασχομένη ἑανῷ ἀργῆτι
φαεινῷ).317 As is discussed below, these shining white garments parallel
Hesiod’s concept of Aidōs and Nemesis who, having been rejected for the
principles they embody have despaired of humanity and depart for the heavens,
‘covering their beautiful skin with white mantles’: λευκοῖσιν φάρεσσι
καλυψαμένω χρόα καλὸν,318 leaving mankind to its own evil. So, Helen,
wraps herself in a white veil, the symbol of her aidōs and her nemesis, as she
symbolically leaves Priam’s palace to its own devices.
Troy – Priam’s nemesis

Troy and Priam had been closest to Zeus’ heart because of the plentiful
sacrifices made to him on the Trojan altars.319 Nevertheless, he is clear when
he says that in spite of his affection they must die: ‘you know the plan in my
heart Earth-Shaker, the reason I gathered you here; I care for them, even
315
The veil in antiquity is discussed in: L. Llewellyn-Jones, Aphrodite's Tortoise: The Veiled
Woman of Ancient Greece, Swansea, 2003, 49-53, 91-98; M. J. Anderson, The Fall of Troy in
Early Greek Poetry and Art, Oxford, 1997, 182-191.
316
‘As an abstract concept, aidōs is visualized beneath a veil or as a veil’: Llewellyn-Jones,
Aphrodite's Tortoise, 170; aidōs worn as a garment: R. Neer, The Emergence of the Classical
Style in Greek Sculpture, Chicago, 2010, 163; G. Ferrari, Figures of Speech: Men and Maidens
in Ancient Greece, Chicago, 2002, 55; cf. Hdt. 1.8: ‘Together with her dress a woman sheds
her aidōs.
317
Il. 3.419.
318
Hes., WD 198-200; Helen’s white/shining veil, Il. 3.141, 419-420; the veil representing
aidōs in Hesiod: Llewellyn-Jones, Aphrodite's Tortoise, 137. Discussed below, pp. 86-87.
319
Il. 4.44-49; note Zeus’ use of the past tense of his affections for Troy: περὶ κῆρι τιέσκετο.
Pausanias tells of an ancient wooden statue of Zeus at Larisa which had originally stood in
Priam’s palace, and that it was to this statue’s altar that Priam vainly fled when Troy was
sacked: Paus. 2.24.4-5.
~72~
The Archaic Era
though they die’;320 and echoed by Dream: ‘and sorrows have been attached to
the Trojans by Zeus’.321 Zeus planned for the destruction of Priam and Troy:
[Zeus to Hera] And from then on I will cause a constant and

continuous falling back [of Trojans] from the ships, until the
Achaians capture towering Ilion through the counsels of Athena.
But, until that time I will neither cease my anger (χόλον) nor
allow any of the other immortals to defend the Danaans here, at
least until the wish of Peleus’s son has been fulfilled, just as I
promised by a nod of my head on that day when the goddess
Thetis grasped my knees beseeching me to honour Achilles,
sacker of cities.322
The passage cites two reasons for the fall of Troy – Zeus’ anger and Achilles’
honour. Achilles’ honour is explained as a promise Zeus made to Thetis.323
Zeus’ anger is seen as a primordial anger directed against mankind for their
hybristic breeding, and their neglect of sacred duties towards the gods, for
which he deems they must be punished through death. 324 Zeus’ choice of war
at Troy to carry out his punishment was driven by two reasons. Firstly, Priam,
with his scores of wives, concubines, and more than seventy children,325 had
been a major contributor to mankind’s hybristic breeding which was personally
insulting to Zeus and represented the attempt of a mortal to rival the gods in
sexual activity.326 Secondly, by not reproaching Paris for his violation of the
norms of guest-friendship through his seizure of Menelaos’ possessions and his
disrespect for the state of marriage in abducting his host’s wife, Priam and the
city of Troy itself demonstrate apathy to Paris’ crimes. 327 The collective
320
Il. 20.20-21: ἔγνως, Ἐννοσίγαιε ἐμὴν ἐν στήθεσι βουλήν, ὧν ἕνεκα ξυνάγειρα· μέλουσί μοι
ὀλλύμενοί περ. (translation: author).
321
Hom. Il. 2.32-33, 69-70: Τρώεσσι δὲ κήδε’ ἐφῆπται ἐκ Διός, (translation: author).
322
Hom. Il. 15.69-77: ἐκ τοῦ δ’ ἄν τοι ἔπειτα παλίωξιν παρὰ νηῶν αἰὲν ἐγὼ τεύχοιμι
διαμπερές, εἰς ὅ κ’ Αχαιοὶ’ Ἴλιον αἰπὺ ἕλοιεν Ἀθηναίης διὰ βουλάς. τὸ πρὶν δ’ οὔτ’ ἄρ’ ἐγὼ
παύω χόλον οὔτε τιν ἄλλον ἀθανάτων Δαναοῖσιν ἀμυνέμεν ἐνθάδ’ ἐάσω, πρίν γε τὸ Πηλεḯδαο
τελευτηθῆναι ἐέλδωρ ὥς οἱ ὑπέστην πρῶτον, ἐμῷ δ’ ἐπένευσα κάρητι, ἤματι τῷ ὅτ’ ἐμεῖο θεὰ
Θέτις ἥψατο γούνων, λισσομένη τιμῆσαι Ἀχιλλῆα πτολίπορθον (translation: author).
323
Hom. Il. 1.524-530.
324
Il. 1.5; Kypria F1. Zeus’ anger and his plan is discussed in the chapter on the Kypria below.
325
Hom. Il. passim; Apollod. Bibl. 3.12.5; Hyginus, Fab.90; cf. Hes. Theog. 886-944 for a
partial list of Zeus’ numerous consorts and children.
326
I compare Priam’s prolific breeding to that of Niobe, who boasted to Leto of her superior
fertility, whereupon Niobe’s children were all killed as punishment for their mother’s hybris.
Just as Niobe was left childless this was also to be Priam’s fate: Hom. Il. 24.602-617.
327
Seizure of property: Il. 7.350-363; 13.626: κουριδίην ἄλοχον καὶ κτήματα πολλὰ; Aischyl.
Ag. 534; West, Kypria Arg. 2; EGF, Procli Cyriorum Enarratio 23-24. Abduction: Hom. Il.
24.27-30 which tells of Alexander’s (Paris) ‘grievous lustfulness’. This passage includes the
~73~
The Archaic Era
morality of Paris, Priam, and the people of Troy was weak and apathetic, so
Zeus punished them to demonstrate, as Herodotos believes: ‘the divine was
contriving matters so that the Trojans, through their utter destruction, would
make it absolutely clear among human beings that the punishments the gods
impose on great wrongdoings are also great’.328 Hence, Zeus turned against
Priam: ‘for now has the son of Kronos come to hate the race of Priam’.329
Priam’s offences and those of his progeny impinged on Zeus’ prerogatives.

Paris violated the implicit rules regarding the custom of guest-friendship and
consequently Zeus Xenios (protector of strangers and hospitality);330 his
abduction of Helen offended against Zeus Teleios (protector of marriage);331
and with his seizure of Menelaos’ household treasures he dishonoured Zeus
Ktêsios (protector of property),332 clearly evident in the words of Menelaos:
You rash Trojans, insatiate of the dread din of battle. And other
outrage and shame you do not lack, with which you have done
outrage to me, you treacherous cowards, and had no fear in your
heart of the harsh wrath of loud-thundering Zeus, the god of
hospitality, who will one day destroy your high city. For you
carried away wilfully over the sea my wedded wife and with her
much treasure, when it was with her that you had found
hospitality.333
only Homeric reference to the Judgement of Paris as mentioned in the Kypria. Castriota
suggests Troy’s wealth and prosperity made Paris arrogant and contemptuous of the customary
laws concerning the sanctity of marriage and of other people’s property, which he says is
typical of the hybris of the wealthy and powerful: D. Castriota, Myth, Ethos, and Actuality:
Official Art in Fifth-Century B.C. Athens, Wisconsin, 1992, 165.
328
Hdt. 2.120: τοῦ δαιμονίου παρασκευάζοντος, ὅκως πανωλεθρίῃ ἀπολόμενοι καταφανὲς
τοῦτο τοῖσι ἀνθρώποισι ποιήσωσι, ὡς τῶν μεγάλων ἀδικημάτων μεγάλαι εἰσὶ καὶ αἱ τιμωρίαι
παρὰ τῶν θεῶν; cf. Hdt. 2.114-115, where Herodotos’ Egyptian sources tell of the impiety of
Paris’ actions; de Jong comments that Herodotos interpreted the Trojan War as a story of
‘crime and (divine) punishment’: de Jong, 'The Helen Logos and Herodotus' Fingerprint,' 140.
329
Spoken by Poseidon, Hom. Il. 20.306: ἤδη γὰρ Πριάμου γενεὴν ἤχθηρε Κρονίων.
330
Suda s.v. Ξεινήϊον (xi 57): καὶ Ξεινήϊος Ζεύς; Suda s.v. Ξένιος (xi 37): ὁ τῆς ξενίας ἔφορος.
λέγεται καὶ Ξένιος ὁ Ζεύς; Soph., Oed. Kol. 813-814: ἀλλὰ τοσοῦτον μαρτυρόμεθ’, ὡς οὔτ’
ἀδικοῦμεν Ξενίου Διὸς χάριν; cf. Aischyl. Ag. 60-62: ‘the sons of Atreus were sent against
Alexander by the mightier power, Zeus god of hospitality (Zeus Xenios) (trans. Sommerstein).
331
Suda s.v. Τελεία (tau 271): Ἥρα Τελεία καὶ Ζεὺς Τέλειος ἐτιμῶντο ἐν τοῖς γάμοις, ὡς
πρυτάνεις ὄντες τῶν γάμων.
332
Paus. 1.31.4; Suda s.v. Κτήσιος (kappa 2522): ὁ Ζεύς; Suda s.v. Κτησίου Διός (kappa
2523): τὸν Κτήσιον Δία ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις ἱδρύοντο; Suda s.v. Ζεὺς Κτήσιος (zeta 40), ὃν καὶ ἐν
τοῖς ταμιείοις ἱδρύοντο, ὡς πλουτοδότην. A description of the workings of the cult of Ζεὺς
Κτήσιος, is found in: R. Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford, 2005, 15-16.
333
Il. 13.624-627: Τρῶες ὑπερφίαλοι δεινῆς ἀκόρητοι ἀϋτῆς, ἄλλης μὲν λώβης τε καὶ αἴσχεος
οὐκ ἐπιδευεῖς ἣν ἐμὲ λωβήσασθε κακαὶ κύνες, οὐδέ τι θυμῷ Ζηνὸς ἐριβρεμέτεω χαλεπὴν
ἐδείσατε μῆνιν ξεινίου, ὅς τέ ποτ’ ὔμμι διαφθέρσει πόλιν αἰπήν· οἵ μευ κουριδίην ἄλοχον καὶ
κτήματα πολλὰ μὰψ οἴχεσθ’ ἀνάγοντες, ἐπεὶ φιλέεσθε παρ’ αὐτῇ.
~74~
The Archaic Era
Zeus could not ignore the insults especially after Menelaos’ impassioned plea
for him to punish Paris.334 The Achaians believed their cause was just,335 and
Menelaos’ faith in the retributive power of Zeus Xenios and Zeus Ktêsios is
seemingly justified, given Diomedes’ words to Agamemnon: ‘for with the aid
of a god have we come [to Troy]’,336 implying that their purpose was divinely
inspired, and victory would be theirs.
When Pandaros shoots Menelaos the oath swearing a truce was broken.337
With his shot Pandaros insulted Zeus Horkios (protector of oaths and punishes
their violation),338 and Agamemnon declared their victory was now assured:
Argives, do not relax your furious valour; for father Zeus will be
no helper of lies; but they who were the first to work violence in
defiance of their oaths, their tender flesh vultures will surely
devour, and moreover we shall carry away in our ships their dear
wives and little ones, when we have taken their citadel.339
Troy and its people would be destroyed because of Zeus’ wrath: they were
complicit in Paris’ disrespect for the property of another; his contempt for the
sanctity of marriage; his disregard for the social obligations of guest-
friendship; and for Pandaros’ breaking of oaths sacred to the gods.340 Priam,
because of his challenge to the gods in going beyond his mortal life’s portion
with his prolific progeny would be left with no city to rule, no sons to rule after
him, and ultimately no life. This looming violence would eventually assuage
Zeus’ anger, and justify the measures upon which he had resolved, as will be
discussed below as part of ‘Zeus’ Plan’.
334
Il. 2.350-354.
335
Cf. Il. 2.350-353: Nestor speaks: ‘For I declare that Kronos’ son, supreme in might,
promised with a nod of his head on that day when the Argives went on board their swift-faring
ships, bringing death and fate to the Trojans; for he lightened on our right and displayed
favourable signs’ (φημὶ γὰρ οὖν κατανεῦσαι ὑπερμενέα Κρονίωνα ἤματι τῷ ὅτε νηυσὶν ἐν
ὠκυπόροισιν ἔβαινον Ἀργεῖοι Τρώεσσι φόνον καὶ κῆρα φέροντες ἀστράπτων ἐπιδέξι’ ἐναίσιμα
σήματα φαίνων).
336
Il. 9.49: σὺν γὰρ θεῷ εἰλήλουθμεν.
337
Athena tempted Pandaros with talk of glory, but Pandaros allowed himself to be persuaded.
338
Eur., Hippol. 1025.
339
Il. 4.234-239: Ἀργεῖοι, μή τώ τι μεθίετε θούριδος ἀλκῆς· οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ ψεύδεσσι πατὴρ Ζεὺς
ἔσσετ’ ἀρωγός· ἀλλ’ οἵ περ πρότεροι ὑπὲρ ὅρκια δηλήσαντο, τῶν ἦ τοι αὐτῶν τέρενα χρόα
γῦπες ἔδονται, ἡμεῖς αὖτ’ ἀλόχους τε φίλας καὶ νήπια τέκνα ἄξομεν ἐν νήεσσιν, ἐπὴν
πτολίεθρον ἕλωμεν; cf. Il. 4.156-159, 7.351-352.
340
Also, Neoptolemos to Philoktetes: Soph. Philok. 1338-1341: καὶ πρὸς τοῖσδ᾽ ἔτι ὡς ἔστ᾽
ἀνάγκη τοῦ παρεστῶτος θέρους Τροίαν ἁλῶναι πᾶσαν: ἢ δίδωσ᾽ ἑκὼν (‘besides it is destined
within this present summer that Troy will be completely destroyed’). (Translation: author.)
~75~
The Archaic Era
HESIOD
According to Tzetzes the Greeks developed the idea that the implicit strength
of abstracts operated with the authority of the gods, and as such their potency
was a manifestation of divine emotion.341 Consequently, powerful abstracts
such as ‘love’, ‘persuasion, ‘pity’, and ‘nemesis’ ultimately demanded
acknowledgement of this divine energy in the form of personification and often
deification,342 as exemplified in Hesiod’s mention of the power of Φήμη or
Talk, and which Nilsson gives as the first deified abstraction:343
ὧδ’ ἔρδειν· δειλὴν δὲ βροτῶν ὑπαλεύεο φήμην·

Φήμη γάρ τε κακὴ πέλεται, κούφη μὲν ἀεῖραι
ῥεῖα μάλ’, ἀργαλέη δὲ φέρειν, χαλεπὴ δ’ ἀποθέσθαι.
Φήμη δ’ οὔ τις πάμπαν ἀπόλλυται, ἥντινα πολλοὶ
λαοὶ φημίξουσι· θεός νύ τίς ἐστι καὶ αὐτή.344
Act this way. Avoid the wretched talk of mortals.

For Talk is evil: it is light to raise up
quite easily, but it is difficult to bear, and hard to put down.
No Talk is ever entirely got rid of, once many people
talk it up: it too is some god.
Homer’s extensive use of the abstract concept of nemesis and its etymological
derivatives is not mirrored by his contemporary, Hesiod, who uses the term
infrequently.345 Hesiod’s more significant contribution is in his personification
of the concept and ultimate deification of her into the goddess, Nemesis, and
surrounding her in myth.
Hesiod’s abstract nemesis has a similar meaning to that of Homer, namely,

public and/or divine disapproval, righteous indignation or censure towards
those who act without regard to aidōs and contrary to the concept of themis.
This correlation is borne out in the following homily directed towards Hesiod’s
341
Σ (Tzetz.) on Hes. WD 279-282 (pp. 36-37): Ἰστέον, ὅτι πάντα οἱ Ἕλληνες, ἃ δύναμιν
ἔχοντα ἑώρων, οὐκ ἄνευ ἐπιστασίας θεῶν τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῶν ἐνεργεῖν ἐνόμιζον.
342
Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 9.
343
M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion: Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf
die griechische Weltherrschaft, 3rd edn, vol. I, München, 1967, 479; cf. Burkert, 'Hesiod in
Context: Abstractions and Divinities in an Aegean-Eastern Koiné,' 15; Stafford, Worshipping
Virtues, 10-11.
344
Hes. WD 760-764. Φήμη is also ‘common report’ or ‘rumour’: LSJ9 1925, col. 2, s.v. φήμη.
My capitalization of ‘Talk’.
345
A list of Hesiod’s nemesis-words is listed in Appendix 1.
~76~
The Archaic Era
wayward brother, Perses, in an attempt to reform him: Λιμὸς γάρ τοι πάμπαν
ἀεργῷ σύμφορος ἀνδρί, τῷ δὲ θεοὶ νεμεσῶσι καὶ ἀνέρες346 (‘for famine is
entirely the companion of a lazy man; and gods and men feel righteous
indignation towards him’). This interpretation is reinforced by two fragments
from Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women, although their precise context is not
known: ἀνθανάτων τ]ε θεῶν νέμ[εσιν θνη]τῶν τ’ ἀνθρώπων347 (‘the
indignation of the immortal gods and of mortal humans’); and: Ζ̣[εὺς δὲ ἰδὼν
νεμ]έ̣σ̣ησεν ἀπ’ αἰγλήεντ̣ος Ὀλύ̣μ̣π̣[ου (Zeus seeing this] from Olympus, felt
indignation).348 Just as the Homeric gods feel nemesis towards one who would
dishonour them, so it is with the Hesiodic gods. This is borne out in the
following warning against making fun of the sacred rites, since: θεός νύ τε καὶ
τὰ νεμεσσᾷ349 (‘a god has nemesis for this also’). Another homily advises
Perses to always behave in accordance to the rules set by the gods: ὃς ποταμὸν
διαβῇ κακότητ’ ἰδὲ χεῖρας ἄνιπτος, τῷ δὲ θεοὶ νεμεσῶσι καὶ ἄλγεα δῶκαν
ὀπίσσω350 (‘whoever crosses a river, unwashed in evil and in his hands, the
gods have nemesis towards him, and they give him troubles afterwards’).
The following fragment illustrates nemesis as an emotion experienced by

mortals, although its very fragmented state leaves the context unclear: [.... ….
..νέ]μεσίς τ’ ἀ[νθρώπων351 (‘the nemesis of men’). Another fragment has
Tyndareos, Helen’s step-father, command her suitors to swear an oath to
punish anyone who might carry her off against her will. Such an oath, says
Tyndareos, involves putting aside personal feelings of nemesis or aidōs in
order to exact punishment against any abductor: ὃς δέ κεν ἀνδρῶν αὐτὸς
ἕλοιτο βίηι, νέμεσίν τ’ ἀπ[ο]θεῖτο καὶ αἰδῶ, τὸν μέτα πάντας ἄνωγεν ἀολλέας
ὁρμηθῆνα[ι ποινὴν τεισομένους352 (‘any man who would seize her by force,
and set aside indignation and shame, he commanded all of them together to set
out against him to exact punishment’). Tyndareos demands the suitors ignore
346
Hes. WD 302-303. (Translation: author.)
347
Hes. F41.27 (Most). (Translation: author.) The Catalogue of Women, ca. eighth century,
was ascribed to Hesiod in antiquity although it may not have been written by him.
348
Hes. F10.90. (Translation: author.)
349
Hes. WD 756. (Translation: author.)
350
Hes. WD 740-741. (Translation: author.)
351
Hes. F154b8. (Translation: author.)
352
Hes. F155.81-84.
~77~
The Archaic Era
society’s standards and to seek out and physically punish (perhaps even kill)
any would be abductor. Since the suitors are not related to Helen, nor involved
in war, it would, under normal circumstances, be a dishonourable act of
violence deserving of nemesis to acquiesce to such a demand. Tyndareos is
implying that exacting revenge for Helen’s abduction, should it occur, is a far
greater honour than maintaining the norms bounded by themis; he is
transposing the heroic honour of maintaining aretē-standards by converting an
act of violence normally worthy of nemesis into an act of honour.
THE PERSONIFICATION OF NEMESIS

According to Hesiod it was the Muses who commanded him, a Boiotian
shepherd, to record the tales of the gods:353
And they plucked a staff (σκῆπτρον), a branch of luxuriant

laurel, a marvel, and gave it to me; and they breathed a divine
voice into me, so that I might glorify what will be and what was
before, and they commanded me to sing of the race of the
blessed ones who always are, but always to sing of themselves
first and last.354
And sing he does. In the Theogony Hesiod gathers together an inordinate

number of ‘blessed ones’, and fashions them into an intricate interconnecting
divinely inspired genealogy. Furthermore, he arranges and organizes the
material within the overall structure for maximum dramatic and didactic effect
with an unbroken invisible thread of purposeful authorial intent running
through the entirety. This conclusion is not universally accepted, with some
commentators describing Hesiod’s methodology as ‘haphazard’, and as
‘lacking cohesion’;355 opinions against which I argue.
353
Hes. Theog. 22.
354
Hes. Theog. 30-34: καί μοι σκῆπτρον ἔδον δάφνης ἐριθηλέος ὄζον δρέψασαι, θηητόν·
ἐνέπνευσαν δέ μοι αὐδὴν θέσπιν, ἵνα κλείοιμι τά τ’ ἐσσόμενα πρό τ’ ἐόντα, καί μ’ ἐκέλονθ’
ὑμνεῖν μακάρων γένος αἰὲν ἐόντων, σφᾶς δ’ αὐτὰς πρῶτόν τε καὶ ὕστατον αἰὲν ἀείδειν. The
σκῆπτρον (staff or sceptre) was a token of authority to speak and the Muses’ action tells it was
they who authorized Hesiod to tell his tales. Cunliffe 361, col. 2, s.v. σκῆπτρον: (3) ‘a staff in
the custody of a herald and handed by him to one wishing to speak in an assembly in token of
his right to a hearing’. See the discussion above on the sceptre and Thersites, pp. 36-38 with
notes.
355
Scully calls Hesiod’s style ‘didactic’: Scully, Hesiod's Theogony, 19. Mondi and others
reject any organized purpose behind Hesiod’s juxtaposition of events and see the whole as
~78~
The Archaic Era
To understand the origins of the Hesiod’s personified Nemesis it is necessary

to first consider her parentage and siblings. Nemesis’ mother was Night, and
Hesiod’s catalogue of Night’ offspring starts with the birth of Aether and Day:
And from Chasm, Erebos and black Night came to be; and then
Aether and Day came forth from Night, who conceived and bore
them after mingling in love with Erebos.356
In this passage Night bears ‘nice’ children fathered by Erebos (note the
emergence of the simultaneous existence of the negative and positive in one
entity: Bright Sky (Αἰθήρ) and Day produced sexually from their opposites
Darkness and black Night).357 Then, the catalogue is abruptly interrupted with
a lengthy account of the first event of cosmic violence which appears to have
little relevance to Night’s children and looks carelessly placed and disjointed
enough to be worthy of Mondi’s view of what he calls Hesiod’s
‘gaucheries’:358 However, a closer reading reveals a relevance that is central to
the theme of Night’s subsequent children – a largely unpleasant brood of
negative forces: Doom, Fate, Death, Sleep, Dreams, Blame, Distress, the
Hesperides, Moirai, Keres, Nemesis,359 Deceit, Affection, Old Age, and
haphazard and lacking cohesion: Mondi, 'The Ascension of Zeus and the Composition of
Hesiod's Theogony', 330. Most accuses Hesiod of contradictions in the Theogony which he
attempts to correct or modify in Works and Days: Most (ed.), Hesiod, xxi-xxii. Cf. Clay, who
sees synchronism between Hesiod’s two works which are complementary and mutually
dependent: ‘One could well imagine that from the beginning Hesiod conceived of the poems as
a diptych, and as he composed, he continually revised and reworked the one in the light of the
other’: J. Strauss Clay, Hesiod's Cosmos, Cambridge, 2003, 6.
356
Hes. Theog. 123-125: ἐκ Χάεος δ’ Ἔρεβός τε μέλαινά τε Νὺξ ἐγένοντο· Νυκτὸς δ’ αὖτ’
Αἰθήρ τε καὶ Ἡμέρη ἐξεγένοντο, οὓς τέκε κυσαμένη Ἐρέβει φιλότητι μιγεῖσα. (Translation:
author.)
357
Similarly found elsewhere in Hesiod: Strife is an odious entity in the Theogony (225-230)
with no redeeming features, but is presented more positively in Works and Days (11-26, 804),
hence the one thing can be both a curse and a blessing. Hesiod’s statement in Works and Days
at line 11 that: ‘there was not just one birth of Strifes after all, but upon the earth there are two
Strifes’, which I deduce as Hesiod arguing for one Strife with two aspects – a positive and a
negative. Cf. Strauss Clay, Hesiod's Cosmos, 7, 143-144; A. N. Athanassakis, Hesiod:
Theogony, Works and Days, Shield, 2nd edn, 2004, Baltimore, 1983, xv-xvi, 42, 86.
358
Mondi, 'The Ascension of Zeus and the Composition of Hesiod's Theogony', 330.
359
Later authors give alternative parentage for Nemesis: Hyginus Fab. Preface 9.4-6 (first
century AD) has Erebos and Nyx as the parents of Nemesis; Nonnus Dionysiaca (ca. fourth
century AD) 48.375, and Tzetz. Σ on Lykoph. 88 (twelfth century AD) name Okeanos as a
parent of Nemesis; Pausanias (second century AD) quotes two possibilities, Okeanos and Nyx
and leaves the reader to decide: 1.33.3 (Okeanos), 7.3.1 (Okeanos and Nyx). Since these are
very much later than Hesiod their suggestions may have been influenced by later local regional
adaptions.
~79~
The Archaic Era
Strife.360 These latter children were born parthenogenically and thus without
love and are themselves loveless: factors which are a direct consequence of
Hesiod’s placing them after the intervening cosmic violence story.
This cosmic violence myth acts as a pivotal divide between Night’s ‘nice’ and
‘not nice’ children. It tells of Ouranos’ hatred of his children born of Gaia, his
cruel acts against them, his delight in his evil, and of Gaia’s revenge in
persuading their son Kronos to sexually mutilate his father. To this whole dark
episode n/Night is a witness: ἦλθε δὲ Νύκτ’ ἐπάγων μέγας Οὐρανός (‘And
great Ouranos came, bringing n/Night with him’; my capitalization of ν in
Νύκτ)’. The capital letter is far more logical since the story abounds with
personifications, and because the narrative of Night’s children, having been
interrupted, seamlessly follows this violent episode. It was personified Night
who witnessed Kronos’ violent deed, and not lower-case primordial night as
claimed by Clay.361 The interjectory myth of cosmic violence ends at line 210
with Ouranos foretelling that there would, at some future date, be payback and
vengeance for this act of his emasculation: τοῖο δ’ ἔπειτα τίσιν362 μετόπισθεν
ἔσεσθαι. Ouranos utterance of the word τίσις releases the first concept of
retribution into the world, and pre-empts the birth immediately following of
the personification which was to come to represent this abstract, Nemesis.
I do not believe it was an accident, or carelessness, or a clumsy insertion that

Hesiod interrupted his account of Night’s children with this tale of violence
and mutilation. On the contrary, it was a crucial interruption which served to
account for, and give meaning to, the subsequent birth of Night’s more
unlikable offspring, and a raison d’être as to why negative forces exist in the
world. Those dark abstract emotions aroused in the events leading up to and
during the brutality witnessed by Night were so strong, so intense, and had a
360
Hes. Theog. 211-225; for Night’s grandchildren, Strife’s children: Hes. Theog. 226-232. It
is assumed that mankind has already been created because of the attributes of Night’s children.
Since the gods cannot die or feel hunger and toil they cannot be affected by Death or Old Age,
nor can they be affected by Strife’s children, Toil and Hunger. Although it was the divinities
Gaia and Kronos who inflicted the injuries on Ouranos it is mankind who suffers the
consequences of the children of Night.
361
Strauss Clay, Hesiod's Cosmos, 17.
362
LSJ9 1798, col. 2, s.v. τίσις: ‘payment by way of return, recompense, retribution,
vengeance’.
~80~
The Archaic Era
power so potent that they demanded, and ultimately receive, life. 363 They are
all there as abstract concepts during the violence, directly or indirectly: strife,
deceit, distress, the spirits of violence and hatred, seduction, suffering, fate,
nemesis,364 and the doom and destiny of future vengeance, all having witnessed
the violence and subsequently given loveless parthenogenical life by an
appropriate mother, black Night, and who are destined to roam the universe
evermore as generally unpleasant personified forces.365 It was from amongst
this brood that Nemesis was born: τίκτε δὲ καὶ Νέμεσιν πῆμα θνητοῖσι
βροτοῖσι Νὺξ ὀλοή (‘and deadly Night gave birth to Nemesis also, a bane for
mortal human beings’).366
Night, whom Hesiod calls ‘black Night’ (Νύκτα μέλαιναν)367 and ‘deadly
Night’ (Νὺξ ὀλοή), is a dark force associated with negative deeds, but which
has the potential for positivity: love and tenderness can occur at night; and
restful sleep releases the day’s worries. So it was for Nemesis; in Hesiod’s
Theogony she is described as a ‘bane’ but in his Works and Days she becomes
a more positive force with an expanded mythology incorporating deeper
philosophical and moral significance.
THE DEIFICATION OF NEMESIS

Though not entirely typical, Hesiod’s Works and Days falls within the genre of
‘wisdom literature’: a body of written work which had its origins in the oral
tradition and was characterized by strong moral and didactic themes for living
a good and hard-working life, usually passed from a father to his son. The
evidence from surviving ancient texts and fragments discovered in various
parts of the world indicates that as a genre it was widespread.368 The wisdom
363
See comments on p. 76 above concerning the Greek belief in the ‘power’ of abstract
emotions that demand personification and often deification.
364
Not mentioned by name but implied at line 210: ‘that at some time there would be
vengeance for this’.
365
There are striking similarities in this story to that of Pandora: Hes. WD 90-105.
366
Hes. Theog. 223-224. (Translation: author).
367
Hes. Theog. 20, 757; also 107: Νυκτός τε δνοφερῆς;. 744, 758: Νυκτὸς ἐρεμνῆς; Hes. WD
17: Νὺξ ἐρεβεννή.
368
The earliest known work in this genre is a Sumerian poem known as the ‘Instructions of
Šuruppak’, with fragments dating to ca. 2500. Others examples include, ‘Instructions of
Ninurta’, ‘The Father and his Misguided Son’, ‘Counsels of Wisdom’, ‘Advice to a Prince’:
~81~
The Archaic Era
or moral lessons in Hesiod’s work are in the form of exhortations directed at

his wayward brother, Perses, to encourage him to mend his errant ways and to
become diligent, hardworking, and follow religious and social guidelines. The
lessons instruct that by adhering to the rules and techniques as laid down by
Hesiod, Perses can be successful in matters agricultural, nautical, economic,
social, and religious, whilst simultaneously leading a morally sound life.
Hesiod’s homilies are not solely pertinent to Perses: mankind generally is self-
absorbed with tendencies that incline towards indulgent and feckless ways
combined with self-interested views on justice, and Hesiod’s moral themes are
equally appropriate to a wider audience. Given the didactic and moralistic
nature of his writings it is to be expected that moral concepts (personified,
deified or simply abstracts) play appropriate and instrumental parts. From this
perspective, Nemesis’ one short appearance as the personification of an
abstract moral concept is full of meaningful and symbolic significance.
To illustrate his moral lessons Hesiod conjures up descriptions of five

successive races of men, γένοι ἀνθρώπων. The first genos was a golden race
who lived without toil and distress, and lacked the ability for evil; they were
followed by the silver genos who were wicked and dishonoured the gods; next
came the violent bronze genos, whom Zeus made from μελία (Ash wood);369
after them the genos of heroes who fought at Thebes and Troy;370 and finally
the fifth – the genos of iron.371 This was a vile and evil genos, the one in
which Hesiod placed himself, and which still exists today:372
West (ed.), Hesiod: Works and Days, 3-4. Wisdom literature has also been found written in
Egyptian, Aramaic, Hebrew, and other ancient languages: Most (ed.), Hesiod, xlvi-xlvii.
369
Hes. WD 109-126, 127-142, 143-155. It has been suggested the μελία here and at Hes.
Theog. 187, 563-4 refers to the genesis of man: Σ Theog. 563; Most (ed.), Hesiod, 18-19 n. 9;
V. Yates, 'The Titanic Origin of Humans: The Melian Nymphs and Zagreus,' GRBS 44, 2004,
185-187; G. W. Most, 'Hesiod's Myth of the Five (or Three or Four) Races,' PCPS, 1998, 109-
110; J. Strauss Clay, 'What the Muses Sang: Theogony 1–115,' GRBS 29, 1988, 329-330; West
(ed.), Hesiod: Works and Days, 187 n. 23. Things made from Ash wood were considered to
possess magical power: Chiron crafted and gave an Ash wood sword to Peleus as a gift at his
wedding to Thetis (Apollod. Bibl. 3.13.5); this same sword Achilles took with him to the
Trojan war (Il. 16.140-144); ‘with the verdigris he scraped from it [the sword] he healed
Telephus’ (Apollod. Ep. 3.20).
370
Hes. WD 156-173. The ‘genos of heroes’ may be interpolation: Most, 'Hesiod's Myth of the
Five (or Three or Four) Races', 104-127, esp. 109-111.
371
Hes. WD 174-200.
372
Hes. WD 174: μηκέτ’ ἔπειτ’ ὤφελλον ἐγὼ πέμπτοισι μετεῖναι ἀνδράσιν.
~82~
The Archaic Era
Fathers will not be like-minded with sons, nor sons at all, nor
guest with host, nor comrade with comrade, nor will the brother
be dear, as he once was. They will dishonour their aging parents
at once; they will reproach them, addressing them with grievous
words – cruel men, who do not know of the gods’ retribution
(οὐδὲ θεῶν ὄπιν εἰδότες)! – nor would they repay their aged
parents for their rearing.373 Their hands will be their justice, and
one man will destroy the other’s city. Nor will there be any grace
for the man who keeps his oath, nor for the just man or the good
one, but they will give more honour to the doer of evil and the
outrage of man. Justice will be in their hands, and reverence will
not exist, but the bad man will harm the superior one, speaking
with crooked discourses, and he will swear an oath upon them.
And, Envy, evil-sounding, gloating, loathsome-faced will
accompany all wretched human beings.374
This is a time in which standards of morality reach such depths of depravity

that hatred, discord, and violence are the measure of mankind. It is a time
where there is no longer respect for that inhibitor of inappropriate behaviour,
aidōs, nor fear of the resultant blame of nemesis from man or gods, nor is there
regard for themis.375 It is a time of such wickedness that, unless there is
reform, it will be destroyed by Zeus (line 180: Ζεὺς δ’ ὀλέσει καὶ τοῦτο γένος
μερόπων ἀνθρώπων).
Hesiod’s evil iron genos was a familiar theme throughout successive

generations. Theognis, writing in the sixth century, is full of warnings against
a denigrated society full of ‘base’ (ἄνδρα κακῶς) individuals who have no
respect for principles of honour.376 An example is his caution against those so
blackened by corruption that they give no heed to justice, nor nemesis, and live
how they will without reference to man or gods.377
εἰκος τὸν κακὸν ἄνδρα κακῶς τὰ δίκαια νομίζειν, μηδεμίαν

κατόπισθ’ ἁζόμενον νέμεσιν· δειλῷ γάρ τ’ ἀπάλαμνα βροτῷ
373
Theog. 271-278, for a similar description of children not honouring their aged parents.
374
Hes. WD 182-196.
375
Cairns, Aidos, 152.
376
Ca. 544/541; Suda s.v. Theognis (theta 136); Pl. Laws 630a; Harp. s.v. Θέογνις. For a
modern discussion, see: T. J. Figueira & G. Nagy (eds), Theognis of Megara: Poetry and the
Polis, Maryland and London, 1985, 1-3.
377
Yet, in another fragment Theognis seemingly condones murder as a means of disposing of
an offensive tyrant: δημοφάγον δὲ τύραννον, ὅπως ἐθέλεις, κατακλῖναι· οὐ νέμεσις πρὸς θεῶν
γίνεται οὐδεμία (‘to lay low the tyrant who devours the people, by whatever means you wish,
does not evoke nemesis (judgement/retribution) from the gods’): Theog. 1181-1182.
(Translation: author.)
~83~
The Archaic Era
πάρα πόλλ’ ἀνελέσθαι πὰρ ποδός, ἡγεῖσθαί θ’ ὡς καλὰ πάντα

τιθεῖ.378
It is natural for the corrupt man to consider justice basely, and

have no fear of subsequent nemesis (censure/disapproval), since
it is possible for a base man to have ready access to many
criminal acts and to consider that everything he does is fine.
The world is plunged into depravity, and it is at this appropriate juncture, when
rejected for the moral principles they embody and no longer thought necessary
to mankind’s moral psyche, that Hesiod’s personified pair, Aidōs and
Nemesis,379 prepare to leave mankind to its own evil machinations and
inevitable consequences, and depart to the gods on Olympus:380
καὶ τότε δὴ πρὸς Ὄλυμπον ἀπὸ χθονὸς εὐρυοδείης λευκοῖσιν

φάρεσσι καλυψαμένω χρόα καλὸν ἀθανάτων μετὰ φῦλον ἴτον
προλιπόντ’ ἀνθρώπους Αἰδὼς καὶ Νέμεσις.381
Then indeed will Aidōs and Nemesis cover their beautiful skin
with white mantles, leave human beings behind and go from the
broad-pathed earth to the race of the immortals, to Olympus.382
With their departure go those controlling factors of moral responsibility,

nemesis and aidōs, whose rejection signifies the end of hope for redemption,
and ‘there will [be] no possible respite against wrongdoing, hybris and
eventual destruction.’383 The scene is vividly reiterated by Plutarch, writing
some seven or eight hundred years after Hesiod, but who imparts a sense that
the event, although near, is yet to come:
378
Theog. 279-280 (translation: author); cf. this same didactic theme in: Theog. 39-52, 53-68,
271-278.
379
There is absolutely no evidence to support Neer’s statement that Hesiod saw Nemesis and
Aidōs as sisters, unless he means their attributes were similar: Neer, The Emergence of the
Classical Style in Greek Sculpture, 162. Cf. Hom. Il. 13.121-122, 17.93-95, where the abstract
concepts aidōs and nemesis are spoken of as a complementary pair.
380
The idea of divinities abandoning the earth is paralleled in the Babylonian myth of Adapa:
F. J. Teggart, 'The Argument of Hesiod's Works and Days,' JHI 8, no. 1, 1947, 62; M. Jastrow,
The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, 549.
381
Hes. WD 197-200.
382
Cf. Plut. Mor. F31.1: ἀθανάτων μετὰ φῦλον ἴτον προλιπόντ’ ἀνθρώπους Αἰδῶς καὶ Νέμεσις
('Then Shame [Αἱδῶς] and Indignation [Νέμεσις] will forsake mankind, and seek the nation of
the gods’).
383
Fisher, Hybris, 193.
~84~
The Archaic Era
Τουτέστι τὸ τῶν κακῶν ἔσχατον. ἀναιδείας γὰρ κρατησάσης καὶ

φθόνου τῶν ἀνθρώπων, πάντῃ τὸ γένος ἡμῶν ἀπολιπεῖν αἰδῶ καὶ
νέμεσιν·τούτων γὰρ ἀπόπτωσίς ἐστιν ἡ ἀναίδεια καὶ ὁ φθόνος.384
This is the extremity of evil. For when shamelessness and

jealousy rule men, shame and indignation leave our race
altogether, since shamelessness and jealousy are the negation of
these things.
Conversely, another of Plutarch’s quotations conveys a sense of it as having

already happened:
θαυμαστὸν γάρ ἐστιν, εἰ τοσαύτης κακίας ὑποκεχυμένης μὴ

μόνον, ὡς προεῖπεν Ἡσίοδος, Αἰδὼς καὶ Νέμεσις τὸν
ἀνθρώπινον βίον ἀπολελοίπασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρόνοια θεῶν
συσκευασαμένη τὰ χρηστήρια πανταχόθεν οἴχεται.385
Is it indeed a wonder, when so much wickedness has been

disseminated upon the earth, that not only Aidōs and Nemesis, as
Hesiod said so long ago, have deserted the life of Mankind, but
that Divine providence also has gathered up its oracles and
departed from every place.
Then, as Hesiod informs: τὰ δὲ λείψεται ἄλγεα λυγρὰ θνητοῖς ἀνθρώποισι,

κακοῦ δ’ οὐκ ἔσσεται ἀλκή (‘baleful pains will be left for mortal human
beings, and there will be no safeguard against evil’).386
At what precise point is it possible to postulate that Nemesis and Aidōs387

achieved apotheosis? The archaeology from Rhamnous confirms Nemesis as a
goddess from at least the six century,388 and Aristotle, writing in the late fifth
century, confirms she was believed to be a goddess before his time:
μέσος δὲ τούτων ὁ νεμεσητικός, καὶ ὃ ἐκάλουν οἱ ἀρχαῖοι τὴν

Νέμεσιν, τὸ λυπεῖσθαι μὲν ἐπὶ ταῖς παρὰ τὴν ἀξίαν κακοπραγίαις
καὶ εὐπραγίαις, χαίρειν δ’ ἐπὶ ταῖς ἀξίαις· διὸ καὶ θεὸν οἴονται
εἶναι τὴν Νέμεσιν.389
384
Plut. Mor. F31.2-5; Σ (Tzetz.) on Hes. WD 200-201.
385
Plut. Mor. 413A 5-9.
386
Hes. WD 200-202.
387
The earliest reference to a cult belonging to Aidōs is the fourth century: Dem. 25.35. Cf.
Paus. 3.20.10-11 for her shrine on the road between Sparta and Arkadia; but see discussions on
this passage in Pausanias: N. Richer, 'Aidōs at Sparta,' in S. Hodkinson & A. Powell (eds),
Sparta: New Perspectives, Swansea, 2009, 93-97; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 78.
388
Evidenced from an inscribed six-century perirrhanterion (pp. 202-203), and a helmet
dedication (pp. 216, 221-223).
389
Arist. EE 3.1233b.24-25.
~85~
The Archaic Era
And midway between them [envious and malicious man] is the

righteously indignant man, and what the ancients call Righteous
Indignation – feeling pain at undeserved adversities and
prosperities and pleasure at those deserved; hence it is believed
that Nemesis is a deity.390
That apotheosis moment might logically occur at the point when the two
personifications no longer had any part in humanity’s moral consciousness and
were rejected as superfluous to its egocentric way of life: at that precise
rejection point Nemesis and Aidōs would be embraced as goddesses by the
divinities. Yet, in this divine state, they continue on earth as agents of the gods
and the abstracts they embrace, and will do so for as long there exists any
spark of hope for the redemption of the human race. Vernant is correct to
point out that Aidōs and Nemesis are today still present on the earth and are yet
to leave: at line 176 νῦν γὰρ γένος ὲστὶ σιδήρεον (for now the race is indeed
one of iron) the νῦν, meaning now at this present time, is contrasted to τότε at
line 197 καὶ τότε δὴ πρὸς Ὄλυμπον ἀπὸ χθονὸς εὐρυοδείης (then indeed, [will
Aidōs and Nemesis cover their beautiful skin with white mantles, leave human
beings behind and go] from the broad-pathed earth [to the race of the
immortals], to Olympos). It will be ‘at that time’, sometime in the future that
Aidōs and Nemesis will depart and take with them ‘all that remains divine in
this world’.391 Once all hope is deemed futile then their purpose will have no
earthly meaning, and they will leave the wretched earth crossing over into the
realm of the gods abandoning mankind forever.392 At that point, a time yet to
come, humanity will be doomed to an apocalyptic future, societies will break
down further, evil will become pandemic, and Zeus will destroy this hopeless
evil iron genos remorselessly.
At line 198, Hesiod describes Nemesis and Aidōs leaving the earth ‘covering
their beautiful skin with white mantles’ (λευκοῖσιν φάρεσσι καλυψαμένω χρόα
καλὸν) as they ascend to Mt. Olympos. To me, the ‘white mantles’ (λευκοῖσιν
390
My translation of ‘οἴονται’. Rackham has ‘idea’, but ‘believed’ is a more appropriate
interpretation of the Greek verb: LSJ9 1208, col. 2, s.v. οἴομαι: III ‘think, suppose, believe’.
391
J.-P. Vernant, Myth and thought among the Greeks, trans. J. Lloyd & J. Fort, New York,
1996, 423 n. 94.
392
Vernant sees Aidōs and Nemesis as about ‘to re-join’ the gods, i.e. they were there before
and are now going back: Vernant, Myth and thought among the Greeks, 80.
~86~
The Archaic Era
φάρεσσι) symbolically representing shrouds that wrap the dead,393 because

those scorned moral principles of nemesis and aidōs which Aidōs and Nemesis
embody are ‘dead’ to the human race, and shrouds delineate life from death, or
earthly from the divine. (Compare the discussion above concerning Helen,
who veils herself in shining linen, representative of Helen’s sense of grief,
disgrace, aidōs (implied) and nemesis.)394
The Nemesis of the Theogony is ‘a bane to mankind’, and it is this aspect

which the people of the iron genos in Works and Days see in both her and the
concept she embodies: a bane and an irritation. As personifications Nemesis
and Aidōs represent and symbolize those ethical attributes epitomized by
themis. But, such principled qualities hold little value to the iron genos; to
them N/nemesis is a negative baneful concept since adherence to her values
would be a hindrance to the way in which they wish to live, and so they reject
her. Conversely, to those who would uphold those attributes encompassed by
themis, A/aidōs, and N/nemesis, Nemesis and her abstract are positive concepts
that act as inhibiting factors cautioning against sinful behaviour, which in turn
imbues self-respect through encouraging righteous and positive living.
Whether Hesiod’s iron genos should be assigned to some point in the distant
past, or whether it is our present, or possibly it is a time yet to come, is a moot
point. What is certain is the lesson Hesiod’s N/nemesis teaches every age: that
the point at which society rejects all that is good and moral and chooses evil
and depravity in its place is a point of no return, for at that very instant every
spark of decency will be extinguished, redemption will be beyond hope, and
evil will perpetuate.
393
LSJ9 1918, col.1, s.v. φᾶρος: II, ‘a wide cloak or mantle’, ‘a shroud or pall’.
394
Hom. Il. 3.139-142, 3.419, discussed above, p. 72.
~87~
The Archaic Era
THE KYPRIA
The fragmentary Kypria is an important work which supplements the Hesiodic
mythology that surrounds Nemesis.395 As a complete text it is no longer extant
but, according to Proklos who summarized the work,396 it originally
comprising eleven books, and was part of a collection of poems known today
as the ‘Epic Cycle’.397 This ‘Epic Cycle’ comprised three central themes: the
origins of the gods; the Theban war; and the events before, during and after the
Trojan War.398 The Kypria belongs to this latter group, being the first poem in
the following sequence: the Kypria, (the Iliad),399 the Aethiopis, the Ilias
Mikra, the Iliou Persis, the Nostoi, (the Odyssey), and the Telegonia.400 Taken
together the poems augment Homer and broaden his chronology producing a
395
Scholarship on the Kypria includes: G. Kinkel, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 1,
Leipzig, 1877, 15-32; T. W. Allen & D. B. Monro, Homeri Opera, vol. 5, Oxford, 1908, 116-
124; H. G. Evelyn-White, Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica, London, 1914, 488-507;
E. Bethe, Homer, Dichtung und Sage, vol. II, Leipzig, 1922, 152-167; A. Severyns,
Recherches sur la chrestomathie de Proclos: le codex 239 de Photius, vol. iv, Paris, 1963, 77-
85; M. Davies, 'Prolegomena and Paralegomena to a New Edition (with Commentary) of the
Fragments of Early Greek Epic,' Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen
2, 1986, 91-111; A. Bernabé (ed.), Poetarum Epicorum Graecorum Testimonia et Fragmenta,
vol. I, Leipzig, 1987, corr. 1996, 36-64, who includes a vast amount of material including the
relevant scholia, fragmenta dubia, and the Apollodoros passages; M. Davies (ed.), Epicorum
Graecorum Fragmenta, Göttingen, 1988, 27-45; M. Davies, The Greek Epic Cycle, Bristol,
1989, 32-50; M. L. West (ed.), Greek Epic Fragments: from the seventh to the fifth centuries
BC, Cambridge, MA, 2003, 65-107.
396
The identity and date of Proklos is not known. He may have been a little-known
grammarian of the second century AD, or a better-known Neo-Platonist scholar of the fifth
century A.D: J. S. Burgess, 'The Non-Homeric Cypria,' TAPhA 126, 1996, 81 n. 19. Of
interest is Pausanias’ statement that he had personally read the original Kypria: ἐπιλεξάμενος
ἐν ἔπεσιν οἶδα τοῖς Κυπρίοις: Paus. 10.31.2; EGF, Kypria F20; West, Kypria F27.
397
Inverted commas are used to indicate the probable artificiality of the modern day title ‘Epic
Cycle’. The earliest known reference to the title is Arist. APo. 1.12: Burgess, 'The Non-
Homeric Cypria', 80, n. 16; Davies, The Greek Epic Cycle, 1; cf. what Athenaios said of
Sophokles: ‘Sophokles took great pleasure in the ‘Epic Cycle’ and composed whole dramas in
which he followed the Cycle’s version of myths’: EGF, Kypria T4 (Athen. 7.227e). Davies
questions Athenaios’ accuracy since, in his opinion, Sophokles would not have known of the
poems by this title in his time: Davies, The Greek Epic Cycle, 1. Possibly Sophokles was
referring not to a body of work titled ‘The Epic Cycle’ in capital letters but a collection of
epics that were part of a cyclic story loosely termed ‘the epic cycle’.
398
The first known reference to a ‘Trojan War’ (Ἰλιακὸν πόλεμον) dates to the fifth century:
Hellanik. FGrH 4 F84.5.
399
The Iliad and Odyssey are in brackets to show where their plots fit in the sequence of the
story line – they themselves are not categorized as being amongst the ‘Epic Cycle’ poems.
400
When read together the poems make up a complex continuous epic: I. Holmberg, 'The
Creation of the Ancient Greek Epic Cycle,' Oral Tradition 13, no. 2, 1998, 474; Burgess, The
Tradition of the Trojan War, 12, 198 n. 31; who argues for an Hellenistic date for the poems as
a collection in their current format: Burgess, The Tradition of the Trojan War, 16-17.
~88~
The Archaic Era
clearer understanding of the events surrounding the Trojan War,401 and the
consequences of Troy’s defeat which is only briefly mentioned in Homer.402
Unlike Homer’s poems, which were copiously copied over the centuries, the
‘Epic Cycle’ poems exist today only as fragments or as highly revised and
edited summaries.403 What sources there are include references and quotations
in the scholia to ancient manuscripts, especially Homer, Hesiod and the Attic
tragedians; a few quotations by other authors, such as Athenaios, Plutarch, and
Pausanias; the Bibliotheca of Apollodoros; incomplete abstracts or plot
summaries by Proklos from his work, the Khrestomathia, attached to two ca.
tenth-century AD manuscripts of the Iliad;404 and, a further summary of this
same Khrestomathia which survives only as an outline in the work of the
ninth-century AD Patriarch Photios’ Bibliotheca or Myriobiblon.405 Since the
surviving texts were written at a considerable chronological distance from the
originals, comparisons will inevitably reveal inconsistencies and
406
contradictions: although the various authors may not all have been referring
to the exact same canon of ‘Epic Cycle’ poems as known today.407
401
The poems supplement the mythical causes for the war but naturally do not address other
more likely factual reasons such as economic, political, or trade-route disputes: C. B. Rose,
The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy, Cambridge, 2014, 5-7, 59-63. Blegan argues for
an historical Trojan War, but Finlay contra: C. Blegen, Troy and the Trojans, London, 1963,
20; Finley, The World of Odysseus, 1. There is an extensive bibliography on the historicity of
the Trojan War, a selection include: K. A. Raaflaub, 'Homer, the Trojan War, and History,' The
Classical World 91, no. 5, 1998, 386-402; Vermeule in: H. G. Güterbock, M. J. Mellink & E.
Vermeule, 'The Hittites and the Aegean World,' AJA 87, 1983, 141-143.
402
Homer briefly mentions the wooden horse, and the slaughter of Trojans: Od. 4.271-289,
8.492-520, 11.523-432.
403
Or what Barker calls ‘mutilated quotations’: E. L. J. Barker, 'Momos Advises Zeus:
Changing Representations of 'Cypria' Fragment 1,' in E. Cingano & L. Milano (eds), Papers on
Ancient Literatures: Greece, Rome and the Near East, Padova, 2008, 33.
404
Burgess, The Tradition of the Trojan War, 17. For further discussion, see: Davies,
'Prolegomena and Paralegomena', 101-105.
405
Burgess, The Tradition of the Trojan War, 12.
406
For example, Hdt. 2.117 tells that in the Kypria Alexander sailed from Sparta with Helen
under good weather conditions and reached Troy within three days, yet Proklos’ summary has
Hera sending a storm which carried Helen and Alexander off-course to Sidon where they
stayed for a period before continuing to Troy: EGF, Procli Cyriorum Enarratio 25-27; Kypria
Arg. 2; cf. G. L. Huxley, 'A Problem in the Kypria,' GRBS 8, 1967, 25-27. Homer omits the
prophecies given by Helenos and Cassandra about the outcome of Paris’ trip to Greece
mentioned in the Kypria: Kypria Arg.1; EGF, Procli Cyriorum Enarratio 13-16.
407
Franklin suggests the Kypria known to Herodotos differed from the one summarized by
Proklos: J. Franklin, 'Cyprus, Greek Epic, and Kypriaka: Why Cyprus Matters,' in Y. Maurey,
E. Seroussi, et al. (eds), Yuval. Studies of the Jewish Music Research Centre: Sounds from the
Past: The Near East and the Mediterranean, vol. 8, Jerusalem, 2010, 237-240.
~89~
The Archaic Era
The reason why these summaries of the ‘Epic Cycle’ poems survived was not
necessarily because of any literary value, but because they are able to
supplement and enhance Homer’s stories.408 This much is confirmed by
Photios who wrote that although the poems of the ‘Epic Cycle’ were studied
and valued, this was not so much for their literary merit, as for the sequence of
the events (surrounding the Trojan War) contained within them.409
THE ORIGINS OF THE KYPRIA

Evidence suggests that as a poem the Kypria is the written compilation of a
traditional oral myth which had passed down through generations.410 It is
thought to have first been written down in some form in the seventh or sixth
century, and later collated with other ‘Epic Cycle’ poems into something
approaching the current sequential format possibly in the Hellenistic period.411
408
Criticism over the literary merits of the ‘Epic Cycle’ poems accusations of poor plot depth,
having a penchant for the fantastic and the bizarre and being inferior to Homer Modern
scholars who label the ‘Epic Cycle’ poems as inferior include: J. Griffin, 'The Epic Cycle and
the Uniqueness of Homer,' JHS 97, 1977, 40-42, 44, 52-53; H. Lloyd-Jones, 'Stasinus and the
Cypria,' Στασῖνος 4, 1973, 115-122; G. L. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to
Panyassis, Cambridge, MA, 1969, 141; D. B. Monro, 'The Poems of the Epic Cycle,' JHS 5,
1884, 1-2. Griffin comments: ‘The strict, radical, and consistently heroic interpretation of the
world presented by the Iliad made it quite different from the Cycle, still content with monsters,
miracles, metamorphoses, and an un-tragic attitude towards mortality, all seasoned with
exoticism and romance, and composed in a flatter, looser, less dramatic style’: Griffin, 'The
Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer', 53. Davies expands the aesthetic prejudice: ‘Why,
for instance, publish literal translations of those tiny portions of confessedly second-rate epics
that happen to have survived?’: Davies, The Greek Epic Cycle, iv. On the other hand, Burgess
believes the poems have been unfairly devalued: Burgess, The Tradition of the Trojan War, 5-
6, 18-33; Barker discusses the difficulty of judging the poems from fragments: Barker, 'Momos
Advises Zeus: Changing Representations of 'Cypria' Fragment 1,' 35-36; and, Holmberg is
similarly balanced: Holmberg, 'The Creation of the Ancient Greek Epic Cycle', 459-461;
Dowden thinks the simpler style of the poems may have influenced Greek epic tradition more
than the heavier Homeric poems: K. Dowden, 'The Epic Tradition in Greece,' in R. Fowler
(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Homer, Cambridge, 2004, 203-204; cf. H. Parry, 'The
Apologos of Odysseus: Lies, All Lies?,' Phoenix 48, no. 1, 1994, 1-20.
409
Phot. Bibl. 319a30-32. Cf. the discussion on Photios’ reliability in: Holmberg, 'The Creation
of the Ancient Greek Epic Cycle', 458; Burgess, 'The Non-Homeric Cypria', 80, 81; cf. J. G.
Milne, 'Relics of Graeco-Egyptian Schools,' JHS 28, 1908, 131; E. Dickey, Ancient Greek
Scholarship, Oxford, 2007, 18.
410
Burgess, The Tradition of the Trojan War, 5, 10-11; G. Nagy, Poetry as Performance,
Cambridge, 1996, 109-111. Huxley cites the phrase ‘ἀείδω’ (‘I sing’), at the beginning of the
Ilias Mikra (EGF, Ilias Mikra F1; PEG, Ilias Mikra F28; West, Ilias Mikra F1) as evidence
that the poem was originally an oral composition: Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry, 151-152.
411
The scarcity of original fragments from which to study datable stylistic nuances makes
dating difficult: Burgess, 'The Non-Homeric Cypria', 1, esp. n. 2. Janko inclines towards a
seventh-century date: R. Janko, Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in
Epic Diction, Cambridge, 1982, 200, 228-231; West and Davies suggest the sixth century:
~90~
The Archaic Era
The Kypria’s unknown author has been variously given as Hegesias of Salamis
in Cyprus, Stasinos of Cyprus, Kyprias of Halikarnassos, and Homer.412
Dismissing Homer as unlikely,413 the first two names might suggest the poem
was named for the author’s place of origin, whereas the third that the poem
was named for its author, Kyprias.
The linguistic study undertaken by Wilamowitz in 1884 and Wackernagel in

1916 resulted in their identification of apparent late sixth-century Atticisms in
several fragments, perhaps even as late as ca. 500, which led them to suggest
the poem’s author was Attic.414 While their dating is considered late, West,
Davies, and Stafford are amongst those who consider the possibility in a
positive light, with Stafford arguing the author may have been influenced by
the myths surrounding Nemesis from her sanctuary at Rhamnous, such as
Helen as Nemesis’ daughter.415 Against this late date is the evidence from
seventh-century illustrations of the Judgement of Paris, a story, insofar as is
known, found only in the Kypria, although Homer refers to it briefly.416 These
illustrations are found on a ca. 700-660 ivory comb from the sanctuary of
Artemis Orthia at Sparta (figure 8),417 and the ca. 650 Chigi olpe from
West (ed.), Greek Epic Fragments, 13; M. Davies, 'The Date of the Epic Cycle,' Glotta 67,
1989, 100; Burgess the Hellenistic: Burgess, The Tradition of the Trojan War, 12, 15-17.
412
Aelian proposed Homer: Ael. VH 9.15; Aristotle supplies an anonymous ‘the author’: Arist.
Poet. 1459a37; Athenaios gives Hegesias, Stasinos, or Kyprias: Athen. 2.35c, 8.334b, 15.682e;
EGF, Kypria TT1, 3, FF4, 7, 15; PEG, Kypria FF9, 17; West, Kypria TT, FF5, 10, 18;
Photios, quoting Proklos, suggests Kyprias of Halikarnassos, or Hegesias of Salamis: Phot.
Bibl. 319a34; see comments in: J. S. Burgess, 'Kyprias, the "Kypria", and Multiformity,'
Phoenix 56, no. 3/4, 2002, 234-235.
413
Hdt. 2.117: Κατὰ ταῦτα δὲ τὰ ἔπεα καὶ τόδε τὸ χωρίον οὐκ ἥκιστα ἀλλὰ μάλιστα δηλοῖ ὅτι
οὐκ Ὁμήρου τὰ Κύπρια ἔπεα ἐστὶ ἀλλ’ ἄλλου τινός (‘these verses and this passage prove most
clearly that the Cyprian poems are by the hand not of Homer but of another’).
414
J. Wackernagel, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer, Göttingen, 1916, 178, 181-183; U.
v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Homerische Untersuchungen, Berlin, 1884, 366-367.
415
West (ed.), Greek Epic Fragments, 13; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 81-82; E. J. Stafford,
Greek Cults of Deified Abstractions, PhD Thesis, University College London, 1998, 98-100;
Davies, The Greek Epic Cycle, 3-5.
416
Hom. Il. 24.25-30.
417
LIMC i. Alexandros 6; LIMC i. Aphrodite 1417; K. Reinhardt, 'The Judgement of Paris,' in
Homer: German Scholarship in Translation, Oxford, 1997, 172; H. Damisch, The Judgement
of Paris, Chicago, 1996, 251; R. Scaife, 'The Kypria and its Early Reception,' Classical
Antiquity 14, no. 1, 1995, 179; M. Pipili, Laconian Iconography of the Sixth Century B.C.,
Oxford, 1987, 120, no. 6; R. Hampe & E. Simon, The Birth of Greek Art: from the Mycenaean
to the Archaic Period, London, 1981, 82-83, 231, 305, no. 357; K. Fittschen, Untersuchungen
zum Beginn der Sagendarstellungen bei den Griechen, Berlin, 1969, 170; A. R. Littlewood,
'The symbolism of the Apple in Greek and Roman Literature,' HSPh 72, 1968, 151; R. M.
Dawkins, 'The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta,' JHS Suppl. 5, 1929, 223, pl. 127.
~91~
The Archaic Era
Corinth,418 both of which indicate a date prior to Wilamowitz and

Wackernagel’s sixth-century date for the Kypria or for the myths it contains.
Figure 8: The Judgement of Paris; ivory comb from the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta; ca.
700-660 (source: Dawkins).
Since the Kypria is the one poem which provides a more extensive account of
Nemesis’ extended mythology, and directly links her to Zeus as his unwitting
tool to achieve his plan (to be discussed), it is worth considering the origin of
its name.419 Photios, quoting Proklos, suggests Kypria should not be read with
a proparoxytone accent (Κύπρια),420 i.e. not as a neuter plural adjective as ‘the
Kyprian epics’ relating to the island of Cyprus as in Herodotos’ τὰ Κύπρια
ἔπεά.421 West believes Proklos to be wrong and that ‘the Kyprian epics’ with a
418
Villa Guilia, Rome no. 22679; CVA Villa Guilia 1, iii C e, Pl. 4.3; LIMC i Alexandros 5 (R.
Hampe); LIMC ii Aphrodite 1423 (A. Delivorrias); LIMC ii Athena 405 (P. Demargne); Il.
24.29; J. M. Hurwit, 'Reading the Chigi Vase,' Hesperia 71, no. 1, 2002, 12-13; W. Burkert,
The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic
Age, trans. M. E. Pinder & W. Burkert, Cambridge MA, 1995, 103; K. Schefold, Myth and
Legend in Early Greek Art, London, 1966, pl. 29b.
419
Burgess briefly discusses the title: Burgess, 'Kyprias, the "Kypria", and Multiformity', 234-
235; Holmberg, 'The Creation of the Ancient Greek Epic Cycle', 462; Davies, The Greek Epic
Cycle, 33.
420
Phot. Bibl. 319b4-5; EGF, Kypria T11; West, Kypria T4.
421
Hdt. 2.117.3, 118.1. Arguing for Kypria as a reference to Cyprus or a Cyprian author, are:
West (ed.), Greek Epic Fragments, 13; J. Marks, 'The Junction between the Kypria and the
Iliad,' Phoenix 56, no. 1/2, 2002, 19 and n. 48; M. L. West, The East Face of Helicon: West
Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth, Oxford, 1997, 628; Burkert, The Orientalizing
Revolution, 103-104, 207, n.10; G. Nagy, Pindar's Homer, Baltimore, 1990, 77; Lloyd-Jones,
~92~
The Archaic Era
proparoxytone accent is the way it should be read.422 If correct, it is curious

that of all the action within the poem as it exists, none actually takes place on
or has any clear connection to Cyprus,423 leaving it in the seemingly unique
position of possessing a title that bears little relevance to the story within it.424
Proklos’ denial of a proparoxytone accent would, by default, indicate either an
oxytone (Κυπριά) or paroxytone (Κυπρία) accent, with the latter producing the
genitive singular of Κυπρίας,425 possibly a reference to the poem’s author, i.e.
‘by Kyprias’.426 Interestingly, an inscription from Halikarnassos seems to
support this hypothesis, quoted here in part:
Ἡρόδοτον τὸν πεζὸν ἐν ἱστορίαισιν Ὅμηρον

ἤροσεν, Ἄνδρωνος θρέψε κλυτὴν δύναμιν,
ἔσπειρεν Πανύασσιν ἐπῶν ἀρίσημον ἄνακτα,
Ἰλιακῶν Κυπρίαν τίκτεν ἀοιδοθέτην427
She [Halikarnassos] brought forth Herodotos, the prose Homer

in the realm of history; she nourished the renowned power of
Andron, she was the mother of Panyassis, the glorious lord of
verse, she gave birth to Kyprias, the poet of the tale of Ilium.428
On the other hand, had a Kyprias of Halikarnassos been the author, it is strange
that Herodotos, a native of that town, failed to mention this when he talks
about the poem.429 Another interesting aspect of this inscription is the opening
'Stasinus and the Cypria', 115-122, esp. 117. Janko sees no Cypriot associations in the
surviving fragments: Janko, Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns, 176-180, n. 163.
422
West (ed.), Greek Epic Fragments, 13, 66-67 n. 1; Burgess, 'Kyprias, the "Kypria", and
Multiformity', 235-237. See Severyns’ discussion on κύπρια and κυπρία: A. Severyns,
Recherches sur la chrestomathie de Proclos: le codex 239 de Photius, vol. ii, Paris, 1938, 92-
98; A. Severyns, Recherches sur la chrestomathie de Proclos: le codex 239 de Photius, vol. i,
Paris, 1938, 103-104.
423
Cyprus is mentioned just twice in Apollodoros’ summary of Proklos’ Kypria: Apollod. Ep.
3.4, 9. For a more in-depth discussion on the possibility of Cyprus as the source of the title,
see: Franklin, 'Cyprus, Greek Epic, and Kypriaka: Why Cyprus Matters,' 234-237.
424
Other eponymous epics, such as the Iliad, the Thebaid, and the Korinthiaka, all show that
their titles have a connection to the place where the majority of the drama or action took place.
425
As a 1b type noun, e.g: Κυπρία (nom.) Κυπρίαν (acc.) Κυπρίας (gen.) Κυπρίᾳ (dat.).
426
A name suggested by Athenaios: Athen. 15.682e; West, Kypria F5. A detailed discussion
on Kyprias of Halikarnassos is in: Burgess, 'Kyprias, the "Kypria", and Multiformity', 234-244.
427
SEG 38.1330, 54.1070 lines 43-46; H. Lloyd-Jones, 'The Pride of Halicarnassus,' ZPE 124,
1999, 1-3; R. Merkelbach & J. Stauber (eds), Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten,
Stuttgart, 1998-2002, 45-46; S. Isager, 'The Pride of Halikarnassos: Editio princeps of an
inscription from Salmakis,' ZPE 123, 1998, 6-9.
428
Trans. Lloyd-Jones, 'The Pride of Halicarnassus', 1-3. Burgess argues ἀοιδοθέτης does not
necessarily mean ‘poet’ but may be a reference to Kyprias as the arranger of the poem for
transmission: Burgess, 'Kyprias, the "Kypria", and Multiformity', 242.
429
Hdt. 2.117.
~93~
The Archaic Era
three lines addressed to Aphrodite using her epithet, Kypris (from her
connection to the island of Cyprus):430
ἔννεπέ μοι, Σχοινῖτι, φίλον τιθάσε[υμα μεριμνῶν,

Κύπρι, μυροπνεύστων ἐμπελάτειρα Πό[θων,
τῆς Ἁλικαρνάσσου τί τὸ τίμιον;
Tell me, Schoinitis, dear tamer of our cares, you, Kypris, who
bring close to us Desires scented with myrrh, what is it that
brings honour to Halikarnassos?431
Accordingly, the title Kypria (Κυπρία with paroxytone accent) may be a

reference to the Cyprian goddess,432 with the genitive giving the title as ‘of
Kypris’; and by stretching the hypothesis even further, as: ‘the counsels of
Kypris’. Aphrodite has a significant part in the Kypria, which is also
mentioned by other authors. Compare the following poem by Ibycus, writing
in the sixth century) which sings of ‘the Kyprian’ in reference to Aphrodite and
links her to the Kypria, (Ibycus wrote the majority of his poetry in Doric Greek
which accounts for the Greek variants here):
…]αι Δαρδανίδα Πριάμοιο μέ-

γ’ ἄσ]τυ περικλεὲς ὄλβιον ἠνάρον
Ἄργ]οθεν ὀρνυμένοι
Ζη]νὸς μεγάλοιο βουλαῖς
ξα]νθᾶς Ἑλένας περὶ εἴδει
δῆ]ριν πολύυμνον ἔχ[ο]ντες
430
Kypris as a reference to Aphrodite is found in: Hom. Il. 5.330, 442, 458, 760, 883; Sapph.
4.1, 5.11; Hom. Hymn Aph. 5.2, 5.292; Theog. 1320; Pind. Ol. 1.75; throughout Aischylos and
Euripides; Aristoph. Ach. 989, Eccl. 972; Anth. Pal. 5.263.5-6, 6.293.1-2, 7.218.1-3, 7.221.5-6.
The epithet comes from her connection to Cyprus where she was born and had several cult
centres: Virgil, Aen. 10.51, where Aphrodite claims ownership of the Cyprian Amathous,
Mount Paphos, Idalia, and the island of Kythera; Ovid, Met. 10.220-242, where she claims the
whole island of Cyprus and at 10.530-532 reference is made to her possession of Kythera,
Paphos, Cnidos and Amathous; Paus. 9.41.2; cf. B. Graziosi, Inventing Homer: the early
reception of epic, Cambridge, MA, 2002, 188.
431
Schoinitis (She of the Reeds); cf. Lykoph. 832, ‘goddess of the Rushes’ as a reference to
Aphrodite at Samos. The epithet is otherwise unattested and thought to be a local
Halikarnassion name for the goddess possibly derived from an abundance of reeds growing in
the area: J. N. Bremmer, 'Zeus' Own Country: Cult and Myth in the Pride of Hallicarnassus,'
in U. Dill & C. Walde (eds), Antike Mythen: Medien, Transformationen und Konstruktionen,
Berlin, 2009, 293. Trans. Lloyd-Jones, 'The Pride of Halicarnassus', 1-3; Isager, 'The Pride of
Halikarnassos', 6-9.
432
Suggested by: Scaife, 'The Kypria and its Early Reception', 173; Severyns, Recherches, 96-
98; F. G. Welcker, Der epische Cyclus: oder Die homerischen Dichter, vol. 1, Bonn, 1865,
286-287, nn. 506, 507. Huxley notes the possibility of an Aphrodite connection or that the
name relates in some way to the island of Cyprus, but does not commit himself either way:
Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry, 128-129; and Burgess argues against Kypris: Burgess, 'Kyprias,
the "Kypria", and Multiformity', 235-236 n. 6.
~94~
The Archaic Era
πό]λεμον κατὰ [δ]ακρ[υό]εντα,

Πέρ]γαμον δ’ ἀνέ[β]α ταλαπείριο[ν ἄ]τα
χρυ]σοέθειραν δ[ι]ὰ Κύπριδα.433
... destroyed the great, glorious, blessed city of Priam, son of

Dardanus, setting off from Argos by the plans of great Zeus,
enduring much-sung strife over the beauty of auburn Helen in
tearful war; and ruin mounted long-suffering Pergamon thanks to
the golden-haired Kyprian.
The fragment not only connects Kypris with Helen and the destruction of Troy,
but significantly associates her with Zeus’ plans, a central theme in the Kypria,
discussed below.
Other connections include two Hymns to Aphrodite which tell of Aphrodite’s

fragrant temple and altar at Paphos, and describe her being anointed and
dressed by the Graces,434 descriptions found in two Kypria fragments:
Her body was dressed in garments that the Graces and Horai had
made for her and steeped in all the spring flowers that the
seasons bring forth, in crocus and hyacinth, and springing violet,
and the rose’s fair, sweet, nectarine bloom, and the ambrosial
buds of narcissus […] So Aphrodite was dressed in garments
scented with blossoms of every kind.435
and:
And she with her attendants, smile-loving Aphrodite […] They
wove fragrant garlands, the flowers of the earth, and put them on
their heads, those goddesses with glossy veils, the Nymphs and
Graces, and golden Aphrodite with them, as they sang
beautifully on Mount Ida of the many springs.436
Aphrodite has a strong presence in the Kypria, where she carries on with
purposeful intent to skilfully control both gods and mortals. Not only does she
directly influence Paris to abduct Helen,437 she manipulates the actions and
decisions of Zeus, Peleus, Menelaos, and Achilles.438 She instructs Aeneas to
433
P.Oxy. XV 1790; PMG, Ibycus F1a.9; Campbell, Ibycus F282a.9. Κύπριδα (acc.) is an
alternative form of Κύπριν (acc.) from Κύπρις (nom.): LSJ9 1012, col. 1, s.v. Κύπρις.
434
Hom. Hymn Aph. 5.58–67, 6.1-15.
435
EGF, Kypria F4; PEG, Cypria F4; West, Kypria F5; Athen. 15.682e.
436
EGF, Kypria F5; PEG, Kypria F5; West, Kypria F6; Athen. 15.682f. The Odyssey also
describes Aphrodite being adorned: Od. 8.362-6.
437
Σ on Iliad 8; Kypria Arg.1-2.
438
Kypria Arg.1, 2, 11.
~95~
The Archaic Era
accompany the expedition to Troy,439 and prompts Phereklos to build the ships
for Paris to travel to Sparta – the start of the troubles.440 Her controlling
influence was not just peripheral or incidental, it was fundamental to the plot
and affected the decisions and actions being undertaken by misguided mortals
who erroneously thought they controlled their own minds and actions, as she
wove her web of intrigue into every corner of the poem. Aphrodite, as the
inspiration behind the Kypria’s title, holds merit. Her manipulative influence
justifies an eponymous poem in her honour. As goddess of love and ‘passion’,
she inspires and manoeuvres the many players in the drama to eventually fulfil
Zeus’ plan by means of his necessarily reluctant tool, Nemesis.
ZEUS’ PLAN
Homer’ Iliad was written ca. eighth century at the time of the re-emerging
Mediterranean economies after a period of cataclysmic devastations during the
late Bronze Age ca. twelfth century: a destruction period described by Drews
as ‘the worst disaster in ancient history’.441 The events surrounding the
devastations, together with the resultant collapsed economies, famines,
disintegration of societies, massacres from the invading so-called Sea-Peoples,
and disintegration of previously well-defended and wealthy citadels such as
Mycenae, Pylos, Tiryns, and Troy, would have been topics for bardic song
down through the centuries. As a way to understand the destruction, the
people would have rationalized it as a divine plan of systematic punishment for
some offence.442 Hence, Διὸς βουλή (the plan of Zeus) and the events
surrounding it became the subject of mythical tales, resulting in epics such as
the Iliad and the Kypria.
439
EGF, Procli Cypriorum Enarratio 12; West, Kypria Arg.1.
440
‘After that, at Aphrodite’s instigation, ships are built <by Phereklos>’: West, Kypria Arg.1;
‘He [Phereklos] was the one who'd made well-balanced ships for Paris at the start of all the
trouble, bringing disaster on the Trojans and on Paris too, for he was ignorant of what gods had
decreed’: Hom. Il. 5.59-64.
441
R. Castleden, Mycenae: Life in Bronze Age Greece, Oxford, 2005, 218-225; R. Drews, The
End of the Bronze Age: changes in warfare and the catastrophe of ca. 1200 B.C., Princeton N
J, 1993, 1, and passim.
442
Homer’s mortals believed the war was started by the gods: Priam (Il. 3.164-5), Helen (Il.
6.349), Achilles (Il. 24.547-548), Telemachos (Od. 1.348, 17.119), Alkinous (Od. 8.579-80),
and Sirens (Od. 12.189-90).
~96~
The Archaic Era
The Kypria and Iliad reveal that Zeus

443
had a ‘plan’. The Kypria mentions
it at the beginning and end of
Proklos’ summary. The first has
Zeus deliberating or consulting with
Themis about initiating a war at Troy
to punish mankind:444 Ζεὺς
βουλεύεται μετὰ τῆς Θέμιδος περὶ
τοῦ Τρωϊκοῦ πολέμου. This counsel
of war, which is about to set the
whole Trojan epic in motion and
ending with the total destruction of
Troy, is the inspiration for the scene
on the fourth-century pelike
Figure 9: Zeus consulting with Themis; Attic illustrated in figures 9 and 10,445
red-figure pelike; ca. 360-350; State Hermitage
Museum no. ST 1793 (source: museum).
443
Hom. Il. 1.5: Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή; EGF, Kypria F1; EGF, Procli Cypriorum Enarratio
5: Ζεὺs βουλεύεται μετὰ τῆς Θέμιδος περὶ τοῦ Τρωϊκοῦ πολέμου; West, Kypria Arg.1; EGF,
Procli Cypriorum Enarratio 87: Διὸς βουλή; Kypria Arg.12. Hom. Od. 8.82: Διὸς μεγάλου διὰ
βουλάς; cf. Hom. Il. 2.33-34, 20.15; Hom. Od. 19.297; Hes. Th, 465; Hes. WD 79. Although
the phraseology is similar in the Iliad and Kypria, Burgess argues: ‘the Iliad and the Cypria
independently belonged to the same tradition’, but he admits to a possibility of some cross-
influence: Burgess, 'The Non-Homeric Cypria', 84, 82-86.
444
This pivotal consultation was a familiar theme throughout the ancient Greek world in both
art and literature. One unusual artistic example was the theme’s depiction intricately woven
into the cloth of a himation from Sybaris dating to ca. sixth or fifth century and described by
several ancient sources: P. Jacobsthal, 'A Sybarite Himation,' JHS 58, 1938, 206; for an
archaeological discussion on Sybaris, see: N. K. Rutter, 'Sybaris Legend and Reality,' G&R
17, no. 2, 1970, 168-169, 173. It has also been suggested that the north metopes 29-32 of the
Parthenon at Athens represent Zeus and Themis plotting about Troy, but their damaged state
defies firm identification: K. Schwab, 'Celebrations of Victory: The Metopes of the Parthenon,'
in J. Neils (ed.), The Parthenon: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge, 2005, 167, 183-
190, figs. 56-57; J. M. Camp, The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven and London, 2001, 78;
Castriota, Myth, Ethos, and Actuality, 173.
445
Attributed to the Eleusinian Painter: ARV2 1476.2, 1695; Beazley Archive no. 230432; Para.
496.2; Add.2 381; LIMC ii Aphrodite 1416 (A. Delivorrias); LIMC viii Suppl. i Themis 17 (P.
Karanastassi); LIMC v Hermes 778 (G. Siebert); LIMC vi Momos 3 (E. Simon); LIMC vi
Peitho 9 (N. Icard-Gianolio); LIMC viii Suppl. i Zeus add. 185 (P. Karanastassi/W. Felten);
Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, 158 VP 71, fig. 4.6; Shapiro,
Personifications in Greek Art, 223, fig. 183; P. D. Valavanis, Παναθηηναϊκοί αμφορείς απο την
Ερέτρια: Συμβολή στην αττική αγγειογραφία του 4ου π.Χ. αι., Athens, 1991, 282 no. 2, pl. 124;
K. W. Arafat, Classical Zeus: A Study in Art and Literature, Oxford, 1990, 124-128, fig. 6,
199 no. 6.5; Boardman, Athenian Red-Figure Vases: The Classical Period, 393; E. Simon,
'Neue Deutung zweier eleusinischer Denkmäler des vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr.,' AntK 9, no.
2, 1966, 73, pl. 19.3; H. Metzger, Les Representations dans la ceramique attique du IVe siècle,
Paris, 1951, 123, pls. 13.2-3, 15.1, 36.1; Jacobsthal, 'A Sybarite Himation', 208, 210; K.
Schefold, Untersuchungen zu den Kertscher Vasen, Berlin und Leipzig, 1934, 42-43, no. 369,
~97~
The Archaic Era
which has captured all the emotional intensity and iconographical significance
of the conspiracy. While the other deities shown are not specifically
mentioned as being present during the conspiracy, most take active parts in the
events surrounding the Trojan War as described by the Kypria.
Figure 10: ‘Roll-out’ of the Hermitage pelike.
The central scene shows Themis, personification of ‘right order’ and ‘divine
law’, sitting on an egg-shaped stone covered with a knotted net or binding,
called an ἀγρηνόν.446 This ἀγρηνόν was traditionally worn by Bacchanals and
soothsayers, and is appropriate for Themis given her reputation for interpreting
oracles, her seer-like ability to reveal the ‘will of the gods’, and her role as one
of the original Pythiai at Delphi, second only to Gaia.447 I see the egg-shaped
‘stone’ on which Themis sits as representing the Delphic Omphalos with
pl. 32.1-3; Furtwängler & Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, II 47, fig. 21, pl. 69; M. H.
Swindler, Ancient Painting, New Haven, 1929, fig. 469; G. M. A. Richter, Ancient Furniture:
a history of Greek, Etruscan and Roman furniture, Oxford, 1926, fig. 68; A. B. Cook, Zeus: A
Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 2, part i, Cambridge, 1925, 258-261, pl. xvi; E. Pfuhl,
Meisterwerke Griechischer Zeichnung und Malerei, München, 1924, 53, 77 fig 110; Pfuhl,
Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting, 83-84, fig. 110; Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeichnung
der Griechen, 712, fig. 597.
446
LSJ9 14, col. 2, s.v. ἀγρηνόν; Poll. 4.116; J. E. Harrison, Themis, London, 1912, 398, fig.
110. Hesiod gave Themis attributes and children connected with law and order through her
marriage to Zeus: Hes. Theog. 901-4.
447
Before Apollo Themis and Gaia both gave oracles at Delphi (Eur. Iph. Taur. 1259; Apollod.
Bibl. 1.4.1; Paus. 10.5.6); cf. Aischyl. Eum. 1-8. Themis’ oracular connection is shown by the
use of the plural ‘themistes’ for ‘oracles’ and ‘decrees of the gods’, and ‘themisteuein’ ‘to give
an oracle’: LSJ9 789, col. 1, s.v. θέμις; cf. West, 'Hesiod's Titans', 74-75.
~98~
The Archaic Era
Themis as the Pythia, which may be an artistic devise to insinuate that the
deliberations took place at Delphi. More cryptically, it could also be a
deliberate visual clue to the future, i.e. the egg-shaped stone as predicting the
future birth of Helen from the egg soon to be laid by the goddess Nemesis who
was to be a tool in the plan being plotted here.
The artist has Themis acting as Pindar’s ‘goddess of wise counsel’ to Zeus.448
He has captured this attribute superbly as she leans forward towards Zeus with
her left hand gesturing as if to reinforce a point with her serious upturned face
looking directly at Zeus, who sits on his throne with his arm supporting his
slightly tilted head as if in deep contemplation at Themis’ words. Zeus and
Themis are involved in an intense discussion and although Themis is doing
most of the talking she has Zeus’ full attention.449 The scene is reminiscent of
the following lines from the Homeric Hymn to Zeus:
Of Zeus, best and greatest of the gods, I will sing, the wide-
sounding ruler, the one that brings to fulfilment, who consults
closely with Themis as she sits leaning towards (ἐγκλιδὸν)
him.450
Standing close by are some of the other divine protagonists who will be
instrumental in the execution of Zeus’ plan of war at Troy between the Greeks
and the Trojans, as told by the Kypria. Next to Zeus an armed and helmeted
Athena, goddess of wisdom in war and peace, stands like an adjudicator in the
discussions and decisions that are being reached between Zeus and Themis.
Her attention is fixed on Themis and she appears to be wholly engaged by the
conversation taking place. Above Athena a winged Nike is about to adorn
Athena with a wreath, perhaps signifying Athena’s advocacy in the current
deliberations are meritorious, or possibly suggestive of something more
portentous – that Athena, whose beauty is soon to be scorned by Paris, will
ultimately prevail in the annihilation of his homeland. To Zeus’ right stands
448
Pind. Ol. 13.6-8: ‘wise-counselling Themis’; Pind. Isth. 8.32: where ‘wise Themis’ warns
Zeus and Poseidon against pursuing Thetis.
449
Cook’s theory that Zeus and Themis are discussing the glorification of Athens based on the
figure of Nike about to crown Athena, is not supported: Cook, Zeus, vol. 2.i, 258-261.
450
Hom. Hymn Zeus 23.1-4: Ζῆνα θεῶν τὸν ἄριστον ἀείσομαι ἠδὲ μέγιστον, εὐρύοπα κρείοντα
τελεσφόρον, ὅς τε Θέμιστι ἐγκλιδὸν ἑζομένηι πυκινοὺς ὀάρους ὀαρίζει. I have substituted
West’s ‘against’ for ἐγκλιδὸν with ‘towards’, as a better interpretation of both the scene and
the LSJ9 472, col. 2 s.v. ἐγκλιδόν: ‘leaning’, ‘bent down’.
~99~
The Archaic Era
the messenger-god Hermes, who will play a part in the impending ‘Judgement
of Paris’. Behind Themis sits Aphrodite with Peitho in attendance: both will
have significant roles to play. Next to Athena is Selene, goddess of the moon,
complete with billowing cloak as she rides side-saddle on a white horse. It is
her presence, together with that of Hesperos, the evening star, that
symbolically indicates the scene is taking place at night.451 This night-time
tryst is significant for two reasons: night is the time when dark deeds and
intrigues are contrived; and Night (Nyx) is, according to Hesiod, the mother of
Nemesis who will play a major part in Zeus’ plan.452
The second reference to Zeus’ plan occurs at the end of Proklos’ summary
where it is revealed Achilles is involved:
καὶ Διὸς βουλὴ ὅπως ἐπικουφίσηι τοὺς Τρῶας Ἀχιλλέα τῆς

συμμαχίας τῆς Ἑλλήνων ἀποστήσας;453
and the plan of Zeus was to relieve the Trojans by removing

Achilles from the Greek alliance
This passage has close correlations to the opening lines of the Iliad which tells
Zeus plans many deaths:
Μῆνιν ἄειδε, θεά, Πηληιάδεω Ἀχιλῆος οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί’

Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε’ ἔθηκε, πολλὰς δ’ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς Ἄϊδι προΐαψεν
ἡρώων, αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι, Διὸς
δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή.454
Sing of the wrath of Peleus’ son Achilles, goddess, the accursed

wrath which brought countless sorrows upon the Achaians, and
sent down to Hades many valiant souls of warriors, and made the
men themselves to be the spoil of dogs and birds of every kind;
and the will of Zeus was being brought to fulfilment.
The passages relate that Achilles was a vital element in Zeus’ plan. The
Kypria explains this as Achilles withdrawing from battle;455 an action which
would allow the Trojans to gain the upper-hand, the war to be prolonged and
451
Il. 22.318; sometimes the Morning Star, Il. 23.226; cf. Cook, Zeus, vol. 2.i, 261 no. 1.
452
Hes. Theog. 223-224.
453
EGF, Procli Cypriorum Enarratio 87-88; West, Kypria Arg. 12.
454
Hom. Il. 1.1-5.
455
Although the reason given in the Iliad is that Achilles removes himself on account of his
anger against Agamemnon who had taken his ‘prize’, the girl Breseis: Hom. Il. 1.130-347.
~100~
The Archaic Era
the death toll to rise. The Iliad describes Achilles’ wrath as the means by
which there will be countless sorrows and many deaths.
Why was it that Zeus was bent on a war at Troy to punish mankind? The clue
is found in three additional fragmentary texts. The first, by an author known as
‘Mythographus Homericus’, is preserved in the Homeric D-scholia, as well as
in a number of papyri, who explains the phrase: Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή, at
Iliad 1.5, as Homer referring to the myth found in the Kypria which reveals
Earth was being weighed down by the race of mortals and that Zeus took pity
on her and resolved to relieve her burden (omitted in Proklos’ summary):456
There was a time when the countless races <of men> roaming
<constantly> over the land were weighing down the <deep-
>breasted earth’s expanse. Zeus took pity when he saw it, and
in his complex mind he resolved to relieve the all-nurturing earth
of mankind’s weight by fanning the great conflict of the Trojan
War, to void the burden through death. So the warriors at Troy
kept being killed, and Zeus’ plan was being fulfilled (οἳ δ’ ἐνὶ
Τροίηι ἥρωες κτείνοντο, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή).457
Secondly, from the same scholia, it is not Themis advising Zeus, but another of
Night’s parthenogenic offspring and thus a sibling of Nemesis, Momos:458
Earth, being oppressed by the multitude of men, since there was

no piety in men, asked Zeus to be lightened of this burden. And
first Zeus caused at once the Theban War by which he destroyed
many men thoroughly. Afterwards he caused again the Trojan
War, consulting with Momos – this is called the ‘decision of
Zeus’ (Διὸς βουλὴ) by Homer; he could have destroyed them all
with bolts of lightning or floods, but Momos prevented this and
suggested rather two measures to him, to marry Thetis to a
human and to generate a beautiful daughter.
And, thirdly from a fragmentary papyrus:
456
The concept of Earth being oppressed by human over-population goes back to at least the
eighteenth-century Babylonian Atrahasis: Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution, 100-101, n.
4.
457
West, Kypria F1; Σ (Α) Il. 1.5, EGF F1; Σ (D) Il. 1.5. The bracketed words are additions
found in Apollodoros’ account.
458
Hes. Theog. 214. The scholia on Hom. Il 1.5 has Zeus planning with Momos, while Kypria,
Arg. 1, and P.Oxy. LVI 3829 ii 9 give Zeus’ adviser as Themis. Burkert suggests the
counsellor of Apsu, ‘Mummu’, of the Enuma Elish may have transferred to the Greek myth as
‘Momos’: Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution, 103; his theory is discussed only to be
dismissed by: Barker, 'Momos Advises Zeus: Changing Representations of 'Cypria' Fragment
1,' 62.
~101~
The Archaic Era
Zeus, finding the race of heroes guilty of impiety, conferred with

Themis about destroying them completely.459
The impiety of man and its oppression of Earth exemplified a lack of aidōs
and nemesis through unconscionable multiplying; so Zeus’ resolved to punish
them by reducing their numbers through war and violence. To achieve his goal
he was persuaded by Themis (or possibly Momos) to employ subtle guile: the
marrying of the goddess Thetis to the mortal Peleus which would result in the
birth of Achilles; and, to father a beautiful daughter. Hence, Achilles and the
beautiful daughter were to be Zeus’ ‘weapons of mass destruction’: the
beautiful daughter, Helen, as the destroyer and weakener of men through her
ability to inspire lust; Achilles as the destroyer of men through violent warfare.
Zeus’ own words confirm his plan as he tells it is something in which he will
take delight:
You know, Earth-Shaker, the plan in my mind, for which I

gathered you here; I care for them, even though they will die.
Yet for myself I will remain here sitting in a fold of Olympus,
from which I will look on and take pleasure in my heart.460
An additional and important causal factor to be considered is the significance

of Zeus’ co-conspirator and advisor, Themis, goddess of ‘right order’ and
‘divine law’. He could have had no-one more appropriate, since the impiety of
man had violated both her attributes, and had exacerbated Earth’s suffering by
multiplying to excess. As Earth’s daughter, Themis would have a personal
interest in the abatement and atonement of her mother’s distress. So, with his
plan laid out in his mind, Zeus initiated its implementation with an act of
violence – the rape of Nemesis.
The Rape of Nemesis

Nemesis’ rape is found in several fragments and commentaries; the oldest
being a passage from the Kypria quoted by Athenaios, where he uses it to
illustrate a discussion on fish:
459
P.Oxy. LVI 3829 ii 9-12: ὁ Ζεὺς ἀσέβειαν καταγνοὺς τοῦ ἡρωικοῦ γένους βουλεύεται μετὰ
Θέμιδος ἄρδην αὐτοὺς ἀπολέσαι. The papyrus gives only the impiety of mankind as the reason
for its destruction, making no mention of Earth asking Zeus to be relieved of her burden. But
impiety and/or over-population could be one and the same thing. i.e. mankind was impious by
not moderating its birth-rate and thus offended the gods.
460
Hom. Il. 20.20-23. (Translation: author.)
~102~
The Archaic Era
τοὺς δὲ μέτα τριτάτην Ἑλένην τέκε, θαῦμα βροτοῖσιν·

< >461
τήν ποτε καλλίκομος Νέμεσις φιλότητι μιγεῖσα
Ζηνὶ θεῶν βασιλῆϊ τέκε κρατερῆς ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης.
φεῦγε γάρ, οὐδ’ ἔθελεν μιχθήμεναι ἐν φιλότητι
πατρὶ Διὶ Κρονίωνι· ἐτείρετο γὰρ φρένας αἰδοῖ
καὶ νεμέσει· κατὰ γῆν δὲ καὶ ἀτρύγετον μέλαν
ὕδωρ
φεῦγε, Ζεὺς δ’ ἐδίωκε – λαβεῖν δ’ ἐλιλαίετο
θυμῶι –
ἄλλοτε μὲν κατὰ κῦμα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης
ἰχθύϊ εἰδομένην, πόντον πολὺν ἐξοροθύνων,
ἄλλοτ’ ἀν’ Ὠκεανὸν ποταμὸν καὶ πείρατα γαίης,
ἄλλοτ’ ἀν’ ἤπειρον πολυβώλακα· γίνετο δ’ αἰεί
θηρί’, ὅσ’ ἤπειρος αἰνὰ τρέφει, ὄφρα φύγοι μιν.462
Third after them she gave birth to Helen, a wonder to mortals;

whom lovely-haired Nemesis once bore after copulation463 with
Zeus, the king of the gods, under harsh compulsion. For she ran
away, not wanting to join in fornication with father Zeus, the son
of Kronos, tormented by aidōs and nemesis: across land and the
dark barren water she ran, and Zeus pursued her, eager to
possess her; sometimes in the noisy sea’s wave, when she had
the form of a fish, as he stirred up the might deep; sometimes
along Ocean’s stream and the ends of the earth; sometimes on
the loam rich land; and she kept changing into all the fearsome
creatures that the land nurtures, so as to escape him.464
Another comes in a passage from Apollodoros in his retelling of the Kypria

which continues the story of Nemesis’ violation and her attempts to escape:
λέγουσι δὲ ἔνιοι Νεμέσεως Ἑλένην εἶναι καὶ Διός. ταύτην γὰρ

τὴν Διὸς φεύγουσαν συνουσίαν εἰς χῆνα τὴν μορφὴν
μεταβαλεῖν, ὁμοιωθέντα δὲ καὶ Δία κύκνῳ συνελθεῖν: τὴν δὲ
ᾠὸν ἐκ τῆς συνουσίας ἀποτεκεῖν, τοῦτο δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἄλσεσιν
εὑρόντα τινὰ ποιμένα Λήδᾳ κομίσαντα δοῦναι, τὴν δὲ
461
Welcker and Gantz suggest Athenaios may have omitted a few of the Kyprian lines at this
point since he was talking about fish and wanted to emphasize Nemesis changing into this
creature: T. Gantz, Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore,
1993, 319; F. G. Welcker, Der epische Cyclus: oder Die homerischen Dichter, vol. 2, Bonn,
1849, 514; cf. Huxley’s counter argument: Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry, 133-134. The lacunae
is included in: EGF (Davies), but ignored by: PEG (Bernabé), West, Evelyn-White.
462
Athen. 8.334c-d; PEG, Kypria F9; EGF, Kypria F7; West, Kypria F10.
463
Φιλότητι in line 2 of the Greek is another of Night’s children and a sibling of Nemesis, but
there is no indication the personification is meant. The LSJ9 translates the word as:
‘friendship’, ‘love’, or ‘sexual love’, ‘intercourse’: LSJ9 1941, col. 1, s.v. φιλότης. Since the
passage contains no ‘love’ only violence, I have translated φιλότητι more appropriately and
coarsely as ‘copulation’ or ‘fornication’.
464
The translation is West’s with my emendations indicated by italics.
~103~
The Archaic Era
καταθεμένην εἰς λάρνακα φυλάσσειν, καὶ χρόνῳ καθήκοντι

γεννηθεῖσαν Ἑλένην ὡς ἐξ αὑτῆς θυγατέρα τρέφειν.465
But some say that Helen was a daughter of Nemesis and Zeus;466
for that she, flying from the arms of Zeus, changed herself into a
goose, but Zeus in his turn took the likeness of a swan and so
enjoyed her; and as the fruit of their intercourse she laid an
egg,467 and a certain shepherd found it in the groves and brought
and gave it to Leda; and she put it in a chest and kept it; and
when Helen was hatched in due time, Leda brought her up as her
own daughter.468
Apollodoros’ version is repeated in a fragment by Philodemos:469
Νέμ]εσίν τ’ ὁ τὰ Κύ[πρια γ]ράψας ὁμοιωθέ[ντ]α χηνὶ καὶ αὐτ[ὸν

δ]ιώκειν, καὶ μιγέν[το]ς ὠιὸν τεκεῖν, ἐξ οὗ γενέσθαι τὴν
[Ἑλ]ένην.
And the author of the Ky[pria] says that Zeus pursued [Neme]sis
after changing himself too into a goose, and when he had had
union with her she laid an egg, from which Helen was born.
Scodel suggests the nemesis and aidōs felt by Nemesis (ἐτείρετο γὰρ φρένας
αἰδοῖ καὶ νεμέσει) in the Athenaios text are prospective emotions, in that she is
identifying herself with the nemesis or judgement she will potentially receive
from others as a consequence of Zeus’ violation of her.470 In my opinion
Nemesis’ emotions are not prospective but very immediate, real and relative to
her present situation: she has been raped and dishonoured despite her attempts
to escape – there was no acquiescence, and she is not deserving of society’s
nemesis, since, as previously discussed, nemesis was a censorial emotion
465
Apollod. Bibl. 3.10.7. After first discussing the variant version of Leda and Zeus as Helen’s
parents, Apollodoros turns to the older myth involving Nemesis.
466
Tzetz. Σ on Lykoph. 88; Eust., Iliadem 1321.30; Eratosth. 25.
467
The ancient authors were divided on what form, goose or swan, was taken by Nemesis and
Zeus: Asclep. FGrH 12 F11 and Eratosth. 25 decide on swans for both; Philodem. De Piet. B
7369 has both as geese; Apollod. Bibl. 3.10.7 has Nemesis as a goose; Ps. Clem., Homil.
5.13.7.1, suggests either a swan or a goose for Zeus. Luppe thinks Zeus would have chosen the
same bird as Nemesis, either goose or swan, and that the Apollodoros text is corrupt at the
critical point when describing the birds: W. Luppe, 'Zeus und Nemesis in den Kyprien: Die
Verwandlungssage nach Pseudo-Apollodor und Philodem,' Philologus 118, 1974, 192-202; see
also: Gantz, Early Greek Myth, 319-320. According to Paus. 3.16.1, and no doubt in support
of the Spartan variant of Leda as Helen’s mother (discussed below), this egg was still to be
seen hanging by ribbons from the roof of the temple of Hilaira and Phoebe at Sparta.
468
Trans. Frazer, but I translate συνουσίας as ‘intercourse’ instead of Frazer’s ‘loves’ in line 4
of the Greek, again for the reason that there was no ‘love’ involved in the act.
469
Philodem. De Piet. B 7369; West, Kypria F11; PEG, Kypria F10; EGF, Kypria F8 with
apparatus for variant restorations.
470
R. Scodel, 'Stupid, Pointless Wars,' TAPA, no. 138, 2008, 221.
~104~
The Archaic Era
against a person deemed worthy of reproach because of a consciously and

voluntarily enacted unmeritorious deed.471 Moreover, the nemesis aroused in
Nemesis is not word-play on her name, as some suggest.472
The aidōs Nemesis suffers is the deep humiliating mortification and anguish of
her present desperate situation. It is a personal sense of shame that is, because
of her helplessness and lack of free will, incapable of acting as the
aforementioned inhibitory emotion against behaviour normally deserving of
nemesis from others. Her emotion of nemesis is not a self-judgement, nor a
fear of being blamed; rather it is as an objective emotion of righteous
indignation against the reprehensible actions of Zeus who has unjustly and
unconscionably wronged her.
For Zeus it was necessary to consciously and wantonly violate Nemesis

(Righteous Indignation) to provoke within her the extremes of her attributes of
‘righteous indignation’ and ‘anger aroused by injustice’, to enable this resultant
emotive force, once born, to emerge and boil with intensified hurtful
resentment and transform into a new incarnation. In this he was successful, for
the aroused righteous anger, the indignation, the blame, the aidōs, and the
nemesis, were at her moment of violence so strong, so intense, and so potently
powerful, just as in those parthenogenic children of Nyx who witnessed the
first cosmic violence,473 that a new manifestation was demanded to encapsulate
these emotions, Nemesis as Divine Retribution.474
Helen, the subsequent daughter of this forced union was destined to

unconsciously engender the newly emerged retributive potency of her mother
and the vengeful power of her father, so that ‘Helen born of violence’ would be
his innocent tool in his plan. Her innocence is confirmed by the fact that she
received no punishment for her supposed causal role in the Trojan War, and
471
See above pp. 25-27, 21-22 , for a discussion on this sense of aidōs and nemesis.
472
K. Ormand, 'Marriage, Identity, and the Tale of Mestra in the Hesiodic Catalogue of
Women,' AJPh 125, no. 3, 2004, 318.
473
Discussed above, pp. 79-80: Hes. Theog. 211-225; cf. Hes. WD 760-764.
474
I do not see the difficulty in assuming Nemesis was a divine being at the time of her rape, as
some have: Davies, The Greek Epic Cycle, 35-39; cf. Smith, Polis and Personification in
Classical Athenian Art, 42.
~105~
The Archaic Era
through her ultimate reward of an afterlife on the Isle of Blessed. 475 This was
Helen’s tragedy: the product of violence, conceived without love from an
unwilling mother who abandoned her to be reared by another, and to be
unwittingly manipulated in adulthood by her father.
Nemesis was also an innocent participant in Zeus’ plan. A passage in

Eratosthenes’ Katasterismi describes her attempts to protect her virginity.476 It
names Zeus as the perpetrator of her violation, tells of Helen’s birth, and links
Zeus’ transformation into a swan with the star constellation ‘Cygnus’:477
It is said that Zeus, enamoured of Nemesis, transformed himself

into this bird when she changed her shape and assumed the form
of a swan in order to protect her virginity. Zeus changed himself
into a swan and flew down to Rhamnous in Attika, where he
ravished her. She bore an egg, from which Helen was hatched,
as the poet Kratinos recounts. Because he did not change his
shape but flew away thus to heaven, Zeus placed the image of a
swan among the stars. The swan is represented as it was at that
time, in flight.478
A variation in Hyginus tells of Zeus’ lust for Nemesis, but on being rejected
Aphrodite persuades him to change into a swan whereupon she, in the form of
an eagle, would chase him. The plan has the desired effect: Nemesis feels
sorry for the bird, offers it sanctuary in her lap, whereupon she falls asleep and
is raped by Zeus. The resultant egg was given to Leda by Hermes for safe
keeping. To symbolize his conquest Zeus created the star constellation
479
‘Cygnus’.
475
Apollod. Ep. 6.29; cf. Eur. Hel. 44-45, 605-607.
476
Eratosth. 25. Καταστερμοί survives in a collection dating to the end of the first century
AD, and based on a lost original doubtfully attributed to Eratosthenes.
477
Other myths about the star constellation Cygnus are found in: Σ Aratus 273- 275; Virgil,
Aeneid 10.185-193; Ovid, Met. 2.367-377; D. B. Gain (ed.), The Aratus Ascribed to
Germanicus Caesar, London, 1976, 29 lines 275-277, 60, 95 commentary.
478
Trans: T. Condos, Star Myth of the Greeks and Romans: A Sourcebook, trans. T. Condos,
Grand Rapids, 1977, 93.
479
Hyginus Astron.. 8. Illustrations of this mythical scenario of Helen either still in the egg or
emerging from it include: LIMC iv Helene 1-13 (L. Kahil/N. Icard); LIMC vi Leda 28-32 (L.
Kahil/N. Icard-Gianolio); ARV2 1142.1, ARV2 1171.4, ARV2 1174.2 and 4, ARV2 1185.10,
ARV2 1334.17; cf. an image of this scene and a discussion on a previously unidentified Helen
and the Dioskouroi emerging from the egg (Museum of London, no. 3374), in: R. Ling, 'A
Relief from Duke Street, Aldgate, now in the Museum of London,' Britannia 24, 1993, 7, 9.
~106~
The Archaic Era
An alternative version has Leda as Helen’s mother, who was similarly chased
by Zeus, transformed into a swan or goose, was raped, and laid the egg from
which Helen emerged.480 Since this version was first mentioned by Euripides
ca. 412 it is construed as having derived from a later tradition,481 possibly
Lakonian in order to claim Helen as their own through Leda.482 Perhaps
Euripides used the variant, or modified the original, for his own authorial
purposes to suit his plot.483 Isokrates picks up the variant but then mentions
both Nemesis and Leda as the receivers of Zeus’ insatiable lust:
κύκνος δὲ γενόμενος εἰς τοὺς Νεμέσεως κόλπους κατέφυγε,

τούτῳ δὲ πάλιν ὁμοιωθεὶς Λήδαν ἐνύμφευσεν.484
and having become a swan he took refuge in the bosom of

Nemesis, and again in this form he espoused Leda.
A fragment from Philodemos, writing in the first century, indicates he was

similarly aware of both versions. He mentions the story of Nemesis as told in
the Kypria and then continues: Zeus ‘in like manner’ transformed himself into
a swan when he desired Leda.485 Norwood caustically dismisses the Helen
myth as a ‘bungling travesty’, and suggests the myth of Nemesis and Leda as
Helen’s mothers, i.e. one her true mother and the other her adoptive or step-
mother, is: ‘a laughably stupid notion’ and is an invention of the fifth-century
comic author, Kratinos. Since Norwood categorically gives the Kypria’s
480
Luk. DG 20.14; Σ Hom. Od. 11.298; Hyginus Fab. 77; Apollod. Bibl. 3.10.7. A fragment
from Kratinos’ Nemesis (discussed below, p. 162) implies Leda was Helen’s step-mother, as
someone is telling her to sit on an egg for it to hatch: PCG iv F115; also: Paus. 1.33.7; DNP,
vol. 6, 817. There are various myths about the egg and its contents: older versions mention just
Helen, later accounts have Helen and Klytemnestra, or give two eggs (one containing Helen
and Klytemnestra and the other the Dioskouroi, or Helen and Polydeukes in one egg, and
Klytemnestra and Kastor in the other). Hom. Il. 3.328 gives the same mother for Helen and the
Dioskouroi, but Hom. Od. 11.298 has Leda as the mother of the Dioskouroi alone. The oldest
evidence for Nemesis as Helen’s mother is the Kypria. See discussion in: P. Jackson, The
Transformations of Helen: Indo-European Myth and the Roots of the Trojan Cycle,
Dettelbach, 2006, 34-39; Ling, 'A Relief from Duke Street', 8-9. Zeus is given as Helen’s
father, in the passages discussed, plus: Hom. Il. 3.199, 418, 426; Od. 4.184, 219; 23.218. Cf. Σ
on Pind. Nem. 10.150a which quotes Hesiod as saying Helen’s mother was neither Nemesis
nor Leda but Okeanos: Hes. F21.
481
Eur. Hel. 16-22, 257-259; Iph. 49-51, 794-800.
482
Hdt. 6.61; Paus. 3.7.7.
483
Cf: OCD3 837 s.v. Leda; Arafat, Classical Zeus, 58, no. 96.
484
Isok. 10.59.
485
Philodem., De Piet. B 7369: ὥσ[π]ε[ρ (or, ὡς δὲ) [Λή]δας ἐρασθεὶς [ἐγ]ένετο κύνος; PEG,
Kypria F10; however, because of its fragmented state, instead of ὥσ[π]ε[ρ (Crönert) others
have restored ὥς δὲ, but the meaning is roughly the same; see apparatus on p. 51 in PEG.
~107~
The Archaic Era
unknown author as Stasinos, and seems to find spatial variations in myth

implausible, his jibes are dismissed.486 Similarly his statement that Leda’s role
in this version of the myth was not known in any source before Kratinos
clearly ignores the evidence of a fragmented verse by seventh century
Sappho:487
φαῖσι δή ποτα Λήδαν ὐακίνθινον ... ὤιον εὔρην πεπυκάδμενον ...
they say that Leda once found an egg of hyacinth colour, covered
…
The egg Leda finds is confidently, although not positively, assumed to be the
one from which Helen hatched. The fragment imparts an essential additional
piece of information – the colour of the egg. Swan and goose eggs are white or
cream with just one exception – Cygnus Olor or the Mute Swan,488 which lays
bluish/greenish/greyish coloured eggs, which poetical could be called,
hyacinth.489 The identification of Nemesis as a Mute Swan adds poignancy to
the myth since in this form she cannot cry out at her moment of greatest
humiliation and degradation, but can only internalize her distress along with
the aidōs and nemesis mentioned by Athenaios.
The Kypria records that Nemesis shape-shifted into several creatures in her
attempt to escape Zeus.490 First various sea-creatures, yet still she was
pursued; next, land-creatures, which was similarly futile; and, finally a creature
of the sky – a swan. Her shape-shifting had drawn her closer and closer to the
gods on Olympus – sea, land and sky – yet there was no help for her there and
her tactical manoeuvres proved no barrier to Zeus. Nemesis’ ultimate choice
of a swan was unwise: not only was this a bird whose long, sensual, and
invitingly strokable neck hints at a phallic analogy, but the bird was also an
486
G. Norwood, Greek Comedy, London, 1931, 124.
487
Sapph. F166.
488
Further information is found in: W. G. Arnott, Birds in the Ancient World from A-Z,
Oxford, 2007, kyknos 182-184, chen and derivatives (goose) 49-50; D. W. Thompson, A
Glossary of Greek Birds, London, 1936, κύκνος 104-108, χήν 193-195. The Mute Swan,
Cygnus Olor, has breeding grounds in Greece particularly in northern Greece: Arnott, Birds in
the Ancient World from A-Z, 182; J. Pollard, Birds in Greek Life and Myth, London, 1977, 64.
Mute swans are not totally mute, they are just far more silent than other categories of swans.
489
E. J. Sidell, A Methodology for the Identification of Archaeological Eggshells, vol. 10
Supplement, Philadelphia, 1993, 18.
490
Athen. 8.334d; PEG, Kypria F9; EGF, Kypria F7; West, Kypria F10.
~108~
The Archaic Era
attribute of Aphrodite, and as such Nemesis had innocently placed herself in

Aphrodite’s control (the iconography frequently depicts Aphrodite and her
swan (or goose) attribute, for example the kylix in figure 11.)491
Figure 11: Aphrodite riding one of her attributes, the goose or swan; Athenian white-ground kylix;
ca. 460; BM 1864,1007.77 (source: museum).
Nemesis was doomed. Now under the manipulative power of Aphrodite there
would be no escape for Nemesis: Zeus would violate her in order to produce a
fatally beautiful daughter for the furtherment of his plan. As his tool Helen,
the produce of this union, would be manipulated to punish humanity for its
impiety and its excessive breeding by bringing their numbers to within proper
limits through violent warfare, while her mother Nemesis, now Divine
Retribution, would henceforth punish excesses wherever found to restore
natural order and balance on the earth.
491
Attributed to the Pistoxenos Painter: ARV2 862.22, 1672; LIMC ii Aphrodite 916 (A.
Delivorrias); Beazley Archive no. 211350; Para. 425; M. Robertson, The Art of Vase-Painting
in Classical Athens, Cambridge, 1992, 159, fig. 166; Boardman, Athenian Red-Figure Vases:
The Classical Period, 38, no. 3, fig. 67; P. Mingazzini, Greek Pottery Painting, trans. F. B.
Sear, London, 1969, 96-97, fig. 39; Pfuhl, Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting, 56,
fig. 70; Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen, fig. 498.
~109~
The Archaic Era
Through the aidōs and nemesis suffered by Nemesis as a white Mute Swan, an
analogy can be drawn with Hesiod’s account of how, when mankind has
become so debauched and so evil with no regard for aidōs and nemesis that
these personified forces will leave the earth ‘covering their beautiful skin with
white mantles’ to join the gods on Olympos.492 The ‘white mantles (λευκοῖσιν
φάρεσσι) mentioned by Hesiod suggest the white feathers of Nemesis’
poignant Mute Swan and a symbol of her innocence.493
With one part of his plan secured, Zeus, with the co-operation of Aphrodite,
moved on to the next step, the judgement of Paris as told in the Kypria.
Aphrodite and ‘The Judgement of Paris’

Another of Nyx’s offspring destined to play a part in Zeus’ plan was Eris, or
Strife. It was Eris, according to Kypria Arg. 1 and other fragmentary texts
such as P.Oxy. LVI 3829 who,494 in a fit of pique, threw an apple into the
crowd at the banquet of the wedding of Peleus and Thetis because she had not
been invited.495 The apple she threw was inscribed: τῇ καλλίστῃ (‘for the
fairest’), and of the wedding guests Hera, Athena and Aphrodite, each thought
such a trophy should be her exclusive property as testament to her personal
beauty. Eris’ ‘apple of Discord’ (μῆλον τῆς Ἔριδος) was to spark a vanity-
fuelled scene between the three goddesses and would prove to be the catalyst
that initiated a series of unstoppable events that culminated in the Trojan War.
In order to calm the inflamed situation Zeus instructed Hermes to escort the
squabbling goddesses to Paris and for him to judge the one worthy of the
apple. Upon their arrival the goddesses each offered Paris inducements, or
bribes: Hera offered kingship over all, and Athena offered victory in war, both
of which amounted to the previously discussed prized qualities of the Homeric
492
Hes. WD 197-200.
493
Nemesis as a swan and her emotions of nemesis and aidōs led Harrison to interpret Hes.
WD 198 as the personified goddesses, Aidōs and Nemesis, departing the earth as birds: ‘their
fair flesh hidden in white and feathery raiment, to the kingdom of the deathless ones – the
birds’: Harrison, Themis, 116; cf. Eur. Rh. 618: ‘and near him his white horses are tethered to
his Thracian chariot, easy to see in the darkness; they shine like the plumage of a river swan’.
494
M. G. Sirivianou (ed.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. LVI76, London, 1989, 31-36; cf. L.
Käppel, 'P.Oxy. 56, 3829,' in Catalogue of Paraliterary Papyri, Research Unit Greek Studies,
K.U. Leuven, 1989, cat. 043.
495
Hyginus Fab. 92; Apollod. Ep. 3.2.
~110~
The Archaic Era
Bronze Age hero, namely aretē, time and kleos. Yet Paris, in a decision which
reveals the weakness of his character, went with his baser emotion of lust and
chose Aphrodite’s gift of Helen.496 The word γάμος used here (Ἀφροδίτη δὲ
γάμον Ἑλένης)497 is commonly translated as ‘marriage’ but can also be
rendered as ‘rape’.498 Since Helen was given no choice as to whether she
wanted to be a ‘gift’, I believe ‘rape’ is the more fitting interpretation. A
closer reading of following passage from the Kypria confirms this reading: καὶ
προκρίνει τὴν Ἀφροδίτην ἐπαρθεὶς τοῖς Ἑλένης γάμοις Ἀλέξανδρος (West
translates the passage as: ‘Alexander, excited by the prospect of union with
Helen, chooses Aphrodite’).499 But, as the aorist passive participle of the verb
ἐπαίρω, ἐπαρθεὶς can also read ‘to be roused’, ‘swell up’, in which case Paris
was physically and sexually aroused at the prospect of γάμος with Helen.500
The debate over whether Helen went willingly with Paris or was forcibly
abducted has no clear consensus.501 The literary and artistic evidence argues
for both sides. Homer’s Nestor implies she was forced: ‘so let no-one make
haste to return home, until he has slept with the wife of some Trojan, and has
avenged Helen’s struggles and her groanings (στοναχάς)’;502 but, Sappho has
496
That Paris was driven by lust is evident in the words he uses when speaking to Helen at
Hom. Il. 3.445: φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ. In Homer this phrase is invariably used to indicate strong
sexual desire: Hom. Il. 6.25, Od. 23.219; cf. Il. 2.232, 13.636, 14.207, 237, 353, Od. 8.313.
Cf. my comments on the word φιλότης at p. 103 n. 465 where I translate the word as
‘copulation’ or ‘fornication’ as better suited in the context of Nemesis’ rape, and which is
better suited in the passage above. His was not ‘love’ or ‘fondness’ for Helen, it was lust for
fornication with a beautifully desirable woman.
497
Apollod. Ep. 3.2; West, Kypria Arg. 1.
498
LSJ9 337, col. 2, s.v. γάμος, 337, col. 1, s.v. γαμέω, suppl. 74, col. 2, s.v. γαμέω.
499
West, Kypria Arg. 1.
500
LSJ9 604, col. 1, s.v. ἐπαίρω.
501
An abduction is suggested by: Hom. Il. 3.443-444: οὐδ’ ὅτε σε πρῶτον Λακεδαίμονος ἐξ
ἐρατεινῆς ἔπλεον ἁρπάξας ἐν ποντοπόροισι νέεσσι (‘not even when I snatched you from lovely
Lacedaemon and sailed with you on my seafaring ships’); West Kypria F19: ‘When Alexander
stole (ἁρπάσαντος) Helen’; Hdt. 2.113 (Ἀλέξανδρον ἁρπάσαντα Ἑλένην ἐκ Σπάρτης), 5.94
(Ἑλένης ἁρπαγάς); The underlined words are derivatives of ἁρπάξω: LSJ9 246, col. 1, Suppl.
51, col. 2, s.v. ἅρπαξ (ἁρπάξω), ‘robbing’ ‘rapacious’ ‘take away’; Cunliffe 56, col. 1 s.v.
ἁρπάξω, ‘to snatch up or away’; R. Blondell, '“Bitch that I Am”: Self-Blame and Self-
Assertion in the Iliad ' TAPA 140, 2010, 2-3. Or, that she went of her own accord: Alk. FF42,
283.
502
Hom. Il. 2.354-356: τῶ μή τις πρὶν ἐπειγέσθω οἶκόνδε νέεσθαι, πρίν τινα πὰρ Τρώων ἀλόχῳ
κατακοιμηθῆναι, τίσασθαι δ’ Ἑλένης ὁρμήματά τε στοναχάς τε. (Translation: author.) The
noun στοναχάς is feminine, accusative, plural indicating Helen’s ‘groanings’. But, Murray
interprets a masculine noun and shifts the struggles and groanings from Helen to the Achaians
and translates: ‘so let no man make haste to depart homewards until each has lain with the wife
~111~
The Archaic Era
her going willingly: ‘Helen, left her most noble husband and went sailing off to
Troy with no thought at all for her child or dear parents, but (love) led her
astray’.503
The irony for Paris was that this prize for whom he lusted, once won, soon
began to view him with contempt and nemesis (blame/reproach) upon realizing
his character was devoid of those manly characteristics of aretē, time or kleos,
the scorned gifts offered by Hera and Athena. Homer explicitly illustrates
Helen’s distain for Paris in her words: ‘I wish that I had been the wife of a
better man, who could perceive the nemesis and the many revilings of men’.504
Similarly: ‘You have come back from the war; I wish you had died there,
vanquished by a mighty man who was my former husband’. 505 So Paris’
beautiful prize came to despise him, and he, for his wanton behaviour, which
lacked aidōs and nemesis, in taking the wife of another would be the cause of
the utter destruction of himself, his family, his people, and his city, and so
Zeus’ plan triumphs.506
CONCLUSION
The abstract concept of nemesis in this Archaic period was a sense of
indignation covering a range of emotional strengths, from mild resentment to
extreme anger. It was an emotion felt by the witnesses of shameful behaviour
towards those who carried out such deeds, but it could also be an internal
emotion felt by the protagonist; thus it could be experienced objectively or
subjectively. The nemesis felt by the witness or protagonist did not necessarily
manifest itself in retributive punishment since the punishment primarily lay in
the personal shame or blame incurred. Such shame that would arise from
behaviour warranting an invocation of nemesis was meant, together with a
sense of aidōs, to be the decisive factors which would prevent any nemesis
of some Trojan, and has got requital for his strivings and groanings over Helen’. LSJ9 1650,
col. 1, s.v. στοναχή, ‘groan’ ‘sigh’.
503
Sapph. F16.
504
Hom. Il. 6.350-351: ἀνδρὸς ἔπειτ’ ὤφελλον ἀμείνονος εἶναι ἄκοιτις, ὃς ᾔδη νέμεσίν τε καὶ
αἴσχεα πόλλ’ ἀνθρώπων.
505
Hom. Il. 3.428-429: ἤλυθες ἐκ πολέμου· ὡς ὤφελες αὐτόθ’ ὀλέσθαι, ἀνδρὶ δαμεὶς κρατερῷ,
ὃς ἐμὸς πρότερος πόσις ἦεν.
506
Troy’s end is in found in another of the ‘Epic Cycle’ texts: West, Iliou Persis, Arg. 2-4.
~112~
The Archaic Era
inducing behaviour or the committing of an action which would result in

nemesis. Those individuals who did not fear the potential shame, and thus an
invocation of nemesis, being brought about through their actions, for example
Paris and Penelope’s suitors, continued to act as they desired. Ultimately, the
result of their consciously enacted reprehensible deeds was their destruction by
those who acted as agents of the gods, for example Odysseus’ action in killing
the suitors.
This chapter has also introduced an additional, and original, interpretation of

the abstract nemesis in the episode involving Thersites, where I have argued
Homer has transformed the abstract into the embodiment of the concept as
experienced by the Achaean soldiers. This is an original interpretation of the
Homeric material, and one made from a close reading of the Greek text
together with an analysis of the grammatical structure of the word within both
its sentence and its context. Homeric nemesis is not a personified concept, as
many other abstract concepts are, but in this Thersites’ sketch Homer comes
close, perhaps a halfway measure, to such personification.
In many instances the threat of an invocation of nemesis against another would

be heeded, for example the threat made by Poseidon and Apollo towards their
philoi if they did not rouse themselves. Yet, if the unconscionable behaviour
continued despite a threat of nemesis it seems the threat was not necessarily
executed and the perpetrator remained unpunished. This scenario is evident in
Achilles’ prolonged abuse of Hektor’s body beyond an acceptable time frame,
and although the gods threatened a collective shaming or blaming (nemesis) if
he did not stop abusing the body, Achilles persisted and the gods’ threat
remained unfulfilled. In the first two examples it was the god whose pride was
at risk through the behaviour of his philoi, but in the Achilles’ episode the gods
were making a threat based on their observance of human moral behaviour, so
that what was emerging in this latter example was the genesis of a divine
judgement on mortals, an aspect which evolves further in the Classical period.
A new dimension to the abstract concept is added with Hesiod’s

personification and deification of the emotion into the goddess Nemesis, but
who will, together with deified Aidōs, leave mankind to its own devices when
~113~
The Archaic Era
it has become so evil that it no longer takes heed of the moral abstracts they
embody. Later, in the Kyprian mythology the goddess becomes ‘Nemesis as
Divine Retribution’ as a consequence of the intense emotional force that
generated within her during her violation by Zeus, and she now takes on the
role of a moral judge and a punisher of consciously enacted human iniquities,
and punishes excesses wherever found to restore natural order and balance on
the earth, to restore themis. Helen, the daughter of that forced union, was
brought about as a mortal embodiment of her mother’s retributive quality and
Zeus’ plan for humanity, and although she is one of the major agents in the
destruction of Troy, she does not suffer any consequential nemesis for her
complicity in starting a war that killed many, because she was an innocent tool.
Helen was merely the passive agent of Zeus’ plan, suggested to him by the
goddess Themis as a means to bring about the death of thousands at Troy, to
reduce the world’s population, and to punish mankind for its impiety to the
gods and to lessen the burden upon Earth.
~114~
CHAPTER 3: THE CLASSICAL
EVIDENCE
Ἐλπίδα καὶ Νέμεσιν Εὔνους παρὰ βωμὸν ἔτευξα, τὴν μὲν, ἵν᾽
ἐλπίζῃς: τὴν δ᾽, ἵνα μηδὲν ἔχῃς.
Eunus made [statues of] Hope and Nemesis by an altar: the one,
so that you might have hope; the other that you might have none.
Anonymous1
The majority of the discussion in this chapter revolves around the literary
evidence, but I commence with an in-depth discussion of an image painted
onto a fifth-century red-figure pointed amphoriskos, which hints at future
retribution. The significance of this particular amphoriskos, and why it is
deserving of its prominent position at the commencement of the chapter, is
because its imagery provides another rare link between Nemesis of the Archaic
Kypria and Nemesis of the Classical era.2 An additional unique feature lies in
the fact that, with the exception of Nemesis’ statue and sculptured base at
Rhamnous, the scene depicts the only known painted representation of not only
Nemesis but also Nemesis with Helen, her mythological daughter.
Consequently, the artist’s skill draws together chronological facets of the
goddess: Nemesis in the Archaic literature, Nemesis in the Classical literature,
and Nemesis in the archaeology of various eras at Rhamnous, topics which are
discussed in this and the next chapter. I also include in this chapter a
discussion on the possibility of two further representations of Paris’ seduction
of Helen as told by the Archaic Kypria painted onto two ca. 450-410 Attic red-
figured egg-shaped vessels known as ôons.
The Classical literature introduces a chthonic aspect to Nemesis, which is seen

through the lens of her traditional role amongst the living as a restorer of
balance, the upholder of principles of themis, the punisher of those who
violated these principles, and the chastiser of blame-worthy acts emanating
1
Anth. Gr. 9.46. Translation: author.
2
One other is the scene on the kylix discussed above pp. 97-99.
~ 115 ~
The Classical Era
from a lack of respect for aidōs. In this light, I argue that perpetrators who had
wronged the dead should expect Nemesis to restore balance by enacting
punishment on their behalf since they cannot, and their righteous cause is now
under divine guardianship. Although there are compelling indications of a
connection between Nemesis and death in the archaeology of the seventh and
sixth centuries, to be discussed in the following chapter, the earliest known
literary evidence is found in the fifth-century tragedians.
Comedy is a surprising genre in which to find Nemesis, given her reputation

for retribution and punishment. Yet, in Kratinos’ play Nemesis she is the
subject of sexual ribald where the playwright turns her Kyprian mythology into
a parody full of satirical mockery and sexual innuendo. Although the play is
not intact, the fragments are able to impart, with some certainty, that the main
protagonists were the politician of the day, Perikles, and his courtesan,
Aspasia. The play’s humour revolves around Perikles as seducer
extraordinaire, and in this role he is portrayed as Zeus with his reputation for
paramours. The play imparts political humour in the form of mythological
comedy and is set at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War where it revisits
the rape of Nemesis and the birth of Helen as told in the Kypria. The myth is
recast to give Perikles a double identity with Zeus where he is mocked and
ridiculed throughout the play. Whether it was Aspasia who was given a double
identity with Nemesis is not clear, especially since she is far from a victim of
Perikles’ advances. Kratinos expertly adapted the more serious traditional
mythology by turning it into a play lampooning the current political events of
his day; an indication the myths were being taken more light-heartedly.
Herodotos is the only known fifth-century historical writer to use the abstract
concept nemesis, albeit just once. Its sole use is in the story he tells of Kroisos
and where it implies a hybris/nemesis dichotomy as cause and effect. It is
interesting to speculate why Herodotos limited himself to just this one use of
the abstract, especially since it has been claimed that an unspoken nemesis is
everywhere implicit in his work. If accepting this point it can be further
argued that besides the importance of Herodotos’ Histories as an historical
treatise it also works as a didactic tool for future generations to learn from the
~116~
The Classical Era
mistakes of their forebears for fear of nemesis or retribution. Since this is a

huge subject in itself I have limited my discussion in this thesis to the
abstract’s sole use in the narrative concerning Kroisos, and to the story of
Polykrates which is sometimes quoted as an example of an implicit nemesis.
These four genres illustrate N/nemesis of this period, chosen because they link
some of the strongest motivating emotional forces: persuasion, death, sex, and
prosperity.
NEMESIS, HELEN, AND PERSUASION

The Berlin Amphoriskos
The ca. 430 red-figured pointed amphoriskos in figure 12 stands eighteen
centimetres high, and is important for its unique pictorial image of the
mythology surrounding Nemesis and her relationship with her daughter
Helen.3 Although, Helen, Paris, and Trojan war themes were popular with
3
ARV2 1173,1; Para. 459; Add.2 339; Beazley Archive no. 215552; LIMC i Alexandros 45 (R.
Hampe); LIMC ii Aphrodite 1260, 1449 (A. Delivorrias); LIMC iv Heimarmene 1 (L. Kahil);
LIMC iv Helene 140 (L. Kahil/N. Icard); LIMC v Himeros 2 (A Hermary); LIMC vi Nemesis
211 (P. Karanastassi); LIMC vii Peitho 4 (N. Icard-Gianolio); EAA iii, 1133; Schwarzmaier,
'Wo ist Heimarmene?', 15-41; Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, 154
VP 16, fig.4.2; Neer, The Emergence of the Classical Style in Greek Sculpture, 167, fig. 108;
A. Dipla, 'Eros the mediator: Persuasion and seduction in pursuit, courting and wedding
scenes,' MAA 6, no. 2, 2006, 23, fig. 5; H. A. Shapiro, 'The Judgment of Helen in Athenian
Art,' in J. M. Barringer & J. M. Hurwit (eds), Periklean Athens and its Legacy: Problems and
Perspectives, Austin, 2005, 50-52, figs. 5.7-11; A. C. Smith, 'The Politics of Weddings at
Athens: an iconographic assessment,' Leeds International Classics Studies 4, no. 1, 2005, 14,
16, fig. 12; R. Rosenzweig, Worshipping Aphrodite: Art and Cult in Classical Athens, 2004,
20-21, fig. 7; Woodford, Images of Myths in Classical Antiquity, 172 fig. 133; B. E. Borg, Der
Logos des Mythos: Allegorien und Personifikationen in der Frühen griechischen Kunst,
München, 2002, 217, fig. 77; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 90-91, 134, fig. 9; B.
Knittlmayer, 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis von Rhamnous am Beginn des
peloponnesischen Krieges,' JDAI 114, 1999, 10-11, n. 48; R. F. Sutton, Jr., 'Nuptial Eros: The
Visual Discourse of Marriage in Classical Athens,' JWAG 55/56, 1997/1998, 38, fig. 19a-b; E.
Stafford, 'A Wedding Scene? Notes on Akropolis 6471,' JHS 117, 1997, pl. IV; Shapiro,
Personifications in Greek Art, 112, 174, 192-195, 228, 260 no. 129, figs. 151-154, 186;
Robertson, The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens, 246-247, figs. 252-253; K. D. S.
Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base,'
Hesperia 61, no. 1, 1992, 116-117, pl. 28c; Boardman, Athenian Red-Figure Vases: The
Classical Period, fig. 308; Schefold & Jung, Die Sagen von den Argonauten von Theben und
Troia in der klassischen und hellenistische Kunst, 120, fig. 98bis; J. Reilly, 'Many Brides:
"Mistress and Maid" on Athenian Lekythoi,' Hesperia 58, no. 4, 1989, 418 no.37; A. Lezzi-
Hafter, Der Eretria-Maler, Werke und Weggefährten, Mainz, 1988, 239, fig. 82c, no. 251; H.
A. Shapiro, Personification of Abstract Concepts in Greek Art and Literature to the end of the
Fifth Century B.C., Michigan, 1977, 168-171; P. Amandry, 'Review: Les Enlèvements et le
retour d'Hélène, Lilly B. Ghali-Kahil,' AJA 62, no. 3, 1958, 336; L. B. Ghali-Kahil, Les
Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène dans les textes et les documents figurés, Paris, 1955, pl. 8.2-
~117~
The Classical Era
Classical era artists, the scene illustrated here has no known close parallel,
which has led Stafford, Shapiro and others to suggest the artist was copying
from an earlier, now lost, image, possibly a large wall or panel painting. 4 The
attributed artist is ‘the Heimarmene painter’ and for reasons which will become
clear Ghali-Kahil has aptly described the scene as ‘La Persuasion d’Hélène’.5
Figure 12: ‘The Persuasion of Helen’; red-figure

amphoriskos; ca. fifth century; Berlin
Antikensammlung inv. 30036; (source: museum)
3; U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 'Lesefrüchte,' Hermes 64, no. 4, 1929, 485-486;

Furtwängler & Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, pl. 170, 2 and iii, 313. Not in Pfuhl.
4
E. Stafford, 'Plutarch on Persuasion,' in S. Pomeroy (ed.), Plutarch's Advice to the Bride and
Groom, and a Consolation to his Wife, New York, 1999, 165; H. A. Shapiro, 'Origins of
Allegory in Greek Art,' Boreas 9, 1986, 9-10; H. Froning, Marmorschmuckreliefs mit
griechischen Mythen im I. Jh. v. Chr., Mainz, 1981, 66.
5
Ghali-Kahil, Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène, 59-61.
~118~
The Classical Era
The scene has been expertly

executed and through the genius of
the artist the full intensity of the
emotional passions at play are still
clearly visible. The composition of
the scene expansively and
imaginatively develops upon the
epic story as found in the Kypria,
with the representation of Nemesis
and Helen confirming a
contemporaneous belief in the
legitimacy of the epic tradition of
Nemesis as Helen’s true mother.6
Figure 12a: Nemesis pointing an accusing
figure towards Helen (out of view).
Although the names of Helen and
Paris are not inscribed or are lost, the milieu of the scene is so assuredly that of
Helen being persuaded by Aphrodite with Paris in attendance that their
identification is secure. Of the inscribed names [ΝΕ]ΜΕΣΙΣ is confirmed, as
is ΠΕ[Ι]ΘΩ (Peitho), ΑΦΡΟΔ[ΙΤΕ] (Aphrodite), ΙΜΕ[ΡΟΣ] (Himeros) and
until recently ΕΙΜΑΡΜ[ΕΝΕ] (Heimarmene), with Schwarzmaier’s study
throwing doubt on this last name.7 This leaves two unknown female figures.
In figures 12 and 12a Nemesis stands with one of these females. Her name,
although it once existed, now consists of negligible fragments (visible only
with specialist equipment), an apparently restored Greek Υ (upsilon) and a
possible Ẹ (epsilon). Zahn, who saw the amphoriskos in the late 1920s was
undecided even on the Ẹ since it was: ‘ein undeuticher Rest’ (a vague
remainder).8 This provisional identification has encouraged Shapiro, Beazley,
Wiliamowitz, and others to restore the name as [Τ]Υ[Χ]Ẹ,9 goddess of
6
This statement holds true for Attic Greeks but Lakedaimonian Greeks believed in the later
tradition of Leda, husband of the mythical Spartan king Tyndareos, as Helen’s mother.
7
Schwarzmaier, 'Wo ist Heimarmene?', 26, 28.
8
R. Zahn in: Furtwängler & Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, iii, 313.
9
Shapiro, 'The Judgment of Helen in Athenian Art,' 51; Rosenzweig, Worshipping Aphrodite,
20; Shapiro, Personifications in Greek Art, 194; Shapiro, 'Origins of Allegory in Greek Art',
12; cf. R. G. A. Buxton, Persuasion in Greek Tragedy: A Study of Peitho, Cambridge, 1982,
202, no. 63; Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 'Lesefrüchte', 485-486.
~119~
The Classical Era
Fortune, with Neumann suggesting [E]Y[TYXIA] (Good Fortune).10 Shapiro

discusses the possibility of Eutychia but ultimately decides on Tyche as the
most likely candidate.11 The precedent of a link between Tyche and Nemesis
on an altar inscription from Olympia of ca. the same date, which reads12:
Τύχας [Νεμ]έσεος (for Tyche Nemesis), possibly adds support to an
identification of Tyche in this instance, although the connection is tenuous
given the altar inscription is the only verified artistic evidence for the two
goddesses as a complementary pair. Conversely, the scarcity of
representations of Tyche on Attic vases (Shapiro notes only one)13 inclines
Smith to view Tyche as unlikely, whereas [Ε]Υ[ΚΛ]E[ΙΑ] (Good Repute) is,
in her opinion, more feasible, especially since Helen is on the point of
forsaking her ‘good repute’.14 Indeed, Shapiro speaks of Helen's recklessness
with her ‘good repute’, because she had ‘trampled most heavily this very
virtue’.15 Puzzlingly, Smith’s restoration is not consistent throughout her
book: after first suggesting the letters be restored as [Ε]Υ[ΚΛ]E[ΙΑ] with two
intervening letters between the remaining fragments, she later writes the name
as [Ε]ΥΚ[ΛEΙΑ] by restoring a kappa immediately after the upsilon, and
leaving the possible Ẹ unrestored.16 Ghali-Kahil suggests the female may be
[Ο]Υ[ΠΙΣ], a later epithet of Nemesis dating to the Roman Imperial era, which
does not fit chronologically with the amphoriskos.17 Since the letter fragments
are not visible to the naked eye, I have included a specialist photograph (figure
13a) to show the supposed Υ and the possible Ẹ.
10
G. Neumann, Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst, Berlin, 1965, 21-23.
11
Shapiro, 'Origins of Allegory in Greek Art', 12.
12
IG iv2, 1 311; Peek, Asklepieion 134. This inscription is discussed below, pp. 148-149.
13
An unpublished lekythos viewed by G. Körte in the nineteenth century, Shapiro, 'Origins of
Allegory in Greek Art', 12, n. 51.
14
Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, 44-45, 72, 154 VP 16; A. C.
Smith, Political Personifications in Classical Athenian Art, Dissertation, Yale University
Press, New Haven, 1997, 72 and 296.
15
Shapiro, Personifications in Greek Art, 77.
16
Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, 45, 154 VP 16.
17
Ghali-Kahil, Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène, 60; for a conjectural dating of Nemesis-
Oupis see Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 7, 80, 240.
~120~
The Classical Era
Figure 13a and b: Enhanced photography of the remaining letter forms belonging to the name of
the female who stands next to Nemesis (source: Schwarzmaier).
Letter fragment of a Letter fragment of a

restored upsilon. possible epsilon or tau.
Example of the letter spacing: ΜΕΣΙ

from Nemesis’ name.
Schwarzmaier’s recent microscopic study of the amphoriskos concludes, from

the wide-spaced letters labelling the other figures, that the second letter
fragment would have followed immediately after the restored upsilon.18 This
wide spacing is evident in the letters of other figures including the ΜΕΣΙ of
Nemesis’ name in figure 13b (note the traces of the unusual sigma).
Schwarzmaier further argues the second letter fragment belonging to the
unknown female is a tau, and not the previously presumed epsilon, and she
18
Schwarzmaier, 'Wo ist Heimarmene?', 26.
~121~
The Classical Era
identifies the figure as [Ε]ΥΤ[ΥΧΙΑ], a suggestion first posited by Neumann.19

In this case the fragmented Τ, perhaps originally similar to the one labelled 2
or S2 from Immerwahr’s chart below,20 is truncated to ᴦ after having lost the
left hand side of the cross stroke and possibly half of its down stroke.
tau
With all these suggestions in mind and by studying the remaining letter forms,
are there any other possibilities? It would not be unreasonable to identify her
as Λήδα (ΛΗΔΑ), Helen’s adoptive mother, especially in view of her role in
introducing Helen to her real mother, Nemesis: a subject sculpted on Nemesis’
statue base at Rhamnous, discussed in detail in the Archaeology chapter
below.21 Since Leda’s name clearly starts with a lambda she would seem
disqualified by the apparently restored upsilon as the first or second letter of
the fragmented name. Yet, the remains of the two surviving letters under
consideration are so fragmented that what has been interpreted as an upsilon
could be the remains of an Attic lambda, such as that labelled 2 or S4 below,
which are very similar in shape to the upsilon labelled 3, S2, S3 or S5.
lambda
upsilon
Even assuming a lambda as the initial letter, does an eta work as the next letter
fragment? This is certainly plausible since the letters were widely spaced, and
the obliterated strokes of the fragment have resulted in eta being reduced from
19
Schwarzmaier, 'Wo ist Heimarmene?', 26; Neumann, Gesten und Gebärden in der
griechischen Kunst, 21-23.
20
All the following Greek lettering examples are found in Immerwahr. The amphoriskos is not
discussed by him, but see his comments regarding the commonality of the lambda form at
number 2 on Attic vases: H. R. Immerwahr, Attic Script: A Survey, Oxford, 1990, 147-149.
21
Below, pp. 247-260.
~122~
The Classical Era
H to ᴦ with the loss of the second upright and the top of the first resulting in a
shape which roughly corresponds to the letter in figure 13a. In addition,
because of the shape similarity between eta and epsilon it is easy to account for
the presumption of epsilon by Shapiro and others, i.e. a restoration of E from ᴦ
especially when compared to some of the variants in the epsilon chart below.
eta
epsilon
theta
Alternatively, it is observed in figure 13a that the first of the visible letters
under discussion may flatten out slightly on the bottom in a curve, which could
indicate the letter was not lambda nor even upsilon but another letter
altogether, possibly the bottom remnant of a letter such as theta. If correct,
then Nemesis’ companion could credibly have originally been either ΘΕΜΙΣ
the personification of divine law, or ΘΕΤΙΣ the mother of the hero Achilles.
Either of these two goddesses could have a place in a scene concerning the
‘persuasion of Helen’: Themis as the goddess with whom Zeus originally
plotted to bring about his plan and who appropriately shares a sanctuary with
Nemesis at Rhamnous; or Thetis, the mother of Achilles who was, together
with Helen, a pivotal tool in the fulfilment of Zeus’ plan for mankind’s
punishment, discussed previously.22 If either of these readings is correct then
the second letter would correctly be identified as the epsilon restored by
Shapiro and others. While none of these suggestions may be correct, and
others could similarly be postulated, I present these alternatives from a close
22
Above pp. 100-102.
~123~
The Classical Era
study of the epigraphy to demonstrate that the diverse identification options are
wider than has previously been argued.
What is incontrovertible is that these two goddesses, Nemesis and her

companion, are a unique and remarkable pair, with Nemesis in particular
striking an arresting and fascinating pose. She stands with one hand on her
companion’s shoulder, while her right arm and hand stretch forward as she
points in a intensely reproachful and forceful fashion. The forward thrust of
her body intimates the vehemence of the emotions which pulsate within her.
Her body language speaks of her passion, and despite the age of the
amphoriskos her facial expression exhibiting anger can be clearly read: the
pupil of her visible eye is fully dilated with intense emotion and one can see
aggression, anger, and blame in her face as she stares widely and glaringly
towards the object of her wrath. There is little doubt that Nemesis exudes
nemesis towards the object of her wrathful indignation, both in the form of the
Homeric ‘blame’ or ‘indignation’, as well as what is by this time the ‘divine
retribution’ which will surely follow as a consequence of the actions being
played out on the other side of the amphoriskos. Of all the figures depicted,
that of Nemesis is the most dramatic,
vital, and emotionally charged. Stafford
interprets the scene allegorically, with
Nemesis pointing towards the future
retribution that will be brought to bear
against the Persians for their audacity in
attempting to steal property that belongs
to Greeks.23
What has so inflamed Nemesis is the

sight of her daughter Helen sitting
pensively on the lap of Aphrodite whilst
Figure 12b: Helen sitting on the lap of calmly contemplating taking the
Aphrodite with Peitho in attentance.
irrevocable step of committing adultery
23
E. Stafford, 'Tibullus' Nemesis: Divine Retribution and the Poet,' in J. Booth & R. Maltby
(eds), What's in a Name? The Significance of Proper Names in Classical Latin literature,
Swansea, 2006, 41.
~124~
The Classical Era
and abandoning her husband and infant child (figure 12b).24 Aphrodite has her
arm around Helen’s shoulders in a somewhat supportive and confiding fashion
as she gazes fixedly at Helen.25 Nearby and slightly behind Helen stands an
attentive Peitho (Persuasion),26 ready to give her own persuasive support.
Peitho holds a small box in her hand, identified by Stafford as a bridal gift-
chest,27 or possibly a bride’s wedding toilet-basket,28 both of which are fitting
in a pre-wedding scene.
In contrast to the tradition of Helen being abducted by Paris, this is no

abduction scene: Peitho’s presence and the tenderness being portrayed bears
this out. Helen, although she may have doubts about the moral ethicacy of the
course of action on which she is about to embark, is having her fears gently put
aside through the persuasive and coercive powers of Aphrodite and Peitho.
Yet, while there may be no abduction neither is there free will, for where
Aphrodite is concerned there is never freedom of choice. So, despite any
misgivings Helen will be persuaded to elope with Paris and thereby
unwittingly initiate a series of unstoppable events that will culminate in the
24
Conversely, Wiliamowitz’s interpretation does not include Nemesis as the wrathful mother
who is pointing in an accusatory manner towards her daughter, but simply as personified
Vengeance who is indicating that the crime about to be committed by Helen and Paris will be
punished in the future, just as it would be for anyone committing a similar crime. In this
context Wiliamowitz describes Nemesis as: ‘die strafende Vergeltung der Entführung’ (the
punishing Vengeance of abduction). Buxton agrees with Wiliamowitz’ interpretation, but
Ghali-Kahil correctly has Nemesis acting purely as Helen’s mother: Wilamowitz-
Moellendorff, 'Lesefrüchte', 485; Buxton, Persuasion in Greek Tragedy: A Study of Peitho, n.
63, 202; Ghali-Kahil, Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène, 59-61, pl. VIII, 2-3.
25
For a discussion on lap-sitting as a motif, see: Robertson, The Art of Vase-Painting in
Classical Athens, 237, n. 9, 239, 146-147 for Helen and Aphrodite on the amphoriskos above.
26
Aphrodite and Peitho as ‘Love’ and ‘Persuasion’ have a long association stretching back to
at least Hesiod: Hes. WD 78-79; Stafford, 'Plutarch on Persuasion,' 163-164. The two
goddesses are often together in art and literature: LIMC vii Peitho i (N. Icard-Gianolio);
Shapiro, Personifications in Greek Art, 186, n. 412; Buxton, Persuasion in Greek Tragedy: A
Study of Peitho, passim. For the role of Peitho and Aphrodite together in regards to marriage
and sex, see: Stafford, 'Plutarch on Persuasion,' 162-172. Peitho also shared an early fifth-
century temple with Aphrodite at Athens on the south-west slopes of the acropolis: Paus.
1.22.3; E. Simon, Festivals of Attica, Madison, 1983, 49-51.
27
Stafford, 'A Wedding Scene? Notes on Akropolis 6471', 200; Stafford, 'Plutarch on
Persuasion,' 166-167; see further comments on this lekythos in: Shapiro, 'Origins of Allegory
in Greek Art', 11, n. 42. Other examples include: ARV2 1175,11; LIMC ii Aphrodite 210 (A.
Delivorrias); cf. ARV2 1133.196, a pyxis by the Washing Painter ca. 420; Stafford has found
similarities in the pose, position and attendant deities on this amphoriskos with those of a later
lekythos ca. 420 from the acropolis, leading her to conclude it is another ‘persuasion of Helen’
in connection with a pre-wedding scene.
28
Reilly, 'Many Brides: "Mistress and Maid" on Athenian Lekythoi', 418, n. 37.
~125~
The Classical Era
Trojan War and the inevitability of the climatic end with the fulfilment of
Zeus’ plan for a decrease in the numbers of mankind.
But this is the future, for the present

Helen is represented in an expressive
and quietly poignant manner which
demonstrates the dilemma she faces as
she sits with downcast eyes, head bent
forward and wearing a veil such as
worn by a bride. She rests her chin on
her hand and is in deep thought; she
appears to have much on her mind and
to be struggling with her thoughts.
Aphrodite allows her to ponder her
Figure 14: Veiled and mourning woman on
an Attic grave relief; ca. 390; Metropolitan options whilst in reality she has none.
Museum of Art no. 48.11.4 (source: museum).
Enigmatically, Helen’s pose is
iconographically the same as that of a woman in mourning as seen on several
grave reliefs, for example, the strikingly similar pose of the veiled woman in
figure 14.29 As such, I see Helen’s pose as her intuitively mourning for her
future, or even the future, since she unconsciously recognizes the step she is
about to take will result in consequences that will be dire and widespread.
To the right of Aphrodite and Helen in the scene are Himeros (Sexual Desire,
Longing) inscribed ΙΜΕ[ΡΟΣ] and Paris (figure 12c).30 Himeros, along with
Peitho and Eros, is mentioned by Hesiod as a companion of Aphrodite, with all
four frequently depicted together in literature and art.31
29
For more on this artistic representation see: Neer, The Emergence of the Classical Style in
Greek Sculpture, 164-168.
30
Scenes of Himeros and Paris, and Aphrodite and Helen were popular themes. A first-
century relief in Naples (Mus. Naz. 6682) is strikingly similar, although without the inclusion
of Nemesis: here Helen and Aphrodite are seated close together with the goddess draping her
arm around Helen in what appears to be a gesture of comfort. Peitho sits above them, and the
figures of Himeros and Paris (inscribed ΑΛΕΧΑΝΔΡΟΣ) strike an almost identical pose to
their counterparts on the Berlin amphoriskos: LIMC i Alexandros 55 (R. Hampe).
31
Around the shoulder of the amphoriskos fly two Erotes; for their link with Aphrodite, see:
Sapph. F194; Pind. Eulogies F122, F128. Representations together: Hes. WD 78-79; Hes.
~126~
The Classical Era
Paris stands casually naked whilst

supporting a spear and carrying a
khlamys over his left arm with his
sword in a scabbard hanging on a strap
across his chest from his right
shoulder to his left hip. Paris’ head is
appropriately adorned with a victor’s
wreath since he has won Helen and is
about to claim his prize. Grasping
Paris’ right arm and gazing up into his
eyes is Himeros. The fixed intensity
of Himeros’ hypnotic eyes look
Figure 12c: Himeros gazing into the eyes
of Paris. mesmerizingly into those of Paris
whereby he seemingly instils an
urgent Desire and Longing for Helen into Paris. Of interest are Paris’ weapons
of war, his sword and spear; the sword is attached to a strap which hangs
across his body with the spear casually resting in the crook of his arm. His
weapons, symbols of masculine aretē, lie disregarded on the left (wrong) side
of his body whilst personified Longing and Sexual Desire is to his right,
indicative of what he holds more immediately important.32 This may also be
an artistic visual affirmation of Paris’ choice of Aphrodite’s gift of Helen over
Hera’s gift of kingship over all and Athena’s of victory in war, discussed
previously.33
Standing behind Paris and Himeros is a female figure who, with the exception
of Schwarzmaier, has been identified as Heimarmene ΕΙΜΑΡΜ[ΕΝH] (figures
12d and 13c). Schwarzmaier’s close study of the remaining letter forms has
inclined her to read them as epsilon, upsilon, kappa, lambda, epsilon, iota,
Theog. 201; Paus. 1.43.6; Sapph. F194; many in LIMC for example: Himeros v 10, 11, 13 (A.
Hermary).
32
Compare other instances of weaponry being held in the left arm or hand when the warrior’s
attention is distracted: ‘Achilles and Aias playing a board-game’: LIMC i Achilleus 394 (R.
Hampe); Vatican 344, ABV 145.13; Conservatori 6, ABV 671.3; London B211; ABV 256/14;
Woodford, Images of Myths in Classical Antiquity, 117 fig. 83L; Immerwahr, Attic Script: A
Survey, 136, fig. 29; 299, fig. 73; 309, fig. 74; 448, fig. 94; Mingazzini, Greek Pottery
Painting, 42, fig.15; Pfuhl, Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting, 26-28 and fig. 21.
33
Above, pp. 110-111.
~127~
The Classical Era
alpha, i.e. ΕΥΚΛΕΙΑ. Her interpretation should remain tentatively possible

even though her apparent epsilons, the second of which she describes as ‘ein
Klecks’ (a blob), bear little resemblance to the confirmed epsilon in Nemesis’
name in figure 13b. Despite this, her analysis and conclusions are original and
inspired. A point worth noting is her suggestion of kappa in place of the
previously restored mu owing to the stroke differences when compared to the
mu in figures 13b and 13d.34
Figure 13c: Heimarmene or Eukleia?
Remaining letter fragments belonging to the female traditionally identified as

Heimarmene (source: Schwarzmaier).
Heimarmene, as personification of Fate, Destiny, or Inevitability, would be an

appropriate addition to the scene.35 If her identification is correct, as the
previous scholarship suggests, then her presence is important for what she adds
to the story being told, and also because this depiction is the only surviving
34
Schwarzmaier, 'Wo ist Heimarmene?', 23-24, 26.
35
The word εἱμαρμένη (destiny) is the feminine participle of μείρομαι ‘to receive as one’s
portion’, or ‘one’ due’: LSJ9 1093, col. 2, s.v. μείρομαι. In turn, μείρομαι is a verbal form of
μοῖρα: LSJ9 1140-1141, cols 2-1, s.v. μοῖρα: ‘one’s portion in life, lot, destiny’.
~128~
The Classical Era
visual representation of her as a personification on any artistic work.36 To the

figure’s right is another female who has a bird perched on her right index
finger, and since this bird is the only non-human living object shown anywhere
on the amphoriskos its presence would seem to indicate it is in some way
significant. The letter fragments from this female’s name are largely lost, in
fact prior to Schwarzmaier’s study it was thought no fragments from her name
remained at all.37 Schwarzmaier analysis has encouraged her to suggest three
letters, namely a mu, an iota, and an alpha, leading her to identify the female
as [ΕΥΝΟ]ΜΙΑ (Good Order or Law).38 However, as figure 13d illustrates,
with the exception of the mu, these letters are far from certain.
Schwarzmaier’s ‘ΜΙΑ’
Figure 13d: Unknown female standing with Heimarmene (source: Schwarzmaier).
In this thesis I have followed the traditional path of accepting the figure
generally identified as Heimarmene to be correct, but I acknowledge the
possibility of Schwarzmaier’s original identification of ΕΥΚΛΕΙΑ. Thus,
Heimarmene and her companion stand facing each other, and despite the
emotional intensity of the events unfurling elsewhere these two seem oblivious
to everything but themselves and the bird with which they both seem
engrossed. Their singular behaviour could be interpreted in two ways – either
their presence bears no relevance to the rest of the scene and they are simply
there to provide artistic balance or, far more likely, their roles in the emotive
36
Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 90.
37
Shapiro, 'The Judgment of Helen in Athenian Art,' 52; Shapiro, 'Origins of Allegory in
Greek Art', 11-12.
38
~129~
The Classical Era
proceedings have already been played out. It is this latter scenario which
seems logical especially since Heimarmene, goddess of destiny and in
particular preordained destiny, would have already played her part in
predetermining Helen and Paris’ fate, and now she has nothing further to
contribute. Schwarmaier’s identifications could similarly be appropriate and
valid, in that, since Helen is about to forsake her ‘good repute’ and the ‘good
order’ of a legal marriage, the two goddesses who embody these principles
now turn their backs to her as a lost cause.
If Heimarmene is the correct

identification what of her companion
and the bird? The identification of
the other personifications and deities
depicted thus far have been shown to
add some significant emotional or
influential element to the visual
narrative being acted out. The bird is
in all probability not there purely for
decoration, in which case it must
have some meaning – either as an
attribute of the unknown female or to
Figure 12d: Heimarmene and companion.
the scene as a whole. Smith and
Shapiro share the view that
Heimarmene’s companion is Themis,39 an assessment possibly supported by
Harrison’s identification of the female figure represented by the letter ‘L’ on
the east pediment of the Athenian Parthenon (a seated female in whose lap
female ‘M’ lies, thought to be Aphrodite) as Themis by her customary
shoulder-cord,40 an item which is visible here on the left shoulder of
Heimarmene’s companion, standing to the right in figure 12d. On the other
39
Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, 44-45, 154 VP 16; Shapiro,
Personifications in Greek Art, 192-195; Shapiro, 'Origins of Allegory in Greek Art', 11-14.
40
O. Palagia & D. Lewis, 'The Ephebes of Erechtheis, 333/2 BC and Their Dedication,' ABSA
84, 1989, 343; E. B. Harrison, 'The Shoulder Cord of Themis,' in U. Höckmann & A. Krug
(eds), Festschrift für Frank Brommer, Meinz, 1977, 155-156. This shoulder-cord is also
evident on Khairestratos’ statue of Themis’ found at Rhamnous, see figure 56 below.
~130~
The Classical Era
hand, since the shoulder-cord is also associated with Artemis and is seen being
worn by numerous other females to prevent their chitons from slipping off
their shoulders,41 and since Themis has no firm association with any bird it
would perhaps be better to widen the search for a clue to her identity.
At first glance the bird appears to be fairly generic, but there are two
possibilities. The bird’s plumage, illustrated in figure 12f, might indicate the
dusky turtle-dove which, according to Aelian was sacred to the Moirai:
White turtle-doves are often to be seen. These, they say, are

sacred to Aphrodite and Demeter, while the other kind [i.e. the
more common dusky turtle-dove] is sacred to the Moirai and the
Erinyes.42
Aelian’s statement provides a credible clue given the whole milieu of the scene
with many representations and personifications of some form of fate or
destiny. For that reason Heimarmene’s companion may be one of the Moirai,43
either Klotho (the spinner of the thread of destiny for each individual),
Lachesis (who measures out this thread), or Atropos (who cuts the thread at
death);44 or perhaps she is simply Moira – the personification of all three,45 and
whose initial mu would correspond to Schwarzmaier’s identification of this
letter,46 as shown in figure 13d. Moira would be appropriate since, not only
does she also represent a form of Fate but, in common with Heimarmene, her
work has already been done: the inescapable Fate of both Helen and Paris has
41
See comments on this point in: A. G. Mantēs, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών
και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, Athens, 1990, 133-134; Palagia & Lewis, 'The
Ephebes of Erechtheis', 343.
42
Ael. NA 10.33: λευκὰς τρυγόνας φανῆναι πολλάκις· λέγουσι δὲ αὐτὰς ἱερὰς εἶναι Ἀφροδίτης
τε καὶ Δήμετρος, Μοιρῶν δὲ καὶ Ἐρινύων τὰς ἄλλας.
43
Μοῖρα means ‘one’s portion in life’, ‘lot’, ‘share’, ‘destiny’: LSJ9 1140-1141, cols 2-1, s.v.
μοῖρα. It was thought that this was apportioned to each individual at their birth by the goddess.
44
Hes. Theog. 218: the Moirai where, in common with Nemesis, born of Nyx; but, Hes. Theog.
904 has them as the daughters of Zeus and Themis. Their names Κλωθώ, Λάχεσις, Ἄτροπος
translate as ‘Spinner’, ‘Portion’, and ‘Inflexible’: LSJ9 963, col. 2, s.v. Κλῶθες; 1033, col. 1,
s.v. Λάχεσις; 273, col. 1, s.v. Ἄτροπος.
45
Hesiod names three Μοῖραι: Hes. Theog. 905; and with a single exception there is only one
in Homer: Il. 24.209, 20.5, Od. 11.292, 3.269, with Il. 24.49 as his only use of the plural.
Μοῖρα as a goddess of death: Hom. Il. 4.517, 18.119; of evil: Hom. Il. 5.613, 629, 12.116,
13.602, 21.83. In tragedy μ/Μοῖρα is usually in the singular: Aischyl. Ag, 130, Ch. 910; in the
plural Aischyl. Prom. 516, 895, Ch. 306. The Μοῖραι or Μοῖρα were also the embodiment of
‘Law’, a Law which even the gods could not break without upsetting the equilibrium of
existence: Hdt. 1.91.
46
~131~
The Classical Era
already been determined and settled, i.e. their ‘threads’ of life’s portion were
spun at birth, have been measured during their lives, and will finally be cut
once their pre-determined destiny has been accomplished.
Against the bird’s identification as a dusky turtle-dove is the artist’s portrayal

of the bird as small and light as it sits gracefully on the female’s finger, and
while the dusky turtle-dove is smaller than others of its species it is still a
weighty bird.47 Another possibility, and one which has relevance to the
amphoriskos scene, is that the bird is an iunx-bird (ἴυνξ/ἴυγξ), known as a
[Eurasian] wryneck (jynx torquilla).48 The name ‘wryneck’ comes from the
bird’s ability to elongate its neck and to almost turn its head around in a circle
during its mating dance.49 It was this unique dexterity, which the Greeks saw
as magically or divinely inspired, which resulted in the iunx-bird’s association
with magic, especially in the casting of spells to inspire passion and sexual
desire by means of its song.50 Such inspiration was generally ill-fated as it
invariably led to the ruin or destruction of the one affected by its charm, for
example Medea who, according to Pindar, had been charmed by the iunx-
bird.51
The iunx-bird’s attributes are appropriately suited to the scene being played out
on the amphoriskos. The bird’s task has, at this point, already been
47
Depending on the exact species and sub-species turtle-doves can range in length from 19-
25cms, i.e. about 7.5-10 inches.
48
Arnott, Birds in the Ancient World from A-Z, 79-81. Lewis also speculates whether the bird
is an iunx: S. Lewis, The Athenian Woman: an iconographical handbook, London, 2002, 163.
49
Aristotle describes the physical characteristics of the bird: PA 695a23-24, and its unique
dexterity: HA 504a11-19, which is also mentioned by Pliny NH 11.256; see also: Arnott, Birds
in the Ancient World from A-Z, 79; D. Ogden, Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and
Roman Worlds: A Sourcebook, Oxford, 2002, 240; G. W. Nelson, 'A Greek Votive Iynx-Wheel
in Boston,' AJA 44, no. 4, 1940, 447.
50
Ogden, Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Sourcebook, 240-
242; E. Böhr, 'A Rare Bird on Greek Vases: The Wryneck,' in J. H. Oakley, W. D. E. Coulson,
et al. (eds), Athenian Potters and Painters, Oxford, 1997, 116-120; C. A. Faraone & D.
Obbink (eds), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, Oxford, 1991, 241 n. 84;
Pollard, Birds in Greek Life and Myth, 48-49, 130-131; Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Birds,
124-128. In antiquity the wryneck bird was a symbol of passionate and restless love as seen in
Pind. Pyth. 4.211-250, where Aphrodite binds the bird to a wheel and gives it to Jason as a
magic charm to use against Medea. Other ancient sources referring to the magic of the iunx
include: Anon., Anth. Gr. 5.205, where its persuasive magic powers are mentioned in
conjunction with Aphrodite; Anon. HE 35; Aischyl. Pers. 989; Ar. Lys. 1110, Heroes (PCG
iii.2 F315); Eupolis Baptai (PCG v F83); Apuleius Apol. 30.13; Laevius F27 (FPL); Pind.
Nem. 4.35, F128a, possibly F52i; Soph. F474; Theok. 2; Σ Theok. 2.17; Xen. Mem. 3.11.18.
51
Pind. Pyth. 4.213-219.
~132~
The Classical Era
accomplished through the casting of its spells to instil a desire for Paris’ love
into Helen and conversely a lust for Helen into Paris. Now it is the mission of
Aphrodite, Himeros, and Peitho to reinforce the fateful inevitable destiny
already spun by Heimarmene and the powerful erotic-instilling magic of the
iunx-bird.
Figure 12e: The wryneck bird (jynx Figure 12f: Singing speckled bird on
torquilla). unknown female’s finger.
Yet, how convincing is this bird as an iunx-bird? A comparison between it

(figure 12f) and a confirmed wryneck (figure 12e) indicates a strong
probability it is a wryneck, especially when the similarity in size and speckled
plumage is noted.52 If correct, then the female upon whose finger it perches
could be the Oreiad nymph Iunx who, because she tried to seduce Zeus or
encouraged Io to do so, was turned into the ‘Iunx’ bird by Hera.53 Yet, even if
the bird is an iunx the female’s identification remains speculative since other
females (even males) are depicted with iunx-birds in Greek art.54
52
Photograph source: http://www.birding.in/birds/Piciformes/Picidae/eurasian_wryneck.htm.
53
Suda s.v. Ἴυγξ (iota 759); Σ Theocrit. 2. 17; Σ Pind. Pyth. 4.380; Nem. 4. 56; Tzetz. Σ on
Lykoph. 310; Kallim. F685.
54
Several examples of iunx-birds accompanying mortals or immortals are found in the British
Museum: those dated to the fifth century include: a bell-krater depicting Pan with an iunx
perched on his right index finger, BM1836,0224.175; a hydria showing an iunx in flight,
BM1867,0508.1319. Tavenner, contrary to the ancient evidence and modern interpretations,
considers iunx-birds (and the related iunx-wheel) as having been misinterpreted and are merely
pet objects, toys, or gifts: E. Tavenner, 'Iynx and Rhombus,' TAPA 64, 1933, 120-123. I do not
agree with Tavenner, especially since the discovery within two late fifth-century graves
belonging to males (T 286 and T 299) from Archontiko in Makedonia of bronze rings showing
a standing Aphrodite holding an iunx (identified as iunx torquille) in her right hand: M.
Lilibaki-Akamati, I. M. Adamatis, A. Chrysostomou, et al. (eds), The Archaeological Museum
of Pella, Athens, 2011, 315.
~133~
The Classical Era
The significance of a credible identification of the bird as an iunx leads on to

the bird’s relationship with persuasive love and passion through the chanting of
magic spells,55 and what significance this might have in the amphoriskos
scene. The bird clearly has its beak open (figure 12f) as if the artist has
captured it mid-song or mid-chant as it weaves its eternal spell into the
emotions of the dramatis personae represented on the other side. Since it
inspired ill-fated passion, its presence here is as a portent of the ills that are to
come, an aspect which is mirrored by Nemesis (on the other side)
representative of future divine retribution. 56
The term iunx was a name given not only to the nymph and the wryneck bird
but also to a small wheel-mechanism.57 When spun on two twisted pieces of
string threaded through two central holes (much like a button) this wheel
emitted a noise which was thought to replicate the magical sound of the bird
from which it acquired its name,58 and its resonance was consequently
associated with the casting of spells of passion.59 The almost indivisible
55
Aischyl. Pers. 988-990 tells of it as a passionate yearning: <ἰὼ ἰὼ> δῆτα ἴυγγ’ ἀγαθῶν
ἑτάρων μοι [ὑπομιμνήσκεις] <κινεῖς> ἄλαστα στυγνὰ πρόκακα λέγων (‘in truth you stir
yearning in me for my gallant comrades when thou tellest of woe’). Aischylos employs iunx
metaphorically to mean love or desire; Soph. F421 describes it as the watchful guardian of
love: ‘ἴυγγα θηρητηρίαν ἔρωτος’; C. A. Faraone, Ancient Greek Love Magic, Harvard, 1999, 1-
2, 6, 8, 9, 24, 25, 56-58, 64-69, 73, 92-94.
56
Philostr. VA 1.25.3 tells that the Babylonian king passed judgement in his palace where four
golden wrynecks (χρυσαῖ δὲ ἴυγγες) hung from the ceiling to remind him of Adrasteia (a
sometimes epithet for Nemesis in the Hellenistic and Roman periods) so that he may not exalt
himself above mere mortals. A discussion is found in: A. B. Cook, Zeus: A Study in Ancient
Religion, vol. 1, Cambridge, 1914, 258-260.
57
Suda s.v. Ἴυγξ (iota 759); Theok. 2, where the refrain: Ἴυγξ, ἕλκε τὺ τῆνον ἐμὸν ποτὶ δῶμα
τὸν ἄνδρα, occurs ten times, and as confirmation of the almost indivisibility between the bird
and the wheel modern translators have rendered Ἴυγξ as both ‘wryneck’ and ‘magic wheel’.
Cf. Σ Theok. 2.17, who describes it as a magic wheel associated with Aphrodite; Cook
comments that the iunx-wheel was made from brightly shining bronze as a ‘mimic sun’: Cook,
Zeus, vol. 1, 254, 253-265.
58
The etymology of the word iunx (ἴυνξ/ἴυγξ) and its connection with song, chanted spells,
noise, and voice, indicates a close similarity with other sonorous words such as ἰυγή (howling,
shrieking, shout of heralds; hissing of snakes), ἰυγμός (shout of joy, cry of pain, shriek), ἰύζω
(shout, yell, cry out, buzz of bees), and ἰυκτής (one who shouts or yells, singer, piper): LSJ9
845, cols 1-2, s.v. ἰυγή, ἰυγμός, ἴυγξ, ἰύζω, ἰυκτής. The term ῥύμβος was similarly applied to
the so-called ‘magic wheel’: IG ii2 1456, lines 49-50; D. Harris, The Treasures of the
Parthenon and Erechtheion, Oxford, 1995, 135 no. 107, 283 s.v. ῥύμβος.
59
Lucian, Dialogues of the Hetairai 288-289: ‘ then she brings forth a magic wheel from her
garment, sets it spinning and utters an incantation of foreign and terrifying names with a
tripping tongue’; Philostratos mentions the mesmerizing power of χρυσᾶς ἴυγγας: Philostr. VA
6.11.186; S. I. Johnston, 'The Song of the Iynx: Magic and Rhetoric in Pythian 4,' TAPA 125,
1995, 182. The mechanism was often seen in the hands of Eros or Himeros who would use it
whilst simultaneously chanting magic spells to arouse erotic desire, for example: a ca. 300
~134~
The Classical Era
relationship between the bird and the wheel is demonstrated in the following
quotation from an ode by Pindar where the bird is bound to the wheel followed
by the incantation of magical spells:
But the Cyprus-born queen of sharpest arrows bound the dappled

ἴυγγα [bird] to the four spokes of the inescapable κύκλῳ and
brought from Olympos that bird of madness for the first time to
men, and she taught the son of Aison to be skilful in prayers and
charms, so that he might take away Medea’s respect for her
parents, and so that desire for Hellas might set her mind afire and
drive her with the whip of Persuasion.60
Whoever stands with Heimarmene she, along with all the other
personifications, adds a pictorial commentary on the emotions in this
representation of ‘The Persuasion of Helen’. Hence, Aphrodite and Peitho are
the persuaders who over-ride any nemesis or aidōs that Helen may be
experiencing as she grapples with the moral implications of her proposed flight
with Paris; meanwhile Paris stands with Himeros, the representative of the
desire in his mind and lust in his heart at the prospect of possessing Helen;
Heimarmene and her companion (Moira, Iunx, Eunomia, or another) are
oblivious to all but themselves since they have already sealed the fate of the
gilded copper finger-ring depicting Eros playing with an iunx: BM1888,0601.1; a pyxis with a
woman (labelled Γλαύκη) spinning an iunx-wheel: BM1874,0512.1; a votive iunx-wheel from
Phaleron, ca. eight century: Boston MFA no. 28.49; Nelson, 'A Greek Votive Iynx-Wheel in
Boston', 443-456. For a modern reconstruction of this wheel, see: A. S. F. Gow, 'ΙΥΓΞ,
ΡΟΜΒΟΣ, Rhombus, Turbo,' JHS 54, 1934, 6-7, figs 5-6. With the exception of artistic
representations no known confirmed iunx-wheel is known to have survived, and although the
Boston iunx-wheel is identified as such by Gow his detractors maintain his classification was
given for the sake of convenience rather than strongly argued fact. His sceptics include: J. de
la Genière, 'Une roue à oiseaux du Cabinet des Médailles,' REA 60, 1958, 27-35; but
supporting Gow's conclusions is: Böhr, 'A Rare Bird on Greek Vases: The Wryneck,' 118.
60
Pind. Pyth. 4.213-219: πότνια δ’ ὀξυτάτων βελέων ποικίλαν ἴυγγα τετράκναμον
Οὐλυμπόθεν ἐν ἀλύτῳ ζεύξαισα κύκλῳ μαινάδ’ ὄρνιν Κυπρογένεια φέρεν πρῶτον ἀνθρώποισι
λιτάς τ’ ἐπαοιδὰς ἐκδιδάσκησεν σοφὸν Αἰσονίδαν, ὄφρα Μηδείας τοκέων ἀφέλοιτ’ αἰδῶ,
ποθεινὰ δ’ Ἑλλὰς αὐτάν ἐν φρασὶ καιομέναν δονέοι μάστιγι Πειθοῦς. The ‘madness’ is
attributed to the bird on account of the intensely passionate nature of its mating instinct and
desire: Nelson, 'A Greek Votive Iynx-Wheel in Boston', 448. A discussion of the individual
metaphorical aspects in the poem is in: C. A. Faraone, 'The Wheel, the Whip and Other
Implements of Torture: Erotic Magic in Pindar Pythian 4.213-19,' CJ 89, no. 1, 1993, 1-19,
and his further reference sources at n. 2. Faraone interprets Pindar’s ‘fire’ and ‘whip’ as forms
of torture; an idea dismissed by Johnston as an over interpretation and who quotes several
references to ‘fire’ and ‘whip’ where no torture is implied; Johnston also suggests the last two
words, μάστιγι Πειθοῦς, could refer not to a whip but to the string with which the iunx-wheel
is spun like a top: Johnston, 'The Song of the Iynx', 179, 190. Johnston’s interpretation is
preferred to Faraone’s, especially as she rightly points out, the phrase ‘burning love’ is
metaphorical and not a form of torture, for example: Sapph. F48.2: ‘my heart [was] burning
with longing’ (ἔμαν φρένα καιομέναν πόθῳ).
~135~
The Classical Era
main characters;61 and, finally Nemesis and her companion (Eutychia, Tyche,
Eukleia, Leda, Thetis, or another) stand as the accusatory representatives of the
future fate that is to come.62
Shapiro interprets Nemesis’ presence as the retribution that Helen will suffer as
a consequence of her actions.63 But Helen does not experience any retribution.
On the contrary she is forgiven by Menelaos and taken back to reign as
Sparta’s queen in the years after the Trojan War until finally after death she
goes to the Isle of the Blessed.64
Two ôons Depicting Paris’ Seduction of Helen?

Two ca. 450-410 Attic red-figured egg-shaped vessels, or ôons (figures 15 and
16) were discovered together in the same Athenian female burial where they
would have been left as grave goods in honour of the deceased female.65 They
are small and measure approximately 5.8 centimetres tall by 4.8 centimetres
wide, about the size of a large hen’s egg. The artistic depictions on the ôons
are scenes from mythology, and each has a four-spoke wheel painted on its
underside (reflected in the mirror in figure 16), where it is hidden from general
view. As eggs produce new life, and given their find spot, these ôons are
probably the symbolical representation of a new existence or new beginnings
in the afterlife, and I suggest the wheel-motifs represent the fate that has finally
spun for the deceased and the wishes of good fortune in the afterlife. Since the
motifs were placed underneath each ôon, and thus not immediately visible may
be a reminder that fate and fortune are imperceptible, intangible, and
unpredictable forces that constantly change and turn.
In interpreting the scene on each ôon it is argued that since Helen was hatched
from an egg after her mother, Nemesis, was violated by Zeus, the shape of
61
For further comments on Heimarmene, see: Shapiro, Personifications in Greek Art, 193-194;
Shapiro, 'Origins of Allegory in Greek Art', 11-14.
62
Shapiro reads the scene allegorically with Nemesis pointing to the future: Shapiro, 'Origins
of Allegory in Greek Art', 10-14, esp. 14.
63
Shapiro, 'Origins of Allegory in Greek Art', 13.
64
Hom. Od. 4.120-150, 560-569; Apollod. Ep. 6.29; cf. Eur. Hel. 44-45, 605-607.
65
Eggs were known chthonic offerings: K. Friis Johansen, The Attic Grave-Reliefs of the
Classical Period: an essay in interpretation, Copenhagen, 1951, 83-84; cf. the ôon or αὐγό
found at Rhamnous in the grave area along the road: V. Petrakos, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν
Ραμνούντα,' AEph 118, 1979, 39 no. 16.
~136~
The Classical Era
each vessel is highly appropriate to support the argument that the mythological
scenes are Paris’ seduction and abduction of Helen.66
The first ôon (figure 15) has been

interpreted as a mythological
abduction scene.67 This is a
logical conclusion, especially as
the presence of a crowned
Aphrodite leaning against a pillar
with Eros playing with a iunx-
wheel is on the other side; this
whole scene and the story it
imparts is unambiguously
connection with love and passion.
The artwork in figure 15 shows a
Figure 15: Attic red-figured ôon with wheel chariot being drawn by three
underneath; Washing Painter?; ca.420-410; New
York; MMA 1971.258.5 (source: museum). galloping horses. A male, holding
two spears, and a female occupy
the chariot, and another male runs to remove himself from their path (out of
view). The male in the chariot holds the reins in his left hand and has his arm
drawn around the female in an attempt to either hold her safely or to ensure she
does not escape him. Although several mythological abduction stories could
66
D. von Bothmer, Notable Acquisitions, 1965-1975: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, 1975, 128; Amandry, 'Review: Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène, Lilly B. Ghali-
Kahil', 337; Ghali-Kahil, Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène, 66.
67
ARV2 1256.1; Para 470; LIMC iv Helene 171 (L. Kahil); LIMC ii Aphrodite 211 (A.
Delivorrias); Beazley attributes the artist as ‘near the Eretria Painter’ but Lezzi-Hafter as the
Washing Painter: I. Algrain, 'Entre naissance et renaissance. Réﬂexions sur le symbolisme de
l’œuf dans le monde grec aux époques archaïque et classique,' Annales d'Histoire de l'Art &
d'Archeologie 35, 2013, 59-60, fig. 3; A. Lezzi-Hafter, 'Wheel without Chariot - A Motif in
Attic Vase Painting,' in J. H. Oakley & O. Palagia (eds), Athenian Potters and Painters, vol. ii,
Oxford, 2009, 152, fig. 8a; C. A. Picon, J. R. Mertens, E. J. Milleker, et al., Art of the
Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Greece, Cyprus, Etruria, Rome, New
York, 2007, 135, no. 148; Robertson, The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens, 232; T. H.
Carpenter, T. Mannick & M. Mendoca, Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV 2
and Paralipomena, 2nd edn, Oxford, 1990, 355; Schefold & Jung, Die Sagen von den
Argonauten von Theben und Troia in der klassischen und hellenistische Kunst, 120, fig. 99;
Lezzi-Hafter, Der Eretria-Maler, 5; von Bothmer, Greek Vase Painting, 62, 71, no.31; von
Bothmer, Notable Acquisitions, 1965-1975: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 128; D. von
Bothmer, Ancient Art from New York Private Collections: Catalogue of an Exhibition Held at
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, December, 17, 1959-February 28, 1960, New York, 1961,
62-63 no. 246, pl. 91-92; Ghali-Kahil, Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène, 66-67, pl. 5.
~137~
The Classical Era
be suggested, Paris’ abduction of Helen is a strong possibility, especially given

the vessel’s egg-shape and the motif of the egg in the mythology surrounding
Helen.
The image on the ôon in figure 1668 is not an obvious abduction, but something
more subtle. It shows some sort of activity or game taking place between the
various figures (see ‘roll-out’ in figure 17). Lezzi-Hafter suggests a game to
decide the fate of the young couple who stand to the extreme right,69 while
Stafford and Ghali-Kahil explain the scene as girls playing a game known as
morra,70 and Beazley proposes an ancient form of ‘knuckle-bones’.71 The
most compelling argument is that the activity involves a game of morra. Ifrah
and Blümner’s description of this game closely corresponds to the ôon scene.
They explain it as a fast moving guessing game usually played by two
contestants thrusting out a varying number of fingers of the right-hand whilst
each simultaneously holding the end of the same stick in their left-hand; a
point was won by the one who first correctly called out the sum of the fingers
thrust out.72 The action in figures 16 and 1773 has two females each grasping
68
ARV2 1257.2; Para. 470; Add.2 355; NAMA names the artist as the Washing Painter, but
Beazley as ‘near the Eretria Painter’: J. D. Beazley, Some Attic Vases in the Cyprus Museum,
revised 1989 edn, Oxford, 1948, 39, 46 n. 144; see also: Algrain, 'Entre naissance et
renaissance', 58-59, fig.2; Lezzi-Hafter, 'Wheel without Chariot - A Motif in Attic Vase
Painting,' 152, fig. 8b; V. Sabetai, 'The Poetics of Maidenhood: Visual Constructs of
Womanhood in Vase-Painting,' in S. Schmidt & J. H. Oakley (eds), Hermeneutik der Bilder:
Beiträge zur Ikonographie und Interpretation Griechischer Vasenmalerei, (Beihefte zum CVA
Deutschland 4), München, 2009, 107-108; J. H. Oakley & O. Palagia (eds), Athenian Potters
and Painters, vol. ii, Oxford, 2009, 152, fig. 8b; E. Zervoudaki, 'The Stathatos Collection,' in
D. Zafeiropoulou (ed.), The National Archaeological Museum, 5th edn, Athens, 2007, 81;
Lewis, The Athenian Woman, 154-155; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 90; H. Hoffman,
Sotades: Symbols of Immortality on Greek Vases, Oxford, 1997, 141-146; V. Sabetai, The
Washing Painter: A Contribution to the Wedding and Genre Iconography in the Second Half
of the Fifth Century B.C., Dissertation, University of Cincinnati Press, Cincinnati, 1993, 186-
189; Robertson, The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens, 232; Lezzi-Hafter, Der Eretria-
Maler, 5; H. Metzger, 'Ôon à figures rouges,' Collection Helene Stathatos III: Objets antiques
et byzantins, 1963, 160-174, figs. 77-79, pl. xxv; Amandry, 'Review: Les Enlèvements et le
retour d'Hélène, Lilly B. Ghali-Kahil', 337; Ghali-Kahil, Les Enlèvements et le retour
d'Hélène, 67, n. 1; P. Devambez, 'Bulletin archéologique: Céramique, Peinture, Mosaïque,'
REG 59-60, no. 279-283, 1946, 441; H. Metzger, 'Ôon à figures rouges de la collection H.
Stathatos,' Mon. Piot XL, 1944, 70-74, 86, pl. 7.
69
Lezzi-Hafter, 'Wheel without Chariot - A Motif in Attic Vase Painting,' 152.
70
Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 90; Ghali-Kahil, Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène, 67,
n.1.
71
ARV2 1257.2.
72
G. Ifrah, The Universal History of Numbers, trans. D. Bellos, E. F. Harding, et al., New
York, 2000, 51-52, figs. 3.10, 3.11, 3.12; H. Blümner, The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks,
trans. A. Zimmern, New York, 1893, 227, fig. 104 'Morra Players'; cf. Metzger, 'Ôon à figures
rouges', 169; J. Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, trans. E. O. Lorimer, Harmondsworth,
~138~
The Classical Era
the end of a stick in their left hand and holding up a different number of
fingers, which appears identical to Ifrah and Blümner’s description of morra.
Metzger, on the other hand, doubts it is morra since this game is not mentioned
either by name or description in the sources, and in support of his argument he
quotes its omission in Pollux’ Onomasticon as confirmation.74 Conversely, an
argument from silence does not mean the game never existed, and Cahn gives
at least twelve examples of morra-type game illustrations on ceramics.75
It is worth noting Hoffman’s interpretation of morra as having derived from

the Greek word μόρος or death, and that all the known depictions of this game
have ‘mortuary’ associations. Conversely, Lewis argues against Hoffman’s
conclusion, and despite the fact that vessels illustrated with games of morra
have been found in burial situations she does not believe it follows that the
game was necessarily funereal.76 In support of Lewis, I would argue that
depictions on funereal pottery of games being played could also be read as the
deceased, especially a young person, continuing to play those games in the
afterlife that he or she enjoyed in life.
1941, 274-275; P. F. Perdrizet, 'The Game of Morra,' JHS 18, 1898, 129-132, fig. 2; E. B.
Tylor, Primative Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy,
Religion, Language, Art, and Custom, 6th edn, 1920, 2 vols, vol. 1, London, 1871, 75.
73
The game is similar to the modern ‘paper, scissors, rock’ game, and note Hoffman’s
description of a game of his youth called ‘odds’ or ‘evens’ which corresponds very closely to
the description of morra given by Ifrah and Blümner: Hoffman, Sotades, 141 n. 2.
74
Poll. 9.94-130; Metzger, 'Ôon à figures rouges', 169.
75
Hoffman, Sotades, 142, fig. 79 of satyrs playing morra on a cup-skyphos; H. A. Cahn,
'Morra: Drei Silene Beim Knobeln,' in H. Froning, T. Hölscher, et al. (eds), Kotinos,
Festschrift für E. Simon, Mainz, 1992, 215 lists eighteen possible examples. A red-figure
hydria ca. 450-400 by the Washing Painter, now in the Warsaw National Museum, cat. no.
142293, also shows two women each sitting on an upturned hydria playing morra: ARV2
1130.150; Para. 453; Add.2 333; CVA Goluchow, Musee Czartoryski 24, Pl. 33.5; Sabetai,
'The Poetics of Maidenhood: Visual Constructs of Womanhood in Vase-Painting,' 107-108,
fig. 4; Lewis, The Athenian Woman, 152-153, fig. 4.15; Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeichnung der
Griechen, fig. 569; Perdrizet, 'The Game of Morra', 130, fig.2.
76
Lewis, The Athenian Woman, 155; Hoffman, Sotades, 141-143, n. 10. An interesting
possibility, outside the scope of this study, is that the ôon indicates a concordance in religious
belief between the Greeks and the Etruscans, who connected eggs not only with fertility, birth,
and renewal, but with death and the afterlife. Several eggs made from stone, terracotta, or
alabaster, have been found in Etruscan burials. For a discussion on this aspect and further
references, see: A. Carpino, 'The Delivery of Helen's Egg: An Examination of an Etruscan
Relief Mirror,' EtrStud 3, 1996, 40-41; see also: N. T. de Grummond, Etruscan Myth, Sacred
History, and Legend, Philadelphia, 2006, 128; cf. Friis Johansen, The Attic Grave-Reliefs of
the Classical Period, 83-84.
~139~
The Classical Era
Whatever the game a degree of skill and

luck on the part of each player would be
required. Hence, the hidden, though visible
if sought, presence of the wheel secreted
underneath the ôon quite possibly represents
a good luck charm for those playing the
game, but would also have been a symbol of
fate or destiny, perhaps an amulet, to protect
the deceased on her way to the underworld.
Ghali-Kahil has drawn similarities between

the scene on this ôon to that on the Berlin
amphoriskos.77 If correct, Aphrodite would
logically be the seated figure attended by
Eros who rests on her knees and gazes
fixedly up into her eyes. Ghali-Kahil
suggests the other seated figure is ‘the
goddess of destiny’, and that they are
playing for the fate of Paris and Helen
standing on the right. The two standing
Figure 16: Attic red-figured ôon with figures to the left she labels as Nemesis and
wheel-motif; Washing Painter; ca.
420-410; Helen Stathatos Collection, Tyche, the same identifications she gives to
NAMA no. 332 (photograph: author).
the two females on the Berlin amphoriskos,
one of whom is confirmed as Nemesis.78 Metzger argues against Ghali-Kahil
but offers no alternative; Algrain and Oakley interpret the two seated players
as Aphrodite and the mother of the (unknown) bride standing to the far right
playing a game, the purpose of which is to decided if the girl stays with her
mother or she goes off with Aphrodite, i.e. she weds the youth standing in front
of her; while Piccard interprets the game players as Aphrodite and Demeter.79
77
Discussed above, pp. 117-136.
78
Ghali-Kahil, Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène, 67, n. 1.
79
Algrain, 'Entre naissance et renaissance', 58-59; Metzger, 'Ôon à figures rouges', 174; J. H.
Oakley & R. H. Sinos, The Wedding in Ancient Athens, Madison, 1993, 134 n. 53. Picard
interprets the scene as a game of morra between Aphrodite and Demeter which he links to the
Eleusinian Mysteries: C. Picard, 'La Dispute de Coré sur un œuf funéraire attique de la
Collection Stathatos,' RA 6, no. 2, 1945, 134-135.
~140~
The Classical Era
Figure 17: ‘Roll-out’ of the ôon in figure 49 (drawing: Metzger).
If engaging in speculative identification, I suggest the two figures on the left

may be Nemesis and Leda, given that figure A is in Attic dress hence
Rhamnousian Nemesis mother of Helen, and figure B dressed in Doric fashion
is Leda wife of Tyndareos and Helen’s step-mother. Thus, Helen’s mother and
step-mother stand to the left whilst a game of morra between Aphrodite and
perhaps Heimarmene, goddess of destiny (to put a name to Ghali-Kahil’s
suggestion), with Peitho (or perhaps one of the Moirai) looking on, decides the
fate of Helen and Paris to the right. This scenario is supported by the setting:
the padded seating and fillet hanging on the wall indicate the events are taking
place inside a house, almost certainly within the women’s quarters.80 If so,
why is a lone male standing amongst this group of unchaperoned women
within their own quarters if he is not bent on mischief, such as a clandestine
meeting with Helen? Surely he is Paris, whose traveller’s petasos announces
him as newly arrived from Troy,81 and whose moral sense was no inhibitor to
impropriety.
Whether the scene is one of anonymous girls playing innocently at a game of

morra, or whether the scene depicts a scene from mythology, the presence of
80
Lewis discusses whether women’s quarters or gynaikonitis within a household were more
the literary and social ideal rather than actual reality: Lewis, The Athenian Woman, 135-138;
L. C. Nevett, House and Society in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge, 1999, 17-20, 68-74;
S. Walker, 'Women and Housing in Classical Greece: the Archaeological Evidence,' in A.
Cameron & A. Kuhrt (eds), Images of Women in Antiquity, London, 1983, 81-91.
81
Paris is at times depicted iconographically with the typical accoutrements of the traveller – a
petasos and two spears. A few examples include: LIMC i.2 Alexandros 46, 47, 63 (two spears),
LIMC i.1 Alexandros 505, 506, 511 (two spears); BM1814,0704.573, ARV2 259.4 (petasos),
ARV2 258.1 (two spears and petasos).
~141~
The Classical Era
the wheel hidden under the ôon is a reminder that fate and luck in life are
dependant on the turn of the wheel of providence which constantly, but
indiscernibly, moves forward towards ones’ destiny.82
NEMESIS, TRAGEDY, AND DEATH

Evidence of Nemesis’ chthonic attributes are evident in the Rhamnous
archaeology, and include shards from a funereal sphinx, along with chthonic
chimairai fragments, and a large quantity of funerary-loutrophoroi.83 This
archaeological material is discussed in greater detail in the following chapter
on the archaeology at Rhamnous.
That Nemesis had a connection with death and the dead should not be
surprising given that her mother, according to Hesiod, was Nyx and one of her
siblings was Thanatos.84 Whilst the precise nature of this chthonic connection
is unclear,85 the extant literature, votive, altar, and grave-stelai inscriptions, all
indicate that part of her appeal was in her role as a champion of the dead and
an avenger of the wrongs done to them. This aspect of the goddess was
distinct from that of the Erinyes who, as ugly chthonic powers of death and
avengers of oath-breakers, inspired dread.86
At the risk of anachronism I revisit a previously discussed Homeric passage to

demonstrate how the Archaic myths and legends were still relevant to writers
in the Classical era. The passage concerns the abstract nemesis acting as a
potential instrument to punish the wrong done to the dead in book twenty-four
of the Iliad. Here Apollo threatens a collective divine nemesis against Achilles
for his inappropriate treatment of Hektor’s body – an early indication of a
divine nemesis as a moral and ethical judgement of condemnation on mortals:87
82
Cf. Hdt. 1.207; and his comments on the vagaries of prosperity and greatness: 1.5; 7.18;
7.203.
83
Discussed below pp. 194-196. E. Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της
Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα,' Αρχαιολογια, no. 39, 1991, 42; V. Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ
Ραμνοῦντος,' AEph 126, 1987, 273; V. Petrakos, PAAH 139, 1983 [1986], 122.
84
Hes. Theog. 211-225.
85
Fisher argues for a close association between nemesis and the dead, although simultaneously
conceding that the exact relationship is veiled in obscurity: Fisher, Hybris, 300.
86
OCD3 556 s.v. Erinyes.
87
Discussed above pp. 54-56.
~142~
The Classical Era
αὐτὰρ ὅ γ’ Ἕκτορα δῖον, ἐπεὶ φίλον ἦτορ ἀπηύρα, ἵππων

ἐξάπτων περὶ σῆμ’ ἑτάροιο φίλοιο ἕλκει· οὐ μήν οἱ τό γε κάλλιον
οὐδέ τ’ ἄμεινον. μὴ ἀγαθῷ περ ἐόντι νεμεσσηθέωμέν οἱ ἡμεῖς.88
But this man (Achilles), when he has deprived noble Hektor of

life, ties him behind his horses and drags him about the grave-
mound of his beloved comrade; surely this will bring neither
honour nor benefit for him. He should beware lest we have
nemesis for him agathos though he is.89
Apollo’s threat of nemesis is the result of Achilles’ blame-worthy behaviour.

Achilles has lost control, his agathos principles have been discarded in his
frenetic lust for revenge against Hektor, and Apollo warns he needs to control
himself and begin to act in line with his agathos values lest he be considered
an οὔτις, a no-body devoid of principles, and receive divine blame/shame. The
emotive energy of this passage, the descriptions of the graphic brutality of
Achilles’ treatment of Hektor’s body, and the later scene of Priam’s appeals to
Achilles’ humanity to release his son’s body, provided inspiration to
Aischylos, who went on to write his now fragmentary play, Phrygians or
Hektoros Lutra.90 In this play Nemesis has the potential to bring retributive
justice to assuage the wrath of the wronged dead:
καὶ τοὺς θανόντας εἰ θέλεις εὐεργετεῖν εἴτ’ οὖν κακουργεῖν,

ἀμφιδεξίως ἔχει < > καὶ91
μήτε χαίρειν μήτε λυπεῖσθαι βροτούς.92 ἡμῶν γε μέντοι νέμεσίς
ἐσθ’ ὑπερτέρα, καὶ τοῦ θανόντος ἡ Δίκη πράσσει κότον.93
Sommerstein completes the lacuna as: τεθνηκότας γὰρ ἀσθενεῖν τε μοῖρ’ ἔχει,
and translates as follows:
And if you want to do good to the dead, or again to do them

harm, it makes no difference; for <the lot of> mortals <when
they die is to have no sensation> and feel neither pleasure nor
88
Il. 24.50-54.
89
90
The collected fragments are found in: Aischyl. FF263-267 (Sommerstein); FF147-149
(Smyth); Stob. Anth. Δ.57.6 (in: Hense vol. 5 1138.6); FF263-273 (TrGF 3); FF242-259 in: H.
J. Mette (ed.), Die Fragmente der Tragödien des Aischylos, Berlin, 1959, 86-92.
91
Smyth uses τῷ here but mentions the alternative in his apparatus.
92
φθιτούς is used here by Smyth but he gives the alternative.
93
Aischyl., F266 (Sommerstein); F148 (Smyth); F266 (TrGF 3 [Radt]); Stob., Anth. Δ.57.6
(in: Hense vol. 5 1138.6); F244, in: Mette (ed.), Die Fragmente der Tragödien des Aischylos,
87.
~143~
The Classical Era
pain. Our indignation, on the other hand, is more powerful, and

Justice exacts the penalty for the wrath of the dead.
After translating that the dead have ‘no sensation’ and that they ‘feel neither
pleasure nor pain’, Sommerstein goes on to say in the last line that personified
Dike ‘exacts the penalty for the wrath of the dead’, i.e. that they have wrath.
So, do the dead feel wrath or do they not? Sommerstein’s contradictory
interpretation needs discussion.
Both Radt and Sommerstein use a small letter for νέμεσίς and a capital for
Δίκη, whereas Smyth has capitals for both although inexplicably translates
Νέμεσίς as ‘our righteous resentment’, all in lower case.94 Against an
interpretation of the abstract nemesis are Hornum and Mette who think the
goddess is meant and consequently assign capital letters to both Νέμεσίς and
Δίκη.95 Since the execution of justice on behalf of the wronged dead lies
within Nemesis’ sphere I propose to assign the capital letter to Nemesis and to
downgrade Dike to the abstract, thus: ἡμῶν γε μέντοι Νέμεσίς ἐσθ’ ὑπερτέρα,
καὶ τοῦ θανόντος ἡ δίκη πράσσει κότον. The one speaking, probably
Hermes,96 rails against the outrage being done to Hektor’s body and Achilles’
intention to refuse the body burial but to leave it for the dogs to consume.97
Achilles’ savage violence against Hektor’s body demands a divine response
that is a forceful reminder of Nemesis’ retributive anger dispensed through the
invocation of justice and a dispensation of inescapable punishment,98 exactly
as emphasized in the last two lines of the passage, which I translate as:
nevertheless, our Nemesis (i.e. our fellow goddess) is mightier,

and her justice exacts vengeance on behalf of the dead.99
94
Radt F266 (TrGF 3); F266 (Sommerstein); F148 (Smyth). Stob. Anth. Δ.57.6 (in: Hense
vol. 5 1138.6) uses two capital letters;
95
Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 91-92; Mette (ed.), Die Fragmente der
Tragödien des Aischylos, F244.4-5.
96
Sommerstein, p. 262; Fisher, Hybris, 301, n. 18; H. J. Mette (ed.), Der verloren Aischylos,
Berlin, 1963, 119; F. Solmsen, Hesiod and Aeschylus, New York, 1949, 176, n. 216.
97
Il. 22. 337-360.
98
In modern Greek the word nemesis is translated as: η θεία δίκη, i.e. divine justice (θεὰ τῆς
ἐκδικήσεως): E. Mokas, Ανγλοελληνικο Ελληνοανγλικο Λεξικο, Athens, 1986, 300, col. 2, s.v.
νέμεσις; P. Petrovidis, Νεον Ανγλεολληνικον Λεξικον, Athenai, 1947, 279, col. 2, s.v. νέμεσις.
99
Translation: author. Cf. this passage with Hom. Il. 24.50-54.
~144~
The Classical Era
A seemingly puzzling detail in the first three lines of the passage is Aischylos’
statement that the dead feel neither joy nor grief (μήτε χαίρειν μήτε λυπεῖσθαι)
at good or bad deeds done to them (καὶ τοὺς θανόντας εἰ θέλεις εὐεργετεῖν εἴτ’
οὖν κακουργεῖν). Yet, in a another of his plays, Choephoroi, the chorus
describe the dead as not only possessing consciousness, but able to feel wrath
and anger against those who wronged them in life.100 Although consistency
should not be expected in the dramatists and allowances need to be made for
varying plot idiosyncrasies, the apparent anomaly is still interesting. I see the
crucial point of variance between the passages as the difference between life
and death itself: deeds done to the dead before death and deeds done after
death. The fragment from Hektoros Lutra speaks of the deeds done after death
which have no effect on the dead; the reason being that ‘living’ passions and
emotions cannot be given birth within a dead corpse, since the corpse’s living
essence, its thumos, left the body at the moment of death. On the other hand,
deeds done to a living person before death, even if only by seconds, have the
ability to generate passions and emotions that survive death because their
genesis was within a still living thumos and at the moment of death pass to the
psyche to survive in the afterlife.101 The emotional response of one wronged
before death still has the ability to build up into an intense and fervent anger
desiring retribution which then has the ability to continue after death. Yet
ultimately, whether the one dead had been wronged before or after death
makes little difference since the Greeks believed that eventually appropriate
retributive justice would be brought to bear on the perpetrator regardless of
whether the dead was conscious of the evil done to them or not.
In this role as champion of the dead, Nemesis has a heartfelt plea made to her
by Elektra in Sophokles’ play of the same name when Elektra lets out an
anguished cry at the graveside of her (supposed) dead brother, Orestes:102
ἄκουε, Νέμεσι τοῦ θανόντος ἀρτίως (‘Listen! Nemesis of the newly dead!’).
Fisher uses a small ‘n’ for nemesis although he speculates whether Elektra is
actually appealing to the personified chthonic power of the gods’ nemesis
100
Aischyl. Choe. 37-41, 324-328; Aischyl. Choe. 278.
101
See the discussion on psyche and thumos above, pp. 44-45.
102
Aischyl. Elekt. 792.
~145~
The Classical Era
outraged at violations to the dead.103 Finglass and MacLeod interpret a

personified Nemesis although the former evaluates the word as ‘a degree of
personification’.104 In my opinion, Elektra’s plea of ‘listen!’ signifies it is
made to something which has the ability to listen, i.e. the goddess Nemesis,
and not the emotion of nemesis in any mortal, or even Fisher’s collective
nemesis of the gods.
Immediately prior to her outburst Elektra had accused her scheming and
pitiless mother of hybris:105 οἴμοι τάλαινα· νῦν γὰρ οἰμῶξαι πάρα, Ὀρέστα, τὴν
σὴν ξυμφοράν, ὅθ’ ὧδ’ ἔχων πρὸς τῆσδ’ ὑβρίζῃ μητρός. ἆρ’ ἔχω καλῶς (‘Oh,
wretched me! For now, Orestes, I can mourn for your misfortune, when in this
plight you are abused by this mother of yours’). According to Fisher, this
speech in combination with Elektra’s plea to Nemesis above is one of only two
instances where there exists an argument for any hybris/nemesis cycle at this
date.106 That the hybris/nemesis dichotomy is not explicitly stated does not
preclude its presence as an underlying, yet unexpressed, concept.
Klytemnestra’s joy at the news of Orestes’ supposed death 107 exposes her as a
mother devoid of aidōs and nemesis in her dealings with her children, and thus
deserving of divine retributive punishment. Elektra implores Nemesis to judge
Klytemnestra’s unnatural and callous behaviour towards Orestes; but a
merciless Klytemnestra replies saying Nemesis has already judged, not against
her, but against Orestes for his disobedient filial behaviour towards her, and
the proof lies in the ground before them – Orestes’ dead body.108 Her
103
Fisher, Hybris, 301; cf: J. C. Kamerbeek (ed.), Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments
Commentaries, Vol. V, Elektra, Cambridge, 1974, s.v. 792.
104
Finglass (ed.), Sophocles: Electra, 346 s.v. Νέμεσι; MacLeod, Dolos & Dike in Sophokles'
Electra, 127. For ‘nemesis of the gods’ in unambiguous usage: Soph. Philok. 602: τίς ὁ πόθος
αὐτοὺς ἵκετ’; ἢ θεῶν βία καὶ νέμεσις, οἵπερ ἔργ’ ἀμύνουσιν κακά (‘What is the longing that
has come upon them? Is it the power and the nemesis of the gods, who punish evil deeds?’);
Soph. Philok. 518: τὰν θεῶν νέμεσιν ἐκφυγών (escaping the nemesis of the gods); Philok.
1753: νέμεσις γάρ (‘for it is nemesis [of the gods implied]’). Sophokles’ only other use of a
nemesis word in Philoktetes is at line 1193 where it is used as a noun (from νεμεσάω) as a
feeling of nemesis for another.
105
Soph. Elekt. 788-790.
106
Fisher, Hybris, 300, 427-428, n. 79. Fisher’s other instance is Eur. Phoen. 182.
107
Soph. Elekt. 791.
108
Soph., Elekt. 793.
~146~
The Classical Era
perverted logic is seemingly based on Plato’s writings which give disobedience

and disrespect of one’s parents as punishable by Nemesis:109
παρὰ δὲ πάντα τὸν βίον ἔχειν τε καὶ ἐσχηκέναι χρὴ πρὸς αὑτοῦ
γονέας εὐφημίαν διαφερόντως, διότι κούφων καὶ πτηνῶν λόγων
βαρυτάτη ζημία – πᾶσι γὰρ ἐπίσκοπος τοῖς περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα
ἐτάχθη Δίκης Νέμεσις ἄγγελος – θυμουμένοις τε οὖν ὑπείκειν
δεῖ καὶ ἀποπιμπλᾶσι τὸν θυμόν, ἐάντ’ ἐν λόγοις ἐάντ’ ἐν ἔργοις
δρῶσιν τὸ τοιοῦτον, συγγιγνώσκοντα, ὡς εἰκότως μάλιστα πατὴρ
ὑεῖ δοξάζων ἀδικεῖσθαι θυμοῖτ’ ἂν διαφερόντως.
And throughout all his [a son’s] life he must diligently observe

reverence of speech towards his parents above all things, seeing
that for light and winged words there is a most heavy penalty –
for over all such matters Nemesis, messenger of Justice, is
appointed to keep watch; wherefore the son must yield to his
parents when they are wroth, and when they give rein to their
wrath either by word or deed, he must pardon them, seeing that it
is most natural for a father to be especially wroth when he deems
that he is wronged by his own son.
Yet later, when as a consequence of the pain of her children’s anger

Klytemnestra is ultimately murdered (figure 18) it is, according to Aristotle’s
definition, not an act of hybris on her children’s part since revenge following
on from pain of righteous anger is justifiable, but revenge for revenge’s sake
and done with a sense of pleasure can only then be called an act of hybris:110
Again, a wanton outrage (ὑβρίζει) gives pleasure to the doer,

never pain, whereas an act done in anger always causes him a
feeling of pain. If then things are unjust in proportion to the
justice of the anger they arouse in the victim, unrestraint arising
from desire is more unjust than that arising from anger; for anger
contains no element of wanton insolence (ὕβρις).
Figure 18 shows Orestes murdering his mother, Klytemnestra, with Elektra

looking on from the left and a fearful Aigisthos running away to the right.
Klytemnestra had wronged her children; Nemesis heard Elektra’s plea, judged
Klytemnestra guilty of hybris, and sanctioned the retributive punishment being
carried out in figure 18.
109
Pl. Laws 717c-d.
110
Arist. EN, VII 6.4.
~147~
The Classical Era
Figure 18: Elektra looks on as Orestes kills Klytemnestra and Aigisthos runs away; fragmentary
bronze facing of a tripod leg from Olympia, originally from Samos; ca. 570; Olympia museum inv.
M 77 (source: museum).
An altar inscription from the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros of this period

which refers to Nemesis consists of just two words: Τύχας [Νεμ]έσεος111 (‘for
Tyche Nemesis’).112 These two deities together as a pair in extant inscriptions
and literary works is rare, but the previously discussed amphoriskos may be
another example if it is indeed Tyche who stands with Nemesis. Although the
meaning of the inscription is unclear, I would speculate it to mean: ‘for good
fortune but not too much’, with Tyche representing ‘good fortune’ and
Nemesis as the’ balancer’ of fortune. In his lexicon, written in the fourth-
century AD, Hesychios gives the definition for the term ἀγαθὴ τύχη as: ἡ
111
IG iv2, 1 311; Peek, Asklepieion 134; Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games,
196 no. 79; C. M. Edwards, 'Tyche at Corinth,' Hesperia 59, no. 3, 1990, 535; cf. a similar
inscription from Pautalia (Kyustendil) in modern day Bulgaria dating to the Roman era: ἀγαθῇ
τύχῃ. Νεμέσ[ει Ἀδρ]αστείᾳ Σα̣λ̣(?) ∙ Πρόκλα χαριστήριον: IGBulg iv 2140.
112
~148~
The Classical Era
Νέμεσις καὶ ἡ Θέμις,113 which establishes a close interpretational connection

between Nemesis, Themis, and T/tyche in his time. Whether this was its
interpretation in the fifth century remains speculative.
The Funeral Oration or Epitaphios by Gorgias, writing in the late fifth to early
fourth century, mentions divine nemesis and mankind’s envy as emotions he
wishes to avoid invoking through his praise of the dead:
τί γὰρ ἀπῆν τοῖς ἀνδράσι τούτοις ὧν δεῖ ἀνδράσι

προσεῖναι; τί δὲ καὶ προσῆν ὧν οὐ δεῖ προσεῖναι; εἰπεῖν
δυναίμην ἃ βούλομαι, βουλοίμην δ’ ἃ δεῖ, λαθὼν μὲν
τὴν θείαν νέμεσιν, φυγὼν δὲ τὸν ἀνθρώπινον φθόνον. οὗτοι γὰρ
ἐκέκτηντο ἔνθεον μὲν τὴν ἀρετήν, ἀνθρώπινον δὲ τὸ θνητόν.114
What quality was there absent in these men which ought in men
to be present? And what was there present that should not be
present? May I have the power to speak as I would, and the will
to speak as I should, avoiding divine nemesis and escaping the
envy of men. For these were divine in their valour, though
human in their mortality.
Although Gorgias affirms his desire to avoid divine nemesis and human envy,
this is exactly what he implies will occur since he continues his speech with
effusive praise extolling the virtues of the dead in a manner that has sometimes
been described as full of bombastic expressionism and ostentatious rhetoric.115
Through such inflated praise of the merits of the dead, the living cannot fail to
be envious, especially when hearing of exploits beyond their own ability, as
Thucydides and Demosthenes verify in their funeral orations.116 On the other
hand, while such praise of the dead may lead to mankind’s envy, it is unlikely
it would also lead to a divine nemesis against Gorgias, even though he
describes the dead as ‘divine in their valour’, although it may, according to
Pindar invoke the gods phthonos.117 Gorgias is, I believe, speaking in a
manner that demonstrates his own standing and authority, and the esteem in
which he holds himself, factors which might well, at some time in the future,
lead to a divine nemesis descending upon him.
113
Hesych. vol. 1, 11.45 (Schmidt) s.v. ἀγαθὴ τύχη; vol. 1, 11.46 (Latte) s.v. ἀγαθὴ τύχη.
114
Gorgias F6.10-13 (DK 82 B 6.10-13).
115
S. P. Consigny, Gorgias: Sophist and Artist, South Carolina, 2001, 25.
116
Thuc. 1.35; Dem. 60.23.
117
Pind. Isth. 7.39.
~149~
The Classical Era
Boastfulness (exemplified by Kroisos) or going beyond one’s ordained limits

(such as Thersites) or trying to emulate the gods (Priam, with his large
progeny) were all sins punishable by N/nemesis.118 Hippon, a fifth-century
philosopher, although Aristotle refused to list him as such ‘because of the
paltriness of his thought’,119 took these offences to the extreme by reputably
ordering his grave-stele to be inscribed with the following epitaph, according
to Clement of Alexandria:
οὐ νέμεσις τοίνυν οὐδὲ Ἵππωνι ἀπαθανατίζοντι τὸν θάνατον τὸν

ἑαυτοῦ: ὁ Ἵππων οὗτος ἐπιγραφῆναι ἐκέλευσεν τῷ μνήματι τῷ
ἑαυτοῦ τόδε τὸ ἐλεγεῖον:
Ἵππωνος τόδε σῆμα, τὸν ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν ἶσον

ἐποίησεν Μοῖρα καταφθίμενον.120
We must not be angry (have nemesis), therefore, even with

Hippon, who represented his death as a deification of himself.
This Hippon ordered the following couplet to be inscribed on his
monument:
Behold the tomb of Hippon, whom in death Fate made

an equal of the immortal gods.
Tantalizingly, there is a possibility that a stele fragment found in Athens may

have come from Hippon’s grave, since it mentions this name. The remaining
letters read:
Ἵππων Α[—?—]
Κυδαθ[ηναιεύς]121
In reality, of course, there would have been more than one person with the
name of Hippon, but it would be nice to connect this discovery to the
philosopher himself.
Although mankind may or may not have nemesis for the arrogance of Hippon’s
words the gods surely would, since they represent a direct challenge to them
and their dignity. In ordering this inscription, if he actually did, Hippon
118
Kroisos, pp. 169-179; Thersites, pp. 34-43; Priam, pp. 72-75.
119
Arist. Meta. i.3.984a3.
120
Clem. iv. 55; DK 38 B 2.
121
SEG 29.210. Κυδαθηναιείς or Κυδαθηναίοι is an area of Athens roughly corresponding to
the current-day Plaka.
~150~
The Classical Era
demonstrates arrogance by going beyond the ordained limits appropriate to

mortals, as he tries to emulate the gods in his description of himself as having
now become their equal. His words are those of a hybristic man. Little is
known of Hippon’s life and death and, of his works, all that remains is one
verbatim fragment.122 Perhaps this is how divine nemesis punished him: his
works banished to obscurity and his name to distant memory.
Although Hellenistic and Roman grave-stelai evoke N/nemesis as a protector

of tombs or as a warning to those who would violate the dead, such invocations
are absent from Archaic and Classical grave inscriptions, which is curious. It
is possible the reforms attributed to Solon in 594 and Kleisthenes ca. 508/507
prohibiting ostentatious funeral ritual and monuments, or the so-called post
aliquanto law mentioned by Cicero of the 480s or 470s,123 may have been
contributory factors. Certainly there was a decline in grave-stelai generally
around this time, but after ca. 425 they again started to became more
popular.124
NEMESIS, COMEDY, AND SEX

The most complete surviving comedies of the fifth century are those written by
Aristophanes. His plays belong to the so-called ‘Old Comedy’ genre, an early
form of Greek comedy full of political and personal satire together with a
profusion of sexual and scatological innuendo. It is to this genre that the
playwrights Kratinos and Platon belong, and their style is typical of the Old
Comedy categorization. Although their plays are no longer extant, they exist
in fragmentary form, and from these sources it is known that both wrote about
Nemesis. But, while Platon briefly mentions the goddess and the abstract in
122
DK 38 B 2; cf: OCD3 711-712 s.v. Hippon.
123
Plut. Solon 21.4-5; Dem. 43.62; Cic. Leg. 2.64-65; O. Palagia, 'Classical Athens,' in O.
Palagia (ed.), Greek Sculpture: Function, Materials, and Techniques in the Archaic and
Classical Periods, Cambridge NY, 2006, 122; K. E. Stears, 'The Times They Are A'Changing:
Developments in Fifth-Century Funerary Sculpture,' in G. J. Oliver (ed.), The Epigraphy of
Death: Studies in the History and Society of Greece and Rome, Liverpool, 2000, 42-58; I.
Morris, Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge, 1992, 128-129,
132; R. Garland, 'The Well-Ordered Corpse: An Investigation into the Motives behind Greek
Funerary Legislation,' BICS 36, no. 1, 1989, 5-9; Friis Johansen, The Attic Grave-Reliefs of the
Classical Period, 120-121.
124
M. M. Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous,' Hesperia 58, no.
2, 1989, 234 n. 189.
~151~
The Classical Era
the available fragments, it was Kratinos who wrote a complete play called
Nemesis.
Kratinos (ca. 519 – ca. 422)

Despite being named as one of the three canonical comic poets, along with
Eupolis and Aristophanes, not one of Kratinos’ approximately twenty-one
comedies remains whole and intact today: something which should not be seen
as evidence for Norwood’s view of an inferior talent, but rather as an accident
of epigraphical history.125 What does remain are the titles of his plays together
with over five-hundred fragmentary passages which have been passed down
via secondary sources.126 Even in this state Kratinos’ considerable talent is
apparent, and proven by his success in winning the comic section of the City
Dionysia six times and three times at the Lenaia, with his Pytine awarded first
prize in the Dionysia of 423 and Aristophanes’ Clouds third.127
Kratinos was a comedic innovator whose broad thematic grasp encompassed a

wide spectrum of genres including satyr, epic, iambic, and didactic poetry, all
composed using what Revermann calls ‘macro-level plot construction’.128
Even Norwood, despite his opinion on the superiority of Aristophanes, praises
him: ‘… the Old Comedy owes its literary manner to Cratinus: the rich vigour,
the poetical power, the zestful fun, the command of idiom, are all exemplified
even in our fragments … he offers a superb blend of great intellect and
uproarious good-humour …’.129 Without fear of religious repercussions or
125
Ancient authors who write of Kratinos’ ability or quote him as part of the comic canon
include: Hor. Sat. 1.4.1; Persius, Sat. 1.123-4; Vell. Pat. 1.16.3; Quint. 10.1.66. The subject is
discussed by: E. Bakola, Cratinus and the Art of Comedy, Oxford, 2010, 2; S. D. Olson,
Broken Laughter: Select Fragments of Greek Comedy, Oxford, 2007, 408 s.v. Cratinus; M.
Heath, 'Aristophanes and His Rivals,' G&R 37, no. 2, 1990, 143. A list of sources who mention
Kratinos both positively and negatively is found in: Storey, vol. 1, 308-324; PCG iv 112-121.
The Suda assigns him twenty-one plays although twenty-nine titles exist, but some may have
had two titles, for example: Dionysuses is probably confused with the better known
Dionysalexander: Storey, vol. 1, 234-237.
126
Bakola, Cratinus and the Art of Comedy, 1-3.
127
IG ii2 2325.50, 2325.121; M. Revermann, Comic Business: Theatricality, Dramatic
Technique, and Performance Contexts of Aristophanic Comedy, Oxford, 2006, 308-311; I.
Ruffell, 'A Total Write-Off: Aristophanes, Cratinus, and the Rhetoric of Comic Competition,'
CQ 52, no. 1, 2002, 138; Z. P. Biles, 'Intertextual Biography in the Rivalry of Cratinus and
Aristophanes,' AJPh 123, no. 2, 2002, 169, 189.
128
Revermann, Comic Business, 103, 106.
129
Norwood, Greek Comedy, 144.
~152~
The Classical Era
political backlash Kratinos used comic burlesque to lampoon political themes

and personalities, generally with a ruthless invective which exhibits a: ‘close
relationship between the abusive, metaphorical satire and plot [that] is central
to Cratinus’ comic technique’.130 He shamelessly parodied the familiar and
previously time-honoured myths and turned them into mythological
mockeries,131 all of which is evident in his play Nemesis.132
The play’s fragments suggest the plot centred on the mythology surrounding
the goddess Nemesis taken from the Kypria, and confirmed by Eratosthenes’
mention of Kratinos’ name in relation to the myth,133 which was previously
discussed above in relation to Nemesis’ rape as told by the Kypria:134
λέγεται δὲ τὸν Δία ὁμοιωθέντα τῷ ζῴῳ τούτῳ Νεμέσεως

ἐρασθῆναι, ἐπεὶ αὐτὴ πᾶσαν ἤμειβε μορφήν, ἵνα τὴν παρθενίαν
φυλάξῃ, καὶ τότε κύκνος γέγονεν· οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸν ὁμοιωθέντα
τῳ ὀρνέῳ τούτῳ καταπτῆναι εἰς Ῥαμνοῦντα τῆς Ἀττικῆς, κἀκεῖ
τὴν Νέμεσιν φθεῖραι· τὴν δὲ τεκεῖν ᾠόν, ἐξ οὗ ἐκκολαφθῆναι καὶ
γενέσθαι τὴν Ἑλένην, ὥς φησι Κρατῖνος ὁ ποιητής. 135
It is said that Zeus, enamoured of Nemesis, transformed himself

into this bird when she changed her shape and assumed the form
of a swan in order to protect her virginity. Zeus changed himself
into a swan and flew down to Rhamnous in Attika, where he
ravished her. She bore an egg, from which Helen was hatched,
as the poet Kratinos recounts.136
130
Ruffell, 'A Total Write-Off', 154.
131
Deities were not immune to parody and ridicule: Kratinos’ Thraittai made a mockery of the
cult of Bendis; Aristophanes’ Horai attacked the foreign god, Sabazios: J. Henderson,
'Pherekrates and the Women of Old Comedy,' in D. Harvey & J. Wilkins (eds), The Rivals of
Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London, 2000, 137.
132
There is debate over whether Kratinos the elder or younger was the author, but the main
consensus seems to incline towards Kratinos the elder: J. T. M. F. Pieters, Cratinus: Bijdrage
tot de Geschiedenis der Vroeg-Attische Comedie, Leiden, 1946, 119-121; F. R. B. Godolphin,
'The Nemesis of Cratinus,' CPh 26, no. 4, 1931, 423-426; E. Capps, 'The "Nemesis" of the
Younger Cratinus,' HSPh 15, 1904, 61-75.
133
PEG, Kypria F9; EGF, Kypria F7; West, Kypria F10-11 (Athen. 8.334b).
134
Above, p. 106.
135
Eratosth. 25; DNP, vol. 6, 817. The manuscript has: ὥς φησι Κράτης ὁ ποιητής, but
restored to Κρατῖνος by Valckenaer: H. Grotius (ed.), L.C. Valckenaer: Euripidis Tragoedia
Phoenissae, Leiden, 1802, 259, vs. 447. Note his comment on p. 259 that in place of Kratinos,
Krates was often used: ‘Istum Cratini locum respicit Eratosthenes Cataster. c. xxv, ubi
vulgatur, ut alibi saepenumero pro Cratino, Κράτης.’
136
Trans: Condos, Star Myths, 93.
~153~
The Classical Era
Kratinos’ name in the passage survives only in the scholiast on the Germanicus
text,137 with other texts restoring ‘Krates’. An explanation for the anomaly
may be the fact that originally Krates was an actor in Kratinos’ plays, although
he later became a comic author in his own right. 138 Krates’ two-fold role may
have been the cause of the confusion.
Although the specific plot details of the play Nemesis are unknown the broad
outline, taken from the myth, has Nemesis attempting to flee from an over-
sexed Zeus. It also includes her transformations, her final change into a swan
whereupon she is captured by Zeus in similar form, raped, and in due course
produces an egg from which Helen was born.139 According to Eratosthenes,
these events took place at Rhamnous. This, the spatial birthplace of the myth,
is where the goddess Nemesis’ divine status was elevated and a new temple
built ca. 436-432 consequent upon the imagined inherent sanctity of the
location, and the role she was perceived to have played in the defeat of the
Persians in 490.140 Such a new-found celebrity status no doubt tempted an
irreverent Kratinos in ca. 431,141 to take the mythical story, add some
contemporary political elements (then as now people delight in seeing
politicians ridiculed),142 to produce a comic quasi-political
137
Σ Germanicus, 405 lines 9-15; cf. Edmonds i 57 note b: 'these words now only occur in the
Scholiast on Germanicus whose Latin is based on Eratosthenes' Greek'.
138
Σ Ar. Eq. 537a: ‘Krates was a comic poet, who was first an actor in the plays of Kratinos
and later became a poet himself’; Edmonds i 153: ‘Crates: He was an Athenian who is said to
have begun as an actor allotted to Cratinus’.
139
Hyginus Astron. 8; Apollod. Bibl. 3.10.7; Σ Kallim., Hymn to Artemis 3.232; Philodem. De
Piet. B 7369; Paus. 1.33.7; PEG, Kypria F9; EGF, Kypria F7; West, Kypria F10 (Athen.
8.334b-d); Tzetz. Σ on Lykoph. 88; Eust., Iliadem 1321.30; Eratosth. 25; W. Luppe, 'Die
'Nemesis' des Kratinos: Mythos und politischer Hintergrund,' Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift
Halle 23, no. 4, 1974, 51.
140
Discussed below, pp. 223-228.
141
The exact date is unknown but thought to be shortly before the Peloponnesian War,
possibly around the same time as the Megarian Decree when hostilities between Athens and
Sparta, Megara’s ally, became strained. A date of ca. 431 is suggested by: J. Henderson,
'Pursuing Nemesis: Cratinus and Mythological Comedy,' in C. W. Marshall & G. Kovacs
(eds), No Laughing Matter: Studies in Athenian Comedy, London, 2012, 1; Godolphin, 'The
Nemesis of Cratinus', 425-426; Luppe, 'Die 'Nemesis' des Kratinos: Mythos und politischer
Hintergrund', 55; Bakola, Cratinus and the Art of Comedy, 223; M. Revermann, 'Cratinus'
Διονυσαλέξανδρος and the Head of Pericles,' JHS 117, 1997, 199 n. 15; W. R. Connor, The
New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens, Indianopolis, 1992, 205; Pieters, Cratinus, 119-121;
Capps argues for ca. 414: Capps, 'The "Nemesis" of the Younger Cratinus', 61-75; Norwood
dates it 'with certainty at 429': Norwood, Greek Comedy, 125.
142
Using limited fragmentary evidence Storey and Allan believe Kratinos primarily wrote
mythological parodies with politics as a secondary consideration: I. C. Storey & A. Allan, A
Guide to Ancient Greek Drama, Oxford, 2005, 192.
~154~
The Classical Era
burlesque/mythological parody143 with plenty of literary licence, satirical

mockery, sexual innuendo, and invective inferences. As subject matter,
Kratinos was treading fearlessly on religious beliefs by turning the myth into
burlesque: a modern day analogy would perhaps be a satire such as Monty
Python’s Life of Brian which parodies Christian religion.
Whilst Perikles’ name, if it existed, does not survive, there is no doubt the
political parody of Nemesis centres around this statesman.144 His identification
is deduced from a comic reference to historical Perikles’ reputedly abnormal
head which was well-known and mentioned by several ancient authors.145
Kratinos provokingly and sarcastically insinuates this ‘abnormality’ in a
reference which simultaneously distinguishes Perikles as the double-identity
Zeus/Perikles, something the sources indicate was not an uncommon
association:146 μόλ’ ὦ Ζεῦ ξένιε καὶ καραίε147 (‘Come, Zeus of strangers and of
heads’).148 Whilst ‘[god] of strangers (or foreigners)’ was a common epithet
for Zeus, in this instance it almost certainly functioned as a snide double-
entendre at Perikles’ taste for mixing with and befriending foreigners, such as
his lover Aspasia from Milesia and the Clazomenian philosopher
Anaxagoras.149 The comic insinuation would have been well received by the
appreciative Athenian audiences. Although ‘[god] of heads’ (καραίε) was
143
Wright objects to this terminology: M. Wright, 'Comedy and the Trojan War,' CJ 57, no. 2,
2007, 431.
144
Revermann suspects but remains undecided as to whether Kratinos’ Nemesis was a political
comedy disguised as mythological burlesque: Revermann, Comic Business, 306; Bowie agrees
with the suggestions of political allegory but is uncertain as to how far this went: A. Bowie,
'Myth and Ritual in the Rival of Aristophanes,' in D. Harvey & J. Wilkins (eds), The Rivals of
Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London, 2000, 325.
145
Plut. Per. 3.3-5 suggests Perikles misshapened head was the reason why he was depicted
wearing a helmet: ‘His physical features were almost perfect, the only exception being his
head, which was rather long and out of proportion. For this reason almost all his portraits
show him wearing a helmet, since the artists apparently did not wish to taunt him with this
deformity’; Telecleides (PCG vii F47); Eupolis Demoi (PCG v F115).
146
Ar. Ach. 528-531: ‘Then Perikles, aflame with ire on his Olympian height, let loose the
lightning, caused the thunder to roll’; Diodoros 12.40.5-6: ‘… his [Perikles] great ability as an
orator, which is the reason he has been called, ‘The Olympian’; Plut. Per. 8.2-3; Kratinos
Thraittai F73 (Storey, vol. 1, F73; Edmonds i F71), Kheirones F258 (Storey, vol. 1).
147
PCG iv F118 (Edmonds i F113). Plut. Per. 3.5 quotes this line from Kratinos as a mocking
reference to Perikles.
148
Bakola gives this quotation as an example of a prayer-parody and translates: ‘Come, oh
Zeus, patron of foreigners and head of state’: Bakola, Cratinus and the Art of Comedy, 173.
149
Plut. Per. 4.4-5, 24.1-7. ‘God of strangers/foreigners’ may also be an indirect reference to
Perikles’ citizenship law which saw foreign wives, and children of mixed parentage without
rights: [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 26.4; Arist. Pol. 1278a34-35, 1275b31-32.
~155~
The Classical Era
relevant to Zeus as a Boiotian epithet,150 in the context of the play it would

have been construed as a clever sarcasm aimed at Perikles’ irregular cranium.
The audiences would have enjoyed the pun about Perikles’ physical big-head
and his reputation for ‘big-headedness’ more befitting of the Olympian god
with whom he shares a double-identity in the play. Plutarch says of him:
The poet Ion, however, says that Perikles had a presumptuous

and somewhat arrogant manner of address, and that into his
haughtiness there entered a good deal of disdain and contempt
for others.151
Mockery of Perikles’ head is also found in other comedies by Kratinos: in

Thraittai where Perikles is not only named but clearly identified as the double-
identity Zeus/Perikles: ὁ σχινοκέφαλος Ζεὺς ὁδὶ προσέρχεται <ὁ> Περικλέης,
τᾠδεῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ κρανίου ἔχων, ἐπειδὴ τοὔστρακον παροίχεται152 (‘Here comes
Perikles, the onion-headed Zeus, with the Odeion on his head, now that the
ostracon has gone away’);153 in Kheirones the gods call Perikles
κεφαληγερέταν (‘head-gatherer/compeller’),154 a pun on Zeus’ Homeric epithet
νεφεληγερέτης (‘cloud-gatherer/compeller’).155
The Athenians of the day clearly saw Perikles as egotistical, opinionated, and
arrogant; a leader who considered himself above the rest of mankind and
somewhere on a level with the gods. Consequently, Kratinos’ statement as a
reference to Perikles: μόλ’ ὦ Ζεῦ ξένιε καὶ καραίε, might more aptly be
translated as: ‘Come, Zeus of strangers and of swollen-heads’, making it
150
A Boiotian cult epithet for Zeus: LSJ9 877, col. 1, s.v. καραιός, (cf. LSJ9 878, col.2, s.v.
κάριος); Hesych. vol. 2, 410.65, 412.63 s.v. καραιός; IG vii 3208, [Διὶ] Καραιοῖ
(Orchomenos); SEG 32.478, Διὶ] Καραιοῖ. Possibly the epithet meant ‘statuesque Zeus’, or
more remotely it may have been a reference to the birth of Athena from Zeus’ head; cf. A. B.
Cook, Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 2, part ii, Cambridge, 1925, 874 n. 2. Kock
quotes not καραίε but μακροκάριε (‘big-head’): PCG iv F118.
151
Plut. Per. 5.3.
152
PCG iv F73 (Storey, vol. 1, F73; Edmonds i F71); Plut. Per. 13.6.
153
This may refer to Perikles’ successful ostracism of his rival Thucydides, son of Melesias, in
444/3. τᾠδεῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ κρανίου ἔχων implies Perikles’ head is so swollen the Odeion theatre
would fit in it; cf. Androtion FGrH 324 F37; Philokhoros FGrH 338 F120; Theopompos
FGrH 115 F91. Cf: Vickers on the roof of the concert hall (Odeion) being built to represent
Perikles’ head: M. Vickers, Pericles on Stage: Political Comedy in Aristophanes' Early Plays,
Austin, 1977, 65.
154
Plut. Per. 3.4; PCG iv F258 (Storey, vol. 1, F258; Edmonds i F240).
155
Used of Zeus throughout Homer, for example: Il. 1.511, 7.280, 8.38. Cf: Vickers, Pericles
on Stage, 30.
~156~
The Classical Era
appropriate that Perikles’ arrogant behaviour should evoke a play called

Nemesis with him as protagonist. It was thought that as a result of Perikles’
citizenship law which saw foreign wives and children of mixed parentage
without rights,156 Perikles brought nemesis down upon himself when his
legitimate sons died leaving him with just his νόθος or bastard son by Aspasia.
When Perikles sought to make an exception to the law in order to legitimize
this son Plutarch notes that the people agreed since they considered he had
suffered nemesis for passing such a law in his arrogance: καὶ δόξαντες αὐτὸν
νεμεσητά τε παθεῖν ἀνθρωπίνων τε δεῖσθαι συνεχώρησαν ἀπογράψασθαι τὸν
νόθον εἰς τοὺς φράτορας157 (‘They thought that what he suffered was by way
of retribution, and that what he asked became a man to ask and men to grant,
and so they suffered him to enrol his illegitimate son in the phratry-lists’).
Although a degree of caution should be exercised in quoting Plutarch, writing
in the first century AD, to support claims about fifth-century views on Perikles,
his sources may have included the Atthidographers,158 or perhaps even
Kratinos’ play Nemesis,159 although this is purely conjecture.
Another character, not named in the fragments but assumed by association, is

Perikles’ concubine/hetaira/pallake/whore, Aspasia.160 With Perikles as the
156
Plut. Per. 37.2-5; cf. [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 26.4; Arist. Pol. 1278a34-35, 1275b31-32; Ael. VH
13.24. Since this topic is outside the scope of this thesis I include a small selection from the
extensive bibliography: J. Blok, 'Perikles' Citizenship Law: A New Perspective,' Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 58, no. 2, 2009, 141-170; E. Carawan, 'Pericles the Younger and
the Citizenship Law,' CJ 103, no. 4, 2008, 383-406; R. Osborne, 'Law, the Democratic Citizen
and the Representation of Women in Classical Athens,' Past & Present 155, 1997, 4-11.
157
Plut. Per. 37.5. Legitimacy and illegitimacy in ancient Greece is discussed by: D. Ogden,
Greek Bastardy In the Classical and Hellenistic Periods, Oxford, 1996, 5-6, 59-82, 151-166,
277-279; cf: Vickers, Pericles on Stage, 32, 92.
158
Blok, 'Perikles' Citizenship Law', 144, 168. The citizenship laws are mentioned by
Philokhoros F119 in relation to the distribution of grain: P. Harding (ed.), The Story of Athens:
The Fragments of the Local Chronicles of Attika, Oxford, 2008, no. 131.
159
Ogden, Greek Bastardy, 61; although Carawan is dubious: Carawan, 'Pericles the Younger
and the Citizenship Law', 388.
160
Aristophanes claimed Aspasia was a whore and ran a brothel: Ar. Ach. 516-539; Plutarch
says she ran a house of ill-repute, and that she modelled herself on the Ionian courtesan
Thargalia, but he concedes Perikles loved her dearly: Plut. Per. 24.2-3, 24.6; Plutarch quotes
from Kratinos’ Kheirones where she is called a ‘bitch-faced pallake’: PCG iv F259 (Storey,
vol.1, F259; Edmonds i F241). Henderson calls the ancient tradition surrounding Aspasia
‘scurrilous’; and Henry that Perikles’ citizenship law of 450/451 did not recognise the foreign
Aspasia as a legitimate Athenian wife (Plut. Per. 24.2) but he lived with her unmarried:
Henderson, 'Pherekrates and the Women of Old Comedy,' 140; M. M. Henry, Prisoner of
History: Aspasia of Miletus and Her Biographical Tradition, Oxford, 1995, 21, 138-139 n. 9;
Loraux questions the accuracy of the ancient writers in describing Aspasia as a whore or
courtesan: N. Loraux, 'Aspasie, l'étrangère, l'intellectuelle,' Clio: Histoire, Femmes et Societes
~157~
The Classical Era
double identity Zeus/Perikles, Aspasia’s part in this mythological parody may

have been as another double identity. Ogden thinks Nemesis/Aspasia
appropriate,161 but given there was no necessity for Zeus/Perikles to violate
Aspasia as she was sexually his for the asking, this seems unlikely. Possibly
Aspasia is Helen, or Leda, or perhaps she was Aphrodite. That she had a role
in the play seems certain given the snide references concerning Perikles and
his association with ‘strangers’ and hints at his sexual appetite.
The first fragment to suggest the play’s borrowing from the Kypria is an
instruction, possibly given by Hermes or Aphrodite to Zeus/Perikles to change
into a bird: ὄρνιθα τοίνυν δεῖ σε γίγνεσθαι μέγαν,162 (‘and now you must
become a large bird’). Having undertaken the change Zeus/Perikles clearly
enjoys his new form since it not only enables him to copulate with Nemesis but
also to enjoy the accompanying new diet appropriate to ὄρνιθες:
ὡς ἐσθίων τοῖς σιτίοισιν ἥδομαι·

ἅπαντα δ’ εἶναί <μοι> δοκεῖ ῥοδωνιὰ
καὶ μῆλα καὶ σέλινα καὶ σισύμβρια163
How I take pleasure in partaking the food.

Everything seems to me to be rose-beds
and apples and celery and bergamot mint.164
The words are not as innocent as first appears. In keeping with the general
milieu of Old Comedy and its inclination towards overt sexual obscenity the
passage keeps faith with such thematic preoccupations. The foods mentioned:
ῥοδωνιὰ (rose-beds), μῆλα (apples), σέλινα (celery), and σισύμβρια (bergamot
mint) are each used as a double-entendre with a sexually suggestive alternate
13, 2001, 17-42; cf. C. W. Fornara & L. J. Samons, Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles,
Berkeley, 1991, 162-166; A. Powell, The Greek World, London, 1995, 258-261. Whatever the
truth Aspasia was apparently an educated woman skilled in oratory: Pl. Menex. 235e, 236b,
236c, 249c, 249d; Plut. Per. 24.3 describes her ‘rare political wisdom’; cf. Lucian (De
Saltatione xxv; Cic. Inv. Rhet. i.51; Suda s.v. Ἀσπασία (alpha 4204).
161
Ogden, Greek Bastardy, 61.
162
PCG iv F114; Athen. 9.373d. Although the speaker’s name does not survive it is assumed
as Hermes messenger of the gods, or Aphrodite in view of her role in the Paris/Helen story.
163
PCG iv F116; cf. Edmonds’ variant restorations of the first line of this fragment (F111 in
volume I) and the apparatus on page 58, which does not change the sense of the fragment and
is mainly concerned with iambic trimetric.
164
~158~
The Classical Era
meaning.165 The scholiast on Theokritos gives ῥόδιον, ῥοδωνιάν, μῆλα,

σέλινα, σισύμβρια as terms used to indicate τὸ γυναικεῖον, i.e. the female
genitalia;166 terms used by other Old Comedy writers in similar contexts.167
Hesychiοs defines ῥοδωνιά: ὁ τόπος ἔνθα φύεται τὰ ῥόδα. καθάπερ καὶ ἰωνιά,
ὅπου τὰ ἴα φύεται· καὶ κρινωνιά, ἔνθα τὰ κρίνα. δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀναιδές168
(‘rose-bed: the place where the roses grow; exactly like a violet-bed where the
violets grow; and a lily-bed where there are lilies; and they also reveal their
shamelessness’).169 Up until last few words this definition could be taken as a
description of the purpose of a rose-bed, but what has shamelessness to do with
roses, or violets, or lilies? Using the double-entendres intended, the following
translation is proposed: ‘rose-bed: the place where their roses [labia maiora]
bloom; exactly like a violet-bed where their violets [labia minora] grow; and a
lily-bed where there are lilies [vagina], and they [females] reveal their
shamelessness). Hesychios similarly uses the word σέλινον to refer to τὸ
γυναικεῖον,170 while μῆλον in the plural is linked to eroticism and female
breasts.171 The noun σισύμβριον is a type of mint, but its close association
with these other sexually explicit double-meaning nouns defines it as another
165
Henderson, 'Pursuing Nemesis: Cratinus and Mythological Comedy,' 6; Edmonds i F111 n.,
quoting Σ Theok. 11.10.
166
Σ on Theok. 11.10-11: ῥόδων δὲ τῆς γυναικείας ἥβης, ὅτι τὸ γυναικεῖον μόριον καὶ ῥόδον
καὶ ῥοδωνιάν φασιν ὡς Κρατῖνος ἐν Νεμέσει, ‘ὥς γ’ ἐσθίων τοῖς σιτίοισιν ἥδομαι, ἅπαντα δ’
εἶναί <μοι> δοκεῖ ῥοδωνιά καὶ μῆλα καὶ σέλινα καὶ σισύμβρια’ (‘the roses of the female pubic-
area, that they name the female parts a ‘rose’ or a ‘rose-bed’, as Kratinos in Nemesis: ‘How I
take pleasure in partaking the food; everything seems to me to be rose-beds and apples and
celery and bergamot mint’), (translation: author); LSJ9 1127, col 1, s.v. μῆλον (‘girl’s breasts);
LSJ9 1573, col. 2, s.v. ῥόδον iii (‘pudenda muliebria’, quoting Pherekr. 108.29); LSJ9 1590,
col. 1, s.v. σέλινον II (‘pudenda muliebria’, quoting Σ Theok.11.10). Henderson comments that
ῥόδον and ῥοδωνιὰ were used as slang terms for the vaginal orifice and/or the labia maiora:
Henderson, 'Pursuing Nemesis: Cratinus and Mythological Comedy,' 5, 8; J. G. Younger, Sex
in the Ancient World from A – Z, Abingdon, 2005, 95; J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse:
Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, 2nd edn, New York, 1991, 46, 135 no. 126.
167
The words were used extensively but a few examples include: Ar. Lys. 155, Ekkl. 903;
Pherekr. 108.29, 131.2, 3. A longer list of obscene words in Old Comedy is found in:
Henderson, The Maculate Muse, 253-254.
168
Hesych. vol. 3, 243.404 s.v. ῥοδωνιά (Hansen); vol. 3, 432.4 (Schmidt) s.v. ῥοδωνιά.
169
170
Hesych. vol. 4, 19.84, s.v. σέλινον (Schmidt), vol. 3, 277.384 (Hansen); Σ on Theok. 11.10;
PCG iv F116; cf. Henderson, The Maculate Muse, 46, 136 no. 137, 144 no. 169, 151.
171
Aristophanes uses the term to refer to Helen’s breasts when he has Lampito tell how
Menelaos dropped his ξίφος (another word with an obscene double-entendre referring to the
penis) at the sight of τᾶς Ἑλένας τὰ μᾶλα: Ar. Lys. 155; see also Ekkl. 903; Theok. 27.50; LSJ9
1127, col. 2, s.v. μῆλον; Henderson, The Maculate Muse, 122 no. 58, 149 no.202.
~159~
The Classical Era
lewd word relative to τὸ γυναικεῖον, specifically a term for pubic hair.172

Appropriate to the fragment under discussion, in Aristophanes’ Birds ‘mint’
(σισύμβριον) is found with ‘white sesame’ (λευκὰ σήσαμα), ‘myrtle’ (μύρτα),
and ‘poppies’ (μήκωνα), as food for birds.173 This discussion demonstrates
that Kratinos’ Nemesis was typical of its genre with sexual suggestiveness not
only expected, but eagerly anticipated, and the audience would have found the
overt sexual innuendo of the comedic phraseology titillating.
So Zeus/Perikles enjoys his new bird-form as he delights in the arousingly

attractive Nemesis/Aspasia(?). In light of the string of double-entendres I
suggest that when Zeus was instructed to: ὄρνιθα τοίνυν δεῖ σε γίγνεσθαι
μέγαν, the passage would probably have been understood by the audience as:
‘and so, you must become a large ‘cock’, with ὄρνιθα174 as an innuendo for
Zeus/Perikles’ penis in an erect state (μέγαν) which is aroused at the
anticipation of the forthcoming enjoyment of the ῥοδωνιὰ, μῆλα, σέλινα, and
σισύμβρια of Nemesis/Aspasia(?).
Another fragment appropriate at this point is: ἐν τῷ κύφωνι τὸν αὐχέν’ ἔχων175
(‘having his neck in the stocks/pillory’). Given the sexual milieu of the play,
and with Henderson suggesting αὐχήν as a double-entendre for a phallos,176 I
propose that the seemingly innocuous words were most likely to have been
interpreted by the audience as: ‘having his penis in her vagina’.177 This
interpretation correlates with Aristophanes’ Lysistrata 680-681: ἀλλὰ τούτων
χρῆν ἁπασῶν εἰς τετρημένον ξύλον ἐγκαθαρμόσαι λαβόντας τουτονὶ τὸν
αὐχένα, which, by utilizing double-meanings for ξύλον and αὐχένα, Henderson
translates as: ‘we should get hold of this here cock and put it into the vaginas
172
Henderson, The Maculate Muse, 46, 136 no. 138.
173
Ar. Av. 159-160. These foods were connected to Aphrodite and weddings, and suggestive of
eroticism and fertility: Stesich. F187; Bacchyl. 17.116; Men. Rhet. 409.9; Ovid, Fast. 4.869;
Athen. 3.81d; Henderson, The Maculate Muse, 20, 46, 122, 134-135 no. 125, 248 no. 125.
174
LSJ9 1254, col. 2, s.v. ὄρνις III. I suggest ὄρνιθα is used here by Kratinos as a double-
entendre for cock-penis.
175
PCG iv F123 (Storey, vol. 1, F123; Edmonds i F115).
176
Henderson, The Maculate Muse, 114 no. 15. The authors of LSJ9 285, col. 1, propose a
meaning of ‘cervix uteri’, ‘pars vaginalis’, s.v. αὐχήν II.4. Given the word’s usual meaning of
‘neck’ a double-entendre for ‘penis’ is envisaged.
177
LSJ9 1015, col. 1, s.v. κυφων II; cf. Eur. Cyc. 184, where αὐχέν is used in a crude scene full
of sexual inference spoken by the chorus leader when referring to Helen’s appetite for multiple
sexual partners.
~160~
The Classical Era
(my more euphemistic emendation of Henderson’s translation) of all these

women’.178
Figure 19: Helen's 'birth' from an egg; Apulian red-figure bell-krater; ca. 380-379; Museo
Archeologico Provinciale di Bari 3899 (source: Denoyelle).
The result of Zeus/Perikles’ lustful encounter was the egg produced by

Nemesis, with another fragment telling Leda to sit on the egg so it will
hatch:179
Λήδα, σὸν ἔργον· δεῖ σ’ ὅπως εὐσχήμονος ἀλεκτρυόνος μηδὲν

διοίσεις τοὺς τρόπους,
ἐπὶ τῷδ’ ἐπῴζουσ’, ὡς ἂν ἐκλέψῃς καλὸν
ἡμῖν τι καὶ θαυμαστὸν ἐκ τοῦδ’ ὄρνεον.180
Leda, this is your task: you must carry on just like a

graceful/elegant hen and raise this egg, so that you may hatch for
us a beautiful and wonderful chick.
178
Henderson, The Maculate Muse, 114 no. 15. The words κυφων and ξύλον can both be
interpreted as ‘stocks’ or ‘pillory’: LSJ9 1015, col. 1, s.v. κυφων II, LSJ9 1192, col. 1, s.v.
ξύλον 3b.
179
Cf. Sappho F166: φαῖσι δή ποτα Λήδαν ὐακίνθινον ... ὤιον εὔρην πεπυκάδμενον ... (they
say that Leda once found an egg of hyacinth colour, covered ...); Athen 2.57d.
180
PCG iv F115 (Edmonds i F108); Athen. 9.373e.
~161~
The Classical Era
Helen was the ‘beautiful and wonderful chick’ born from this egg, as told in
the Kypria.181 Helen emerging from the egg was a popular theme on vase
paintings, and the Apulian bell-krater in figure 19 is one example painted as a
comic scene, appropriate to Kratinos’ play.182 Here the egg has lain in a
wicker basket with incubating material;183 no doubt Leda’s ‘nest’ in her role as
a ‘hen’. To the left in a doorway stands a black-haired Leda or elderly nurse
wearing an ugly woman’s snub-nosed mask. She is seemingly unconcerned at
the proceedings taking place and watches with little more interest than a
bystander, perhaps because as Helen’s step-mother she has no overly strong
maternal feelings. Having presumably already given the egg a blow with his
double axe a caricatured bearded old man with short nose, wispy white hair
and scant beard, stands to the left of the egg about to attempt a second blow.
He may be Leda’s husband Tyndareos, possibly Hephaistos184 (given the
181
Apollod. Bibl. 3.10.7. The story of Nemesis’ rape by Zeus, both in the forms of swans or
geese, and the resultant egg is discussed above, pp. 103-110.
182
The krater belongs to a group of fourth-century vases that depict scenes inspired by
burlesque plays with characters in grotesque and/or comical masks, and exaggerated physical
features, formally known as ‘phlyax vases’: T. H. Carpenter, 'Prolegomenon to the Study of
Apulian Red-Figure Pottery,' AJA 113, no. 1, 2009; K. Neiiendam, The Art of Acting in
Antiquity: Iconographical Studies in Classical, Hellenistic, and Byzantine Theatre, Denmark,
1992, 15-18; cf. Carpino discusses the scene in relation to Orphic or Dionysian cults in Magna
Graecia: Carpino, 'The Delivery of Helen's Egg: An Examination of an Etruscan Relief
Mirror', 35, n. 8.
183
Attributed to the Dijon Painter: LIMC iv Helene 5 (L. Kahil/N. Icard); I. C. Storey, 'Old
Comedy on Vases,' in Fragments of Old Comedy, vol. III, Cambridge, MA, 2011, 444 no. V
19; M. Denoyelle, 'Comedy Vases from Magna Graeca,' in M. L. Hart (ed.), The Art of Early
Greek Theater, Los Angeles, 2010, 119, pl. 56; Green comments that he sees no evidence that
the figure emerging from the egg is even female: J. R. Green, 'Comic Cuts: Snippets of Action
on the Greek Comic Stage,' BICS 45, 2001, 54, 46, 48 fig. 7; G. Pugliese Carratelli, The
Western Greeks: Classical Civilization in the Western Mediterranean, London, 1996, 499; O.
Taplin, Comic Angels: And Other Approaches to Greek Drama Through Vase-Paintings,
Oxford, 1993, 82-83, pl. 19.20; Neiiendam, The Art of Acting in Antiquity, 48-50, fig. 19; A.
D. Trendall, Red figure Vases of South Italy and Sicily: A Handbook, New York, 1989, 125; G.
Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Magna Grecia: Vita religiosa e cultura letteraria, filosofica e
scientifica, vol. III, Milan, 1988, 279 fig. 333; G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Megale Hellas:
storia e civilità della Magna Grecia, Milan, 1983, fig. 626; A. D. Trendall & A. Cambitoglou,
The Red-Figure Vases of Apulia, vol. 1, Oxford, 1978, 148, no. 6/96; A. D. Trendall & T. B. L.
Webster, Illustrations of Greek Drama, London, 1971, 138 IV, 26; A. D. Trendall, Phlyax
Vases, 2nd edn, London, 1967, 27-28 no. 18; M. Bieber, The History of Greek and Roman
Theater, 2nd edn, Princeton N J, 1961, describes Leda as Helen's mother in a commentary on
the vase, 135 fig. 492; J. D. Beazley, Etruscan Vase Painting, Oxford, 1947, 40-42.
184
Neiiendam suggests Hephaistos because: ‘his right leg is noticeable shorter than his left’,
i.e. the lame Hephaistos: Neiiendam, The Art of Acting in Antiquity, 49. An examination of the
vase shows that if anything the character’s left leg may be shorter, not the right, and even this
is debatable; Bieber also suggests Hephaistos because he had used an axe to cleave the head of
Zeus to facilitate the birth of Athena: Bieber, The History of Greek and Roman Theater, 135.
~162~
The Classical Era
latter’s skill in axe-swinging in the myth concerning the birth of Athena from
Zeus’ head), or perhaps the figure is Zeus, the egg’s father.185 To the right
stands another parodied male (perhaps Tyndareos or a slave)186 who holds up
his hand in a firm protest against the blow about to occur. With the exception
of Helen there is little consensus on the identification of the various figures.187
The figures are depicted in the typical manner of Old Comedy – ridiculously
ugly, stub noses, protruding jaws, fat stomachs, large visible dangling phalloi,
and gangling limbs.188 The only figure not parodied is baby Helen emerging
from the egg with outstretched hand in greeting who, because she appears
normal, contrasts with the other characters. The action on the vase takes place
on an elevated stage platform with hangings below. The play is burlesque and
the source material would have come from one of the Old Comedy plays,
possibly even Kratinos’ Nemesis.189 If so, Leda had clearly failed her
instructions to act like a graceful hen, which now necessitate the drastic
measures being here enacted to hatch the egg. This comic scene contrasts with
the more serious artistic versions of Helen’s birth from an egg.190
In view of the play’s conjectured date of 431, on the eve of the outbreak of the
Peloponnesian War when relationships between Athens and Sparta were at a
low ebb, it is possible Kratinos is mocking Sparta with an instruction to the
Spartan queen to act like a hen. Two further fragments from the play extend
the insult against Sparta in phrases of belittling undertones: Ψύρα τε τὴν
Σπάρτην ἄγεις (‘you regard Sparta as Psyra’);191 and: Σπάρτην λέγω γε
The double-axe is seen on a number of vases depicting Hephaistos, for example: BM

1836,0224.10; 1837,0609.27; 1849,0620.14; 1839,1109.1.
185
The double-axe had previously been a symbol of the Minoan sky-god, then Kronos, and
later Zeus: Cook, Zeus, vol. 2.ii, 548-554, 559, 573-574, 593.
186
See Neiiendam’s discussion on the options on the identity of this character: Neiiendam, The
Art of Acting in Antiquity, 50.
187
J. A. Porter, 'Tiptoeing Through the Corpses: Euripides' Electra, Apollonus, and the
Bouphonia,' GRBS 31, no. 3, 1990, 270-272, with references there.
188
Revermann, Comic Business, 149.
189
Other suggestions include: Aristophanes’ Daidalos, and Euboulos’ Lakones or Leda:
Taplin, Comic Angels, 83.
190
LIMC iv Helene 1-4, 6-10 (L. Kahil/N. Icard); LIMC vi Leda 28-32 (L. Kahil/N. Icard-
Gianolio); ARV2 1142,1, 1171.4, 1174.2, 1185.10, 1334.17, 1344; Taplin, Comic Angels, 82,
pl. 19.114; Arafat, Classical Zeus, 188, pl. 16a.
191
Steph. Byz. s.v. Ψύρα 704.5; PCG vi F119 (Storey, vol. 1, F119; Edmonds i F112).
~163~
The Classical Era
σπαρτίδα τὴν σπάρτινον (‘by Spartiad I mean Sparta and not sparto-grass’).192
Although the context is unclear, I would propose that the first insults Sparta by
putting into the mouth of one of the actors a questioning statement as to
whether Sparta is no more important than the tiny insignificant and barren
island of Psyra.193 The second fragment exhibits a play on words between
‘spartiad’ (σπαρτίδα), ‘Sparta’ (Σπάρτην), and ‘sparto grass’ (σπάρτινον).
Sparto grass was useful as a food crop, while the dried stalks and leaves were
used for making rope and stuffing mattresses.194 Although Kratinos’ meaning
is lost, I suggest the fragment may have been a reference to some local
Athenian joke about Sparta being tied up in knots, or that it was good for
nothing except ‘stuffing’.
A further fragment reads: τἄλλα πάντ’ ὀρνίθια195 (‘all the other little birds’),
which may be a reference to the play’s chorus as ‘little birds’. With the
addition of yet another fragment referring to birds: ὄρνιθα φοινικόπτερον196 (‘a
bird with wings of flame’), it seems that birds figured prominently in one form
or another throughout the play. This latter fragment recalls the allegedly
sexually rapacious iunx-bird (discussed previously in relation to the Berlin
Amphoriskos) which,197 according to Faraone, was bound to a wheel and
burned with fire whilst spells were chanted to instil an insatiable and burning
sexual longing into a desired female for the male’s pleasure.198 The objective
conjures up scenes of an unfortunate female struck with a passionate and
voracious desire for male sexual gratification, an aspect that aptly fits with the
milieu of the play, and which may have been interpreted by the audience as a
penis, or vagina, burning with fiery-passion. This interpretation seems to have
192
PCG iv F117 (Storey, vol. 1, F117; Edmonds i F112). Storey comments that σπαρτίδα is
not a known word and its only known use is in this fragment. It is not found in any of
Theophrastos’ works on plants.
193
LSJ9 2026, col. 2, s.v. Ψύρα.
194
LSJ9 1624, col. 2, s.v. σπάρτη and σπαρτός; cf. Ar. Av. 815.
195
PCG iv F120 (Edmonds i F107); Athen. ix 373c.
196
PCG iv F121 (Edmonds i F109); Athen. ix 373d.
197
Above pp. 132-135 with notes
198
Faraone, Ancient Greek Love Magic, 58, 64-69; Faraone, 'The Wheel, the Whip and Other
Implements of Torture', 2.
~164~
The Classical Era
been picked up by Edmonds when he translates the fragment as: ‘a red-

wing’ed cock-bird’.199
There remain three further fragments from Nemesis but their context is obscure
and their meanings unfathomable. The first: μεθυστέρῳ ἐν χρόνῳ200 (‘in time
to come’), sounds very like the modern: ‘Once upon a time’, and may indicate
the beginning of the play, perhaps the finale, or possibly neither. The second
concerns a drinking game called kottabos but its relevance in the play cannot
be conjectured:201
Κρατῖνος ἐν Νεμέσει· τὸ δὲ κοττάβω προθέντας ἐν πατρικοῖσι

νόμοις τὸ κεινεου ὀξυβάφοις βάλλειν μὲν τῶ πόντω δὲ βάλλοντι
νέμω πλεῖστα τύχης τὸ δ’ ἆθλον.202
Kratinos in Nemesis: after setting out the kottabos following our

ancestral rules the [corrupt] to strike with cruets, but to the sea
(?) that strikes I apportion the most luck, but the prize.203
Finally, an apt and fitting finale to Kratinos’ Nemesis – a fragment that consists
of just one word: ἀπόκινον,204 which is a comic dance of an obscene and
indecent nature euphemistically called: ‘the bugger-off dance.’
Platon (late fifth century)

Platon, another Old Comedy writer,205 uses N/nemesis as a caution in a unique
fashion – the correct way to prepare and cook different kinds of fish for
199
Edmonds i F109. (Author’s italics.)
200
PCG iv F122 (Edmonds i F11).
201
A description of this drinking game is found in: Athen. 15.665a-668e; Olson, Broken
Laughter, 311 H13, 312 H14. It is easy to visualize this ‘game’ descending into drunken
disorder as more and more wine was drunk.
202
PCG iv F124 (Storey, vol. 1, F124; Edmonds i F116).
203
Athen. xv.667f.
204
Story, vol. 1, F127 (Edmonds i F120); LSJ9 202, col. 1, s.v. Ἀπόκινος; Suda s.v. Ἀπόκινος
(alpha 3354); Ar. F275; Poll. 4.101; Athen. 14.629c; cf. Ar. Eq. 20 where Aristophanes
incorporates the word into a debate about masturbating.
205
Although younger, Platon was writing at the same time as Kratinos (Suda s.v. Πλάτων [pi
1708]) and wrote at least twenty-eight comedies. His plays tended towards political themes
but amongst his corpus was at least one mythological burlesque, Zeus Kakoumenos: OCD3
1193 s.v. Plato (2); Edmonds i 489. Platon had success with at least one play which is listed
amongst the competition winners in the 410s: IG ii2 2325.63; Olson, Broken Laughter, 415 s.v.
Plato Comicus. Rosen saw the play as a transition between Old and Middle Comedy: R. M.
Rosen, 'Plato Comicus and the Evolution of Greek Comedy,' in G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Beyond
Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, Atlanta, 1995, 132.
~165~
The Classical Era
maximum pleasure, although as is to be expected within this genre, all is not so

seemingly innocent. A dialogue begins between two characters:
(A) It’s a brand-new cookbook by Philoxenos.

(B) Give me a sample of what it’s like.
(A) Listen here: “I shall begin with bulb and conclude with tunny
fish.”
(B) With tunny fish? In that case [corrupt] it’s by far the best
thing to be posted here in the last ranks.
(A) “Subdue the bulbs with hot ash, soak them with sauce, and
munch down as many as you can, for then a man’s body
stands straight up. So much for that. I shall now pass on to
the children of the sea.”
“Not that a stewing dish is bad, but the frying pan is better, in my
opinion.”
[missing lines]
“And do not slice up the sea perch, or the speckle fish or sea
bream or shark, lest Nemesis from the gods breathe upon you
(μή σοι νέμεσις θεόθεν καταπνεύσῃ),206 but roast and serve them
whole. They’re much better that way. If you … of an octopus in
the right season, it is much better boiled than roasted, if it’s a
large one. But if there are two roasted ones, then I say to the
boiled one ‘get lost’. The red mullet does not tend to be helpful
to the penis, for she belongs to the maiden Artemis and hates
erections. Now the scorpion fish …”
(B) I hope, will creep up and sting you in the ass.”207
The passage is from Platon’s Phaon written ca. 391,208 and whose eponymous
hero is a ferryman who, because of a service rendered to Aphrodite was given
a magic salve which would ensure that all women, including the goddess
herself, would find him irresistible.209 The resultant heavy demands made for
his sexual favours were physically exhausting and he sought a way to fulfil and
satisfy the ever-present and urgent pleas. The solution is sought in a cookery
206
This exact phrase was used by fourth-century Archestratos of Gela in his Hedupatheia (Life
of Luxury). A discussion on sexual innuendo in Archestratos and on his ‘borrowings’ from
Platon is found in: C. A. Shaw, 'σκορπίος or σκῶρ πέος? A Sexual Joke in Archestratus'
Hedypatheia,' CQ 59, no. 2, 2009, 634-639.
207
PCG vii F189 (Storey, vol. 3, F189; Edmonds i F173.3-22); Athen. 1.5b. The sexual
innuendos are discussed in some detail by: Rosen, 'Plato Comicus and the Evolution of Greek
Comedy,' 10-13.
208
Edmonds i 491. The play is a profusion of sexual double-entendres used to comic effect: C.
A. Shaw, '‘Genitalia of the Sea’: Seafood and Sexuality in Greek Comedy,' Mnemosyne 67, no.
4, 2014, 567-569.
209
PCG iv F370; Storey, vol. 1, F370.
~166~
The Classical Era
book by Philoxenos210 in the hope of foods that: ‘will make a man stand up
straight’ (τὸ γὰρ δέμας ἀνέρος ὀρθοῖ) i.e. achieve and maintain a phallic
erection. The recipes that have attracted attention involve the preparation of a
first course of hyacinth bulbs,211 with instructions for the preparation of a main
course of fish. It is this latter dish which, if not prepared correctly, has the
potential to bring down the wrath either of the goddess, Nemesis or the
nemesis of the (collective) gods.
The potential for comedy is irresistibly evident especially when all the
fragments are examined together, which attest to similarly sexually suggestive
double-entendres, so that the imprecation of μή σοι νέμεσις θεόθεν
καταπνεύσῃ is in no way meant as a serious warning but demonstrates that the
deities or their attributes could be, and were, invoked disrespectfully in a light-
hearted manner. The intended implication is that if the fish was prepared
incorrectly then Phaon would be thwarted in his hopes for increased sexual
abilities, but if correctly prepared then this desire would be met. In a practical
sense it is not difficult to see that if any dish is prepared incorrectly then the
desired result would be disappointing, but whether one could blame ‘the gods’
for the failure is debatable although it makes for good comedy.
The obvious genre of the play, full of double-entendres, absolves any serious
intent or caution, and no actual N/nemesis was seriously considered about to
descend upon anyone’s sexuality whether the fish was prepared correctly or
not. What is highlighted is that as a standard for correct and moral living the
strength of the abstract emotion of nemesis had by this time diminished to the
point that comic authors considered themselves immune from any retributive
forces emanating from any deity and felt free to parody such issues with
impunity.
210
PCG vii F189.4; Storey, vol. 3, F189.4; Athen. 1.5b, 4.146f.
211
Considered a sexual stimulant: Athen. 2.64a-b.
~167~
The Classical Era
NEMESIS, HISTORY, AND PROSPERITY

It has been suggested that as a representation of divine causality an unspoken
nemesis hangs over the whole of Herodotos’ Histories:212 ‘like an unseen but
inescapable dimension in the presence of which all human crime and folly are
played out’,213 or as Harrison puts it: ‘The moral of divine retribution is a
moral of the Histories as a whole’.214 Can such statements be an accurate
interpretation of Herodotos’ Histories or even of his intentions? Did
Herodotos, as some argue, write his Histories as a lesson for present and future
generations to learn from the consequences of the sins of their forebears in
order to avoid such follies in their own times, for fear of nemesis or
retribution?215 Indeed, can such statements be upheld when, in spite of a
212
Herodotos is the only ancient historical writer to use the term nemesis; it is found nowhere
in Thucydides or Xenophon.
213
R. Metcalfe, Simpson Agonistes: A History of a Crime, Bloomington, 2012, 12; described
as 'The Doctrine of Nemesis' in: W. W. How & J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, 2 vols,
Oxford, 1928, vol. 1, 49-50, but who have erroneously taken νέμεσις and φθόνος as the same
retributive force. Inescapable fate and tragedy are a part of great rises and falls of personal
happiness, destiny, and fortune throughout Herodotos: 'human good fortune is transient and
mutable': C. B. R. Pelling, 'Educating Croesus: Talking and Learning in Herodotus' Lydian
Logos,' Classical Antiquity 25, no. 1, 2006, 146; I. M. Cohen, 'Herodotus and the Story of
Gyges,' Fabula 45, 2004, 65, 66; C. C. Chiasson, 'Herodotus’ Use of Attic Tragedy in the
Lydian Logos,' Classical Antiquity 22, no. 1, 2003, 35-36; S. Saϊd, 'Herodotus and Tragedy,' in
E. J. Bakker, I. J. F. de Jong, et al. (eds), Brill's Companion to Herodotus, Leiden, 2002, 119,
additional bibliography pp. 119-148; R. Travis, 'The Spectation of Gyges in P.Oxy. 2382 and
Herodotus Book 1,' Classical Antiquity 19, no. 2, 2000, 330-359, 330-331 n. 2; J. A. S. Evans,
Herodotus, Explorer of the Past, Princeton N J, 1991, 33 (fate), 71 (tragic rises and falls); J.
Gould, Herodotus, New York, 1989, 132.
214
T. Harrison, 'Herodotus and the Certainty of Divine Retribution,' in A. B. Lloyd (ed.), What
is a God? Studies in the Nature of Greek Divinity, Swansea, 1997, 105. Boedeker comments
that it was not a coincidence that Herodotos ended his final book with the punishment of
Artayctes for his sacrilege against Protesilaus (i.e. an act of clear retribution as a fitting way to
conclude since this theme runs throughout): D. Boedeker, 'Protesilaus and the end of
Herodotos' Histories,' Classical Antiquity 7, no. 1, 1988, 46.
215
J. D. Mikalson, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars, Chapel Hill and London,
2003, 62-63; Saϊd, 'Herodotus and Tragedy,' 147-148; T. Harrison, Divinity and History: The
Religion of Herodotus, Oxford, 2000, 121, who says the moral of divine retribution hangs over
the whole of Herodotos; J. Moles, 'Herodotus Warns the Athenians,' Papers of the Leeds
International Latin Seminar 9, 1996, 269-270; S. O. Shapiro, 'Herodotus and Solon,' Classical
Antiquity 15, no. 2, 1996, 356-357; J. Hart, Herodotus and Greek History, London, 1982, 28
'each of the acts of "fulfilment" stands at the end of a chain of causation. Sometimes this is
clearly visible, sometimes it is visible only in parts, sometimes it can be plausibly inferred,
sometimes it is quite obscure'; J. de Romilly, 'La Vengeance Comme Explication Historique
Dans L'oeuvre d'Herodote,' REG 84, 1971, 315, who sees the theme throughout, especially in
Book 1; How & Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, i.32.1, s.v. φθονερόν, vol. 1, 69, which
is described as the pervading force in Herodotos.
~168~
The Classical Era
perceived all-pervading aura of nemesis, Herodotos employs the term just

once?216
Kroisos
Μετὰ δὲ Σόλωνα οἰχόμενον ἔλαβε ἐκ θεοῦ νέμεσις
μεγάλη Κροῖσον, ὡς εἰκάσαι, ὅτι ἐνόμισε ἑωυτὸν εἶναι
ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων ὀλβιώτατον.217
But after Solon's departure [a] great N/nemesis from [a] god fell
heavily on Kroisos, as I guess, because he supposed himself to
be the most fortunate of all men.218
According to Herodotos it was Kroisos’ ‘inescapable predetermined fate’

(1.91: τὴν πεπρωμένην μοῖραν) to suffer divine revenge (1.13: τίσις) for the
sins of his ancestor, Gyges,219 five generations before, as foretold by an oracle
(1.91). This fate, something beyond Kroisos’ control or ability to remedy, was
moirai-driven; but crucially a separate nemesis-driven fate would also befall
Kroisos as a consequence of his own personal sins, since N/nemesis remedies
or balances those iniquities that are personally committed.220
Prior to discussing the passage as a whole, it is worth considering some of its

individual anomalies. The word νέμεσις: as an abstract noun Evans judges
Powell’s translation of ‘divine vengeance’ too strong and suggests
‘indignation’ instead.221 In light of the magnitude of nemesis-driven suffering
that subsequently descended on Kroisos, I believe something more than
dispassionate divine ‘indignation’ is warranted, but rather an emotion of
‘righteous anger’ manifested as divine retribution aimed to punish Kroisos and
216
Asheri refers to this as: ‘a hapax in Herodotus’: D. Asheri, A. Lloyd & A. Corcella, A
Commentary on Herodotus: Books I-IV, ed. O. Murray, Oxford, 2007, 105; see also: J. E.
Powell, A Lexicon to Herodotus, 2nd edn, Hildesheim, 1960, 230 s.v. νέμεσις. Cf: ‘The
doctrine of Nemesis’ in: How & Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, i.32.1, vol. 1, 69, 49-50.
217
Hdt. 1.34.1.
218
219
B. Shimron, 'Politics and Belief in Herodotus,' Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 58,
1989, 47-48.
220
[Nemesis is] ‘a personal punishment for a personal sin’: Shimron, 'Politics and Belief in
Herodotus', 35.
221
Evans, Herodotus, Explorer of the Past, 47; Powell, A Lexicon to Herodotus, 230 s.v.
νέμεσις. ‘Indignation’ is similarly used by Fisher and Gould: N. R. E. Fisher, 'Popular Morality
in Herodotus,' in E. J. Bakker, I. J. F. de Jong, et al. (eds), Brill's Companion to Herodotus,
Leiden, 2002, 218; Gould, Herodotus, 79.
~169~
The Classical Era
to turn him from his self-satisfied, conceited, and self-congratulatory ways,

towards a more moderate way of thinking, towards themis and ‘right-order’.222
A further point to consider is the correct interpretation of ἐκ θεοῦ in: ἐκ θεοῦ

νέμεσις μεγάλη. As Vandiver rightly points out ἐκ θεοῦ could be translated
either as ‘from god’ or ‘from a god’, since Greek has no indefinite article.223
From her examination of the passage she has determined upon the latter
understanding of ‘from a god’, but concedes that had Herodotos intended the
more definite ‘from god’ then Apollo is indicated.224 Since Apollo was
specifically concerned in Kroisos’ inescapable moirai-driven fate,225 and
Herodotos has nemesis ἐκ θεοῦ fall on Kroisos for his personal wrong-
doing,226 in my opinion some another god was responsible for Kroisos’
nemesis-driven fate. If Herodotos had intended ‘nemesis from a god’, then
Nemesis, acting on her own behalf, could plausibly be the deity meant, i.e.
‘But after Solon’s departure a great nemesis [from Nemesis] fell heavily on
Kroisos’. But, if the intended reading was ‘from god’,227 then Zeus, who was
more typically identified simply as ‘god’, would be meant. In this case the
222
That this objective was successful is evident in Kroisos’ later reputation as a wise man and
his appointment as a counsellor to his captor, Kyros: Hdt. 1.89-90.
223
Vandiver, 'Strangers are from Zeus: Homeric Xenia at the Courts of Proteus and Croesus,'
156 n. 49.
224
A conclusion drawn, no doubt, because of the prominent role played by Apollo elsewhere in
the Kroisos logos. Note Mikalson’s statement that this is another example of Herodotos using
the generic term, ‘the divine’, to indicate a generalization of divinity and not any specific god
related to cult: Mikalson, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars, 150. Other examples
of the generic use of ὁ θεός include, but are not limited to, the following passages: Hdt. 1.31;
1.64; 3.35; 4.79, 119; 6.27, 98; 7.10, 8.13, 60.
225
Hdt. 1.13, 91 mentions Apollo (Loxias) and the Delphic oracle in relation to Kroisos’
moirai-driven misfortunes.
226
Those who give his personal wrong-doings as the reason for the nemesis which befell
Kroisos include: Vandiver, 'Strangers are from Zeus: Homeric Xenia at the Courts of Proteus
and Croesus,' 157; Chiasson, 'Herodotus’ Use of Attic Tragedy in the Lydian Logos', 8; Evans,
Herodotus, Explorer of the Past, 31, 47-48; Shimron, 'Politics and Belief in Herodotus', 35
where Shimron states that this was: 'a personal punishment for a personal sin', 48; 'The
Herodotean Solon,' GRBS 27, 1986, 261; M. L. Lang, Herodotean Narrative and Discourse,
Cambridge, MA, 1984, 4; H. R. Immerwahr, Form and Thought in Herodotus, Atlanta, 1966,
83; H. R. Immerwahr, 'Historical Action in Herodotus,' TAPA 86, 1954, 36, 38. Others who
incorrectly class all Kroisos’ misfortunes as the work of nemesis include: Metcalfe, Simpson
Agonistes: A History of a Crime, 194; M. G. Lancellotti, Attis between Myth and History: King
Priest and God, Leiden, 2002, 55, n. 194; Hart, Herodotus and Greek History, 29.
227
Fisher takes this reading: Fisher, Hybris, 357.
~170~
The Classical Era
‘nemesis’ visited upon Kroisos would come from Zeus by means of his agent
Nemesis: ‘great Nemesis [sent] from Zeus’.228
Whatever Herodotos’ meaning, ultimately there is little difference between the

two readings since in each the personified goddess Nemesis potentially looms
as a pivotal protagonist in the nemesis-driven set of misfortunes about to
descend on Kroisos, because he boasted that he was the most fortunate of all
men. Kroisos’ boast emanated from his pride in his excessive wealth and
good-fortune, both of which transgressed the boundaries of his life’s allocation
and demonstrated an aspiration to emulate the gods; all of which must find
redress and ‘balance’ through N/nemesis. It is important to emphasize that it
was the realignment of ‘balance’ that needed to be addressed and not, as some
would suggest, nemesis consequent upon any hybris committed by Kroisos, a
term which is nowhere used in the Kroisos logos.229 The story of Kroisos and
his misfortunes has traditionally been quoted as the inevitable nemesis
resulting from an act or acts of hybris,230 a view strongly disputed by Fisher
and Gould.231 Cairns agrees with their conclusion in principle but qualifies his
view by saying Kroisos’ prosperity inclined him to believe himself to be higher
than others which, in his opinion, equates to hybris; a statement which
effectively aligns him with the hybris/nemesis theorists.232
228
But note Fisher’s reference simply to ‘god’ where Herodotos gives Apollo: Hdt. 1.87;
Fisher, Hybris, 360.Munn considers the goddess is indicated: Munn, The Mother of the Gods,
335.
229
Herodotos uses hybris just once: 1.89 (ὑβρισταὶ), in Kroisos’ description of the Persians; cf.
Kindt’s interpretation of Herodotos’ accusation of hybris (implied) against Kroisos as ruler of
his nation in regards to his attitude towards the divine and the oracles: J. Kindt, 'Delphic
Oracle Stories and the Beginning of Historiography: Herodotus’ Croesus Logos,' CPh 101, no.
1, 2006, 47.
230
MacLeod, Dolos & Dike in Sophokles' Electra, 127 n. 48; Shimron, 'Politics and Belief in
Herodotus', 48; J. G. Gammie, 'Herodotus on Kings and Tyrants: Objective Historiography or
Conventional Portraiture?,' JNES 45, no. 3, 1986, 176-177; Hart, Herodotus and Greek
History, 30; T. A. Sebeok & E. Brady, 'The Two Sons of Croesus: A Myth about
Communication in Herodotus,' QUCC 1, 1979, 13; B. Snell, 'Gyges und Kroisos als
Tragödien-Figuren,' ZPE 12, 1973, 204; de Romilly, 'La Vengeance Comme Explication
Historique Dans L'oeuvre d'Herodote', 315; D. N. Levin, 'Croesus as an Ideal Tragic Hero,' CB
36, 1960, 33-34. Lateiner argues that disproportionate prosperity is the moral equivalent of
hybris: D. Lateiner, 'A Note on the Perils of Prosperity in Herodotus,' RhM 125, 1982, 97-101;
cf. comments in: Evans, Herodotus, Explorer of the Past, 47 n. 25.
231
Fisher, 'Popular Morality in Herodotus,' 218; J. E. van den Veen, 'The Lord of the Ring:
Narrative Technique in Herodotus' Story of Polycrates' Ring,' Mnemosyne 46, no. 4, 1993, 455;
Fisher, Hybris, 357-360, and passim; Gould, Herodotus, 80.
232
Cairns, 'Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big', 18, n. 80.
~171~
The Classical Era
Fisher’s definition of hybris is worth examining at this point: ‘the serious

assault on the honour of another, which is likely to cause shame, and lead to
anger and attempts at revenge. Hybris is often, but by no means necessarily,
an act of violence; it is essentially deliberate activity, and the typical motive
for such infliction of dishonour is the pleasure of expressing a sense of
superiority, rather than compulsion, need or desire for wealth …. Hybris thus
most often denotes specific acts or general behaviour directed against others,
rather than attitudes.’ Ober defines hybris as: ‘the propensity for and the act of
deliberately seeking to disrespect or dishonour another person through
outrageous speech (gross verbal insult) or action (physical violence)’.233 There
is no doubt that Fisher and Ober have effectively explained hybris, although I
would add the following from Aristotle: ἔτι οὐδεὶς ὑβρίζει λυπούμενος, ὁ δ’
ὀρηῇ ποιῶν πᾶς ποιεῖ λυπούμενος, ὁ δ’ ὑβρίζων μεθ’ ἡδονῆς234 (‘that a wanton
act of outrage done for its own sake alone, and done with a sense of pleasure,
can only then be called an act of hybris’).235 By these definitions Kroisos had
not committed hybris; the misfortunes that ultimately beset him were not the
natural consequence of any personal hybris-act, but were the penalties for two
distinct sets of offences: those of his ancestor punishable by the moirai, and his
personal wrongs punishable by N/nemesis.
The occasion prompting Herodotos to mention nemesis comes at the end of a

visit by the Athenian sage, Solon.236 After a tour of Kroisos’ sumptuous palace
with all his vast wealth, Kroisos boastfully asks Solon: νῦν ὦς ἐπειρέσθαι με
ἱμερος237 ἐπῆλθέ σε εἴ τινα ἤδη πάντων εἶδες ὀλβιώτατον (‘Now therefore I am
fain to ask you, if you have ever seen a man more blest than all his fellows
[than I]’); or according to Plutarch: Κροῖσος εἴ τινα οἶδεν ἀνθρώπων αὐτοῦ
233
Fisher, Hybris, 1; J. Ober, Athenian Legacies: Essays on the Politics of Going On Together,
Princeton N J, 2005, 113.
234
Arist. EN VII 6.4.
235
236
Hdt. 1.30-33. It is highly unlikely that the two actually ever met, despite Miller’s argument
that dates the meeting to the year 560: M. Miller, 'The Herodotean Croesus,' Klio: Beiträge zur
Alten Geschichte 41, 1963, 86. Herodotos’ purpose would have been to use the motif of the
scorned wise man to illustrate his didactic purpose as a warning against arrogance.
237
The word ἵμερος is used six times by Herodotos and in each case it reflects the excessive
desires of a tyrannical despot or invading peoples: Hdt. 1.30, 1.73, of Kroisos; 5.106, of the
Ionians; 6.137, of the Athenians; 7.43, of Xerxes; 9.3, of Mardonios; cf. 3.123, ἱμείρετο (from
the verb ἱμείρομαι), of Polykrates’ desire for money; and, Aischyl. Pers. 233, where Atossa
speaks of Xerxes’ ‘desire’ to take Athens.
~172~
The Classical Era
μακαριώτερον (‘Kroisos asked him if he had ever known a happier man than
he’).238 Kroisos expected to hear his own name in reply and was piqued when
Solon named others.239 Solon explains his choice by saying that no man can
call himself truly fortunate until he had reached the end of his life when that
life might be judged in retrospect, since the vagaries of the gods could change
a man’s fortune in an instant.240 This philosophy is aptly illustrated in the
words Herodotos puts into the mouth of the Persian, Artabanos:
You see how the god smites with his thunderbolt creatures of
greatness more than common, nor suffers them to display their
pride, but such as are little move him not to anger; and you see
how it is ever on the tallest buildings and trees that his bolts fall;
for it is heaven’s way to bring low all things of surpassing
bigness. Thus a numerous host is destroyed by one that is lesser,
the god of his jealousy sending panic, fear or thunderbolt among
them, whereby they do unworthily perish; for the god suffers
pride in none but himself.241
This philosophical argument is similarly echoed by ca. sixth-century Aesop:

τἄλλα δὲ πάντα φόβοι τε καὶ ἄλγεα· κἤν τι πάθῃ τις ἐσθλόν, ἀμοιβαίην
ἐκδέχεται Νέμεσιν (‘but everything is fear and pain, and if some good occurs
to someone, an answering Nemesis then comes’).242 Similarly, Theognis
speaks of the whims of divine nemesis:
For the gods have nemesis (θεοὶ γάρ τοι νεμεσῶσ’) and the
ending depends on them … good comes from bad and bad from
238
Plut. Solon 27.
239
Solon gives two examples of men whom he would count as most fortunate since they lived
happy and fulfilled lives, died nobly, and were esteemed by their peers after death: Tellos the
Athenian (Hdt. 1.30); and, Kleobis and Biton from Argos (Hdt 1.31). Solon’s philosophy on
this point is discussed by Aristotle: EN I.x.1-3; and quoted by the three tragedians: Aischyl.
Ag. 928-929; Soph. Oed. Tyr. 1528-1530; Eur. Andr. 100-101. A discussion on Kleobis and
Biton is found in: C. C. Chiasson, 'Myth, Ritual, and Authorial Control in Herodotus' Story of
Cleobis and Biton,' AJPh 126, no. 1, 2005, 41-64, 51-52; cf: T. Harrison, 'The Cause of
Things,' in D. Konstan & N. K. Rutter (eds), Envy, Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous
Emotions in Ancient Greece, Edinburgh, 2003, 160.
240
Cf. Hdt. 1.32 where Solon speaks of the jealousy of the gods towards mankind: Ὦ Κροῖσε,
ἐπιστάμενόν με τὸ θεῖον πᾶν ἐὸν φθονερόν τε καὶ ταραχῶδες ἐπειρωτᾷς ἀνθρωπηίων
πρηγμάτων πέρι (‘Kroisos, you ask me about the affairs of men, I know that the divine are full
of jealousy and troublesome to us’), (translation: author). Chiasson uniquely translates τὸ
θεῖον as ‘divine essence’: Chiasson, 'The Herodotean Solon', 259, n.33. I interpret φθονερόν in
this passage as the jealousy the gods have in relation to their realm, i.e. they guard their
prerogatives and privileges jealously.
241
Hdt. 7.10; cf. Mikalson, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars, 150.
242
Aesop, in Anth. Gr. 10.123.6; Sententiae 21.6 in: B. E. Perry, Aesopica, vol. 1, Urbana,
1952, 253. (Translation: author.)
~173~
The Classical Era
good; a poor man suddenly gets very rich, and he who has
acquired a great deal suddenly loses it all.243
Kroisos’ pride as the cause of his nemesis-driven punishment is confirmed in a

fragment from Euripides that reveals nemesis (from Nemesis) as a retributive
force against self-exultation:
Ὁτ’ ἂν ἴδῃς πρὸς ὕψος ᾐρμένον τινὰ

λαμπρῷ τε πλούτῳ καὶ γένει γαυρούμενον,
ὀφρύν τε μείζω τῆς τύχης ἐπῃρκότα,
τούτου ταχεῖαν Νέμεσιν εὐθὺς προσδόκα.244
Whenever you see someone lifted to the heights, and exulting in

splendour of wealth or birth, with brows raised in pride too great
for his fortunes, immediately expect swift Retribution for him.
Solon continues his explanation to Kroisos by saying: ‘we must look to the
conclusion of every matter, and see how it shall end, for there are many to
whom heaven has given a vision of blessedness, and yet afterwards brought
them to utter ruin’. Far from being impressed by Solon’s perceptive wisdom
Kroisos thought him a fool (ἀμαθέα) and was angered.245 Kroisos’ reaction
exposed the weakness of his values by highlighting the greater importance he
laid on riches, power, and personal standing. He was an example of the
contrast between wisdom (Solon) and arrogance (Kroisos).246
It is at this point, with Kroisos’ contemptuous dismissal of Solon and his

wisdom, that Herodotos employs his sole use of the noun νέμεσις:
Μετὰ δὲ Σόλωνα οἰχόμενον ἔλαβε ἐκ θεοῦ νέμεσις

μεγάλη Κροῖσον, ὡς εἰκάσαι, ὅτι ἐνόμισε ἑωυτὸν εἶναι
ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων ὀλβιώτατον.247
But after Solon’s departure [a] great N/nemesis from [a] god fell
heavily on Kroisos, as I guess, because he supposed himself to
be the most fortunate of all men.
243
Theog. 659-660. I have replaced Gerber’s translation of ‘for the gods are resentful’ with
‘for the gods have nemesis’.
244
Eur. Collard/Cropp F1113a (Eur. TrGF vol. 5.2 F1113a; Eur. TGF F1040); Stob. Anth.
Γ.22.5 (in: Hense vol. 3 584.5). Author’s capitalization of Νέμεσιν.
245
Hdt. 1.32-33. A valid point posited by Miller suggests that Kroisos, a proud Lydian, would
not have tolerated advice from any Greek: Miller, 'The Herodotean Croesus', 88-89.
246
Asheri, Lloyd & Corcella, A Commentary on Herodotus: Books I-IV, 98-99; Moles,
'Herodotus Warns the Athenians', 269.
247
Hdt. 1.34.
~174~
The Classical Era
Until the moment Kroisos voiced his presumptuous question to Solon as to

whether he was not the most fortunate of men, his words had remained mute,
inactive, and inanimate thoughts; but once voiced they were given life.248
Words evidence emotions by making them manifest; a tenet implied by first-
century AD Antiphilos of Byzantium: οὐδὲ τὰ μικρὰ λήθει τὴν γλώσσης
ἀντίπαλον Νέμεσιν (‘not even little things are unnoticed by the Nemesis that is
the foe of our tongues’).249 Having issued from Kroisos’ mouth, his verbalized
arrogance had sprung into being and extended a challenge to that goddess who
punishes boastful and unbridled speech – Nemesis. Kroisos’ nemesis-driven
fate was now set in motion to prove the lie to his boast:250 εἶναι ἀνθρώπων
ἁπάντων ὀλβιώτατον. As punisher of boastful or imprudent speech Nemesis is
likewise evident in Euripides, when Antigone warns:251
ἰὼ
Νέμεσι καὶ Διὸς βαρύβρομοι βρονταὶ
κεραύνιόν τε φῶς αἰθαλόεν, σύ τοι
μεγαλαγορίαν ὑπεράνορα κοιμίζεις.252
O Nemesis and loud-roaring thunder of Zeus, and blazing lights

of lightning-bolts, you put to sleep excessive boasts.253
Similarly, Plato: κούφων καὶ πτηνῶν λόγων βαρυτάτη ζημία – πᾶσι γὰρ
ἐπίσκοπος τοῖς περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐτάχθη Δίκης Νέμεσις ἄγγελος254 (‘for vain
248
Cf. Hes. WD 760-764.
249
Antiphilos of Byzantium, who uses the capital ‘N’ in Nemesis: Anth. Gr. 7.630.
250
Vandiver argues that Kroisos was not so much guilty of active wrongdoing ‘but of an
attitude that predisposes an autocrat towards wrongdoing’: Vandiver, 'Strangers are from Zeus:
Homeric Xenia at the Courts of Proteus and Croesus,' 164; similarly, Pelling claims Kroisos
had attitudes that: 'lead to or accompany hybristic behaviour': Pelling, 'Educating Croesus',
150; with Gammie saying Kroisos' pride would be followed by divine punishment: Gammie,
'Herodotus on Kings and Tyrants', 176-177; de Romilly is incorrect to say the gods punish
thoughts, not situations: J. de Romilly, The Rise and Fall of States according to Greek
Authors, Michigan, 1977, 42-43; de Romilly, 'La Vengeance Comme Explication Historique
Dans L'oeuvre d'Herodote', 315.
251
Cf: Ausonius, Personal Poems 5.45-55: ‘mitibus audi auribus hoc, Nemesis’ (‘hear this,
Nemesis, with an indulgent ear’), spoken after boasting of how important he was and how his
honours have increased. The appeal was said to avert any nemesis from Nemesis for his
audacity; also: Ausonius, The Epistles xxvii.51-57; Epigrams on Various Matters xlii.1-4.
252
Eur. Phoen. 182. This is one of only two instances in Greek tragedy that Fisher argues for a
direct connection between hybris and nemesis (the other is Soph. Elekt. 792): Fisher, Hybris,
427-428, n. 79.
253
Trans. Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 92.
254
Pl. Laws, 717c-d.
~175~
The Classical Era
and idle words there is a very heavy penalty – for Nemesis, messenger of
Justice, is appointed to watch over all these things’).255
Kroisos was an example of a life lived contrary to the maxim attributed to the
historical Solon: μηδὲν ἄγαν256 (‘nothing in excess’), and: τίκτει γὰρ κόρος
ὕβριν, ὅταν πολὺς ὄλβος ἕπηται ἀνθρώποις ὁπόσοις μὴ νόος ἄπτιος ᾖ257 (‘for
excess breeds insolence, whenever great prosperity comes to men who are not
sound of mind’). Kroisos’ wealth emboldened him with arrogance along with
other faults: Herodotos mentions he was the first man he knew to have done
harm to the Greeks through the subjugation of those in Asia Minor, demands
for tribute payments, and his plans to attack the islands;258 and, he had his half-
brother killed because he perceived this brother as a threat to his supreme
sovereignty.259
The N/nemesis which ultimately befell Kroisos was the result of his own
conceited and boastful talk, which was itself the consequence of his prosperity.
The punishment demanded of Kroisos was something that was precious and
irreplaceable to him – the death of his son and heir, Atys (Ἄτυς), brought about
through the agency of a human intermediary,260 Adrastos (Ἀδράστος), a guest
at Kroisos’ court whom Kroisos had cleansed of blood-guilt for the accidental
killing of his brother in his homeland of Phrygia.261
Although the names, Atys and Adrastos, were not unique, the fact that these
two were pivotal instruments in Kroisos’ N/nemesis-logos, has led to debate on
whether any hidden etymological meanings was intended by Herodotos.
255
256
Suda s.v. Σόλων (sigma 776); also attributed to Chilon: Suda s.v. Θαλῆς (theta 17).
257
Solon F6; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 12.2; M. Noussia-Fantuzz, Solon the Athenian, the Poetic
Fragments, Leiden, 2010, 92, commentary 289-293; and comments in: R. Owens, Solon of
Athens: Poet, Philosopher, Soldier, Statesman, Brighton and Eastbourne, 2010, 168-170.
258
Hdt. 1.6, 26-28.
259
Hdt. 1.92; see comments in: Miller, 'The Herodotean Croesus', 82-84.
260
Mortals acting as intermediaries or agents of the gods is implied in a speech for the
prosecution in an accidental killing trial at Athens: Ant. Tetr. 2 3.7-8. Without mentioning
Nemesis, Harrison gives examples of divine retribution operating through human agency:
Harrison, Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus, 111-112.
261
Hdt. 1.35-45. For Adrastos and the purification of those with ‘blood-guilt’, see: A. Bendlin,
'Purity and Pollution,' in D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion, Malden, 2007, 178-
189, esp. 184-188; also: R. Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek
Religion, Oxford, 1983, 104-143, 370-374.
~176~
The Classical Era
Asheri and Immerwahr interpret Ἄτυς as correlating to the Greek ἄτη262 (‘he
who cannot flee’, ‘delusion’, ‘reckless’, ‘folly’, ‘ill-fated’),263 with or without
its personification Ἄτη,264 and often associated with hybris.265 One suggestion,
probably an over-interpretation, has Ἄτυς as a Greek corruption of the Lydo-
Phrygian sun-god Attis or Attes associated with Kybele, who according to
legend was killed by a boar, an animal which looms forebodingly in the
Kroisos-logos.266 The name ‘Adrastos’ possibly has a double meaning:267 it
translates as ‘inescapable’ and the feminine ‘Adrasteia’ (‘the relentless one’,
‘the one from whom none can escape’),268 was an Eastern goddess with whom
Nemesis was sometimes linked in the Hellenistic and Roman eras. Adrastos,
whose own fate was inescapable and who, as an unwitting agent of Nemesis
brings nemesis to Kroisos, ultimately came to recognize this aspect in himself:
συγγινωσκόμενος ἀνθρώπων εἶναι τῶν αὐτὸς ᾔδεε βαρυσυμφορώτατος
(‘recognizing that of all the men that he himself knew he carried the heaviest
262
Asheri translates Ἄτυς as ‘Misfortune’, i.e. ἄτη personified: Asheri, Lloyd & Corcella, A
Commentary on Herodotus: Books I-IV, 104; Immerwahr also interprets 'misfortune' from ἄτη,
and 'blindness' as an alternative, i.e. Kroisos' blindness to his lifestyle: Immerwahr, Form and
Thought in Herodotus, 158 n. 25; and that ἄτη led Kroisos to destruction: H. R. Immerwahr,
'Aspects of Historical Causation in Herodotus,' TAPA 87, 1956, 257.
263
LSJ9 270, col. 1 s.v. ἄτη.
264
Ἄτη was, along with her sister Νέμεσις, a parthenogenic daughter of Νύξ: Hes. Theog. 211-
232; in Homer she is a daughter of Zeus: Hom. Il. 9.504, 19.92; in the tragedians, especially
Aischylos, Ἄτη has a role similar to that of Νέμεσις in avenging evil: Aischyl. Choe. 382-283,
Ag. 386, 771, 1433, Seven 954.
265
LSJ9 270, col. 1 s.v. ἄτη. A discussion on ἄτη and its interpretation (without a capital letter)
is in: Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, 2-9, 17-18, 37-41. Lancellotti suggests Atys was
guilty of hybris because he was neglecting his duties as a community leader of ridding the
countryside of the scourge of boars which were plaguing the region: Lancellotti, Attis between
Myth and History, 55-56. Whilst interesting, the theory is not very convincing.
266
Paus. 7.17.9-13; F. Mora, Religione e religioni nelle Storie di Erodoto, Milan, 1986, 139-
142; J. A. K. Thomson, The Art of the Logos, London, 1935, 82-84. Ἄττης was also a mystical
formula recited by the priests of Cybele: LSJ9 273, col. 2 s.v. Ἄττης.
267
Chiasson, 'Herodotus’ Use of Attic Tragedy in the Lydian Logos', 14, n. 29; as an omen on
Adrastos' inescapable fate: Immerwahr, Form and Thought in Herodotus, 158 n. 25; cf.
Thomson, The Art of the Logos, 83-84.
268
Aischyl. Prom. 936; Anth. Gr. 12.160, 9.405; Kallisthenes FGrH 124 F28; Antim. F131;
comments in: Stafford, 'Tibullus' Nemesis: Divine Retribution and the Poet,' 40; V. J.
Matthews, Antimachus of Colophon: text and commentary, Leiden, 1996, 314-315 and his
comment on 'Nemesis-Adrastea'; Farnell, The Cults of The Greek States, vol. II, 499-500;
Adrasteia as a personification of Fate, see: Fisher, 'Popular Morality in Herodotus,' 205; also,
How & Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, i.35.3, vol. 1, 71; A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires
of the East: Herodotus I - III, Cambridge, 1883, 21 n.7.
~177~
The Classical Era
burden of misfortune’).269 Whether Herodotos had intended any hidden

significance in the etymology of ‘Adrastos’ and ‘Atys’, remains hypothetical.
Adrastos arrived at Kroisos’ court with blood-guilt, which may have been his
inescapable and predetermined destiny. In purifying Adrastos, I believe
Kroisos acted presumptuously by interfering in the prerogative of some god,
possibly Zeus Katharsios whom Kroisos later invoked (ἐκάλεε)270 on hearing
of his son’s death.271 As a result, the god whose prerogative had been violated
would reject Adrastos’ purification and require that he commit further blood-
sin to reinstate his destiny, this time with the accidental killing of Kroisos’ son,
Atys. Again Kroisos forgives Adrastos by putting the blame on one of the
gods (in much the same way that Agamemnon blamed the gods, and not Helen,
for his disasters):272
Friend, I have from you all that justice asks, since you deem
yourself worthy of death. But it is not you that I hold the cause
of this evil, save in so far as you were the unwilling doer of it:
rather it is, I suppose, the work of one among the gods (ἀλλὰ
θεων κού τις),273 the same who told me long ago what was to be.
With his burden so great, Adrastos finds the only atonement in that from which
he can never escape, further blood-sin, this time through suicide.274
Adrastos was the ill-fated cog in Kroisos’ wheel of fate; an image Herodotos
voices: ‘men’s fortunes are on a wheel, which in its turning suffers not the
269
Hdt. 1.45. Powell notes that this is Herodotos’ sole use of the superlative, and translates it
as ‘ill-starred’: Powell, A Lexicon to Herodotus, 58 s.v. βαρυσυμφορώτατος. (Translation:
author.)
270
LSJ9 866, col. 2, s.v. καλέω; 'invoke a god', Powell, A Lexicon to Herodotus, s.v. καλέω,
181; Vandiver, 'Strangers are from Zeus: Homeric Xenia at the Courts of Proteus and Croesus,'
161; cf. Long, who describes Kroisos' ἐκάλεε as 'a blasphermous imprecation against Zeus': T.
Long, Repetition and Variation in the Short Stories of Herodotus, Frankfurt am Main, 1987,
75; Immerwahr, Form and Thought in Herodotus, 70, interprets it as Kroisos accusing Zeus.
271
Kroisos invoked: Zeus Katharsios (of purification), Zeus Epistios (of the hearth), and Zeus
Hetaireios (of comradeship): Hdt. 1.44.
272
Hdt. 1.45: ἔχω ὦ ξεῖνε παρὰ σεῦ πᾶσαν τὴν δίκην, ἐπειδὴ σεωυτοῦ καταδικάζεις θάνατον.
εἶς δὲ οὐ σύ μοι τοῦδε τοῦ κακοῦ αἴτιος, εἰ μὴ ὅσον ἀέκων ἐξεργάσαο, ἀλλὰ θεῶν κού τις, ὅς
μοι καὶ πάλαι προεσήμαινε τὰ μέλλοντα ἔσεσθαι; cf. Hom. Il. 1.164-165. These two passages
reinforce Helen and Adrastos as instruments of ‘some god’. See other parallels between the
two in: Vandiver, 'Strangers are from Zeus: Homeric Xenia at the Courts of Proteus and
Croesus,' 162-163, n.68.
273
Godley uses the singular ‘a god’ but since the Greek is clearly plural I have amended the
translation by including κού which Godley leaves untranslated.
274
Hdt. 1.45.
~178~
The Classical Era
same man to prosper for ever’.275 Adrastos brought nemesis upon Kroisos
through the death of his son Atys: a nemesis-driven punishment for his
personally committed sin of boastfully articulating his conviction that he was
the most fortunate of all mankind. Eventually, Kroisos would lose the empire
over which his line, the Mermnadai, had reigned for 170 years;276 he would
lose his blood-line; and almost his life after being nearly burnt to death on a
pyre on Kyros’ instructions but who later relented.277 These later adversities
were not nemesis-driven, but distinct and separate: they were inescapably
predetermined and the seeds had been sown five generations previously as his
moirai-driven destiny,278 of which he was later reminded by the Pythia:
Τὴν πεπρωμένην μοῖραν ἀδύνατα ἐστὶ ἀποφυγεῖν καὶ θεῷ·
Κροῖσος δὲ πέμπτου γονέος ἁμαρτάδα ἐξέπλησε279
None may escape his destined lot, not even a god. Kroisos hath
paid for the sin of his ancestor of the fifth generation.
This philosophical tenet is echoed in the words of an un-named Persian prior to

the battle at Plataia: ‘that which a god wills to send no man can turn aside …
although a man takes thought rationally for many things, he controls
nothing’.280
Polykrates
I include the Polykrates logos in this chapter even though no nemesis-words
are found in the story. My justification for this is the fact that, because of the
extreme punishment that befell Polykrates, the story is sometimes quoted as an
example of an unspoken nemesis in Herodotos. While I believe there are
cautionary tales throughout Herodotos, it does not necessarily follow that an
unarticulated nemesis is evident everywhere.
275
Hdt. 1.207. The image is reminiscent of the iunx-wheel and its credible connection to
Nemesis discussed above, pp. 134-135 with notes, and the wheel that was to become her
attribute in a later age.
276
The Mermnadai chronology: How & Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, vol. 1, 375.
277
Cf. Bacchyl. Epinicians 3.23-62.
278
Hdt. 1.91. Cf. comments on Kroisos’ belief he could alter this predetermined fate by
challenging the line between mortal and immortal spheres: Kindt, 'Delphic Oracle Stories and
the Beginning of Historiography: Herodotus’ Croesus Logos', 41-42. Parker puts this rather
uniquely: ‘Croesus … was merely being asked to hand back, after a generous period of
usufruct, what his ancestor had wrongfully acquired’: Parker, Miasma, 202.
279
Hdt. 1.91.
280
Hdt. 9.16; cf. Hdt. 1.207.
~179~
The Classical Era
Polykrates was like Kroisos in many aspects: he loved wealth and power (καὶ
κως ἱμείρετο γὰρ χρημάτων μεγάλως),281 of which he had an over-abundance
with a desire for more; he had committed crimes in the pursuit of his obsession
including the murder of one brother and the banishment of another; and he
aggressively sought territorial expansion.282 In all his endeavours he appeared
to be ever successful and fortunate. But, such constant good fortune breeds
arrogance and imparts a sense of entitlement. So it was for Polykrates, until
eventually a heavy divine phthonos befell him,283 and he was punished by
gods.
According to Herodotos, Polykrates’ fortunate life together with his amassed

wealth troubled Amasis of Egypt. His concern prompted him to write and
caution Polykrates that his good fortune could not continue indefinitely, since:
τὸ θεῖον ἐπισταμένῳ ὡς ἔστι φθονερόν (‘I know how jealous are the gods’).
Amasis’ letter counselled Polykrates to suffer some misfortune to detract from
his good luck in the hope of placating the gods, and thereby avoid evil and
utter destruction (κακῶς ἐτελεύτησε πρόρριζος).284 His suggestion was that
Polykrates voluntarily throw away something which he considered ranked
amongst his most precious treasures.
Unlike Kroisos’ rejection of Solon’s wisdom, Polykrates heeded Amasis’

advice up to a point: where Amasis advises Polykrates to cast away something
the loss of which would cause suffering to his soul (τὴν ψυχὴν ἀλγήσεις),
Polykrates repeats Amasis’ terminology while considering his options but
instead of ἀλγήσεις (from ἀλγέω, to suffer) he uses the term ἀσηθείη (from
ἄση, vexation).285 Polykrates has downgraded the amount of ‘suffering’ he
should endure to appease the gods’ phthonos; this was a mistake. His decision
may have resulted from arrogance, or perhaps he did not think the danger was
281
Hdt. 3.123. The verb ἱμείρετο (from ἱμείρομαι) indicates a great desire. Herodotos uses it
to indicate the excessive desires of a tyrannical despot, see n. 240 above.
282
Hdt. 3.39, 122.
283
Fisher, Hybris, 362; cf: Harrison who decides the gods are pre-eminantly jealous
throughout Herodotos: Harrison, 'The Cause of Things,' 158. How and Wells are incorrect to
identify νέμεσις and φθονός as one and the same: How & Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus,
vol. 1, 266-267.
284
Hdt. 3.40.
285
LSJ9 255 col. 2 s.v ἀση: (2) ‘distress, vexation’; LSJ9 61 col. 1 s.v. ἀλγέω; cf. van den Veen,
'The Lord of the Ring', 436-440.
~180~
The Classical Era
that great since his previous run of good fortune may have led him to believe
he was a favourite of the gods, especially after he had chained the island of
Rheneia to nearby Delos and dedicated it to Apollo.286 What Polykrates failed
to realize was that the prosperity and success he had enjoyed would inevitably
arouse the gods’ phthonos because of their perception of him trying to emulate
the gods and cross the line between mortal and divine.287 Consequently, of all
his vast wealth, power, and extensive lands, the thing Polykrates chose as his
dearest and most valued possession and the thing which would apparently
cause him the greatest grief to lose, was a ring – albeit gold with an emerald.
Nevertheless, having made his choice, and with great aplomb, Polykrates
makes an ostentatious public display of throwing the ring into the sea in an
attempt to appease the gods’ phthonos, whereupon he returns home to grieve
its loss.288
Unsurprisingly, Polykrates’ sacrifice does not appease the gods, and the reason
is not difficult to discover: his loss was not that great and probably did not
really distress him. The personal value of the ring could not rate above his
empire with all its incumbent power; it could not rate above relationships in
personal and emotional value; nor could it rate with the sum of all his vast
wealth. Polykrates had not effected a genuinely heartfelt attempt at humility
especially considering how he managed to stage the event to be witnessed by
the crew of a fifty-oared ship in order to pretentiously demonstrate his artificial
(I deduce) humility and his false (I conclude) piety: περιελόμενος τὴν
σφρηγῖδα πάντων ὁρώντων τῶν συμπλόων ῥίπτει ἐς τὸ πέλαγος289 (‘he took off
the seal-ring in sight of all on the ship and cast it into the sea’). Since the ring
was subsequently found in the stomach of a fish and returned to him, his
sacrifice was clearly rejected by the gods.290 At this point Polykrates should
have heeded the second part of Amasis’ advice:
286
Thuc. 3.2.
287
Konstan, 'Nemesis and Phthonos,' 83.
288
Hdt. 3.41.
289
Hdt. 3.41.
290
Cf: Shapiro, 'Herodotus and Solon', 354 n. 33; van den Veen, 'The Lord of the Ring', 433-
457, esp. 448.
~181~
The Classical Era
ἤν τε μὴ ἐναλλὰξ ἤδη τὠπὸ τούτου αἱ εὐτυχίαι τοι τῇσι πάθῃσι

προσπίπτωσι, τρόπῳ τῷ ἐξ ἐμεῦ ὑποκειμένῳ ἀκέο.291
if, after that, you do not find that success alternates with
failure, then go on using the remedy I have advised.
The translation is de Sélincourt’s,292 but Godley imparts the same sense: ‘then,
if after this the successes that come to you be not chequered by mishaps, strive
to mend the matter as I have counselled you.’ Amasis had counselled that if
Polykrates’ first attempt failed he must keep on trying to bring balance into his
life by alternating good fortune with bad. This part of Amasis’ advice was
ignored by Polykrates. Once the ring was returned to him as a sign of its
rejection by the gods he should, according to Amasis’ assessment, have
persisted in his attempts to bring about personal misfortunes, to appease the
gods: he did not. The gods’ rejection of the ring, and Polykrates’ failure to
keep trying to suffer some loss, signified his impending doom, and his life now
raced towards its final destiny.
The gods’ phthonos became an implicit righteous anger (nemesis) aroused by

Polykrates’ ineffectual and half-hearted attempts at bringing balance to his life,
and perceived as dishonouring them. In this, Polykrates was guilty of an
unarticulated hybris: ‘he had committed an assault on the honour of another’293
(the gods), and his subsequent punishment would be both phthonos-driven and
nemesis-driven. Polykrates exhibited a lack of shame and aidōs by not
acknowledging or recognizing the dishonour and the insult to the gods, and he
invoked a divine nemesis.294 As a result the gods ensured he would pay by
means of a worthy sacrifice – they took away all that he deemed of value: his
life, his empire, his power, his wealth, and his family. Polykrates meets a
miserable end, which is evaluated in the words of his successor, Maiandros:
Πολυκράτης μέν νυν ἐξέπλησε μοῖραν τὴν ἑωυτοῦ (‘So now Polykrates has
fulfilled his destiny by himself’).295
291
Hdt. 3.40.
292
A. de Sélincourt, Herodotus: The Histories, rev. 1972 edn, Harmondsworth, 1954, 220-221.
293
Fisher, Hybris, 1.
294
On this point and in relation to Greek thought generally, see: Kaster, 'Invidia, νέμεσις,
φθόνος and the Roman Emotional Economy,' 262.
295
Hdt. 3.142. (Translation: author.)
~182~
The Classical Era
Polykrates and Kroisos were both prosperous, and in spite of Lateiner’s

argument that disproportionate prosperity such as enjoyed by Kroisos and
Polykrates is the moral equivalent of hybris,296 this was not their sin. Rather, it
was their conduct and attitude as a result of that prosperity; it was this which
the gods found lacking.
What of the question initially posed at the beginning of this discussion: ‘did
Herodotos write his Histories as a lesson for future generations to learn from
the divinely inspired consequences of the sins of their forebears in order to
avoid such follies in their own times, for fear of nemesis or retribution’? In
answer it can be said that Herodotos was surely inviting the reader to reflect on
the fates of these and other characters in his Histories, to ponder their own
personal lives, and avoid making those same mistakes. Kroisos acknowledges
he has learnt from his nemesis-driven misfortunates and is therefore best able
to answer the question himself, this time without boastful and self-
congratulatory words but more thoughtfully: τὰ δὲ μοι παθήματα ἐόντα
ἀχάριτα μαθήματα γέγονε ... ἐκεῖνο πρῶτον μάθε, ὡς κύκλος τῶν ἀνθρωπηίων
ἐστὶ πρηγμάτων, περιφερόμενος δὲ οὐκ ἐᾷ αἰεὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς εὐτυχέειν297 (‘my
sufferings, being bitter, have become lessons … then I must first teach you
this: men’s fortunes are on a wheel, which in its turning suffers not the same
man to prosper forever’). That wheel of which he speaks is slowly rotated by
those personified forces, and parthenogenic daughters of Nyx, that temper
humanity’s arrogance, its selfish, self-indulgent desires and its imprudent,
boastful speech from one generation to the next – the Moirai and Nemesis,
each in their different ways either by themselves or through the abstract
concepts they represent. For Herodotus, Kroisos and Polykrates act as moral
lessons: Kroisos comes to recognise his former arrogance and repents, but
Polykrates is denied the opportunity.
296
Lateiner, 'A Note on the Perils of Prosperity in Herodotus', 97-101. It is not correct that the
gods were offended by prosperity per se, as suggested by: Evans, Herodotus, Explorer of the
Past, 48.
297
Hdt. 1.207.
~183~
The Classical Era
CONCLUSION
This chapter illustrates the changing nature of both the abstract nemesis and the
deity herself. In the Archaic period nemesis was a sense of righteous
indignation either within oneself or towards another, but in the Classical
period, this interpretation strengthens to become something less vague. This
developmental change in the concept and its personification can be seen in the
different genres of the period: the artistic; the literary fields of tragedy,
comedy, history, and; epigraphy in the form of funerary and votive
inscriptions. It was to this period that the goddess was thought to be
increasingly concerning herself with punishment for acts of consciously
enacted deeds of hybris, i.e. a hybris/nemesis dichotomy, and where Pindar
appropriately calls her ‘strictly-judging Nemesis’,298
The fifth-century red-figure amphoriskos has, through the skill of the artist,
effectively linked the Nemesis of the Archaic Kypria with the Nemesis of the
Classical era, making the myth that surrounds her timeless. The scene painted
on the amphoriskos, together with all the various personifications of fate and
destiny, is a pictorial commentary of the emotions being played out in the
theme of Aphrodite tenderly persuading Helen to elope with Paris. Helen’s
mother, Nemesis, stands as the accusatory representative of the future fate, not
only of Helen but also of mankind, that will inevitably result from the actions
Helen is about to embark upon. The wheel motifs on the two ôons, hidden as
they are underneath and not immediately visible, are reminders that fate and
luck in life are dependant on the turn of the wheel of providence which
constantly, but indiscernibly, moves forward towards ones’ destiny.
In the literature Aischylos takes up the Homeric theme of Achilles and the
gods’ threatened nemesis against him for his continued violation of Hektor’s
body, and positions Nemesis as a punisher of those who wrong the dead.
Sophokles further articulates this role through Elektra’s reference to Nemesis’
direct link with the living and the dead in her evocation to ‘Nemesis, of the
dead’. In everyday life (and death), this protective and vengeful role inherent
298
Pind. Pyth. 10.42-44.
~184~
The Classical Era
in the Classical N/nemesis is seen as the threat against those who would violate
those now dead or did wrong to them in life; since the dead cannot avenge
themselves, the personified goddess will act on their behalf.
In comedy, Kratinos’ play, Nemesis, the myth of Nemesis’ rape and Helen’s
birth from the egg are dramatized but with the principal roles being transferred
to Perikles and Aspasia as a means to ridicule Perikles’ political prominence
and Aspasia’s non-citizenship by means of parody full of satirical mockery and
sexual innuendo. Kratinos’ satirized use of the mythology and the goddess
specifically demonstrates that by this time the traditional stories were being
taken in a more light-hearted manner.
Herodotus’ one use of the word nemesis in the Kroisos narrative relates to the
punishment brought upon Kroisos through his unwise articulation that he was
the most fortunate of men. My analysis of this sole use of nemesis, together
with the discussion of the Polykrates’ logos (considered an example of nemesis
consequent upon the hybristic actions or non-actions of Polykrates, although
the term is not used), exemplifies Herodotos’ standpoint that man needs
constant warnings that human arrogance blinds individuals to the potential
danger of future ruin brought about through their own actions. This is a
caution which permeates Herodotos’ work in the form of a pervading all-
seeing yet unseen retributive force. For, just as those Homeric heroes believed,
the universe is full of gods, daimones, spirits, and Keres who see and hear
everything, and who will watch, listen, wait, judge and punish unconscionable
acts committed by mankind.299 Whether this be nemesis through Nemesis, or
some other avenging force, retributive punishment will always result from
consciously enacted reprehensible actions and articulated self-satisfied
thoughts; mankind is responsible and answerable for his own deeds, whether
these be good or bad, but if bad he needs to acknowledge and recognize there
must always be consequences.
These genres demonstrate that fifth-century Nemesis had become a goddess of

balance in all aspects of life and death. She was now associated with divine
299
Above pp. 23-24.
~185~
The Classical Era
punishment occasioned by the righteous indignation/anger aroused by deeds of

wanton and conscious wrong-doing, with the perpetrator of such acts being
pursued, hunted down, and punished.
~186~

Source 04

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Source 04

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Source 04

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH AND

My thesis is the first full-length treatment of N/nemesis. Studies stretching

comments on Nemesis,8 while Burkert provides just three sentences on the

More recently, the publication of the archaeological discoveries from

comprehensive chapter on Nemesis in which she concludes that although

This is the current state of scholarship. Within my thesis I have acknowledged,

In addition, my approach in this thesis has involved analyses of the various

Chapter 2 of this thesis commences with a lexical methodological analysis of

A similar linguistic analysis of Hesiod’s works is undertaken employing the

a close-reading of the archaic authors was further employed in my examination

While the archaeological discoveries, for example the funereal loutrophoroi,

The focus of Chapter 4 is the archaeological discoveries from Nemesis’ cult

After first providing a short survey of the archaeological scholarship going

seek contexts – mythical, literary, iconographical, archaeological, and

This thesis is an examination of the chronological development of the abstract

Or again, how much would anyone of you give to converse with

Since gods of one sort or another were present in the consciousness of

The chronological relationship of these two poets is an ongoing debate with

example: P.Oxy. 2390; G. W. Most, 'Alcman's 'Cosmogonic' Fragment (Fr. 5 Page, 81

Personifications of abstract concepts are found throughout Homer’s poems, in

it enabled them to recapture its glories – real or imagined. To them, as Mueller

ABSTRACT QUALITIES AND THE HOMERIC HERO

οὐ μὰν ἀκλεέες Λυκίην κάτα κοιρανέουσιν

μὴ μὰν ἀσπουδί γε καὶ ἀκλειῶς ἀπολοίμην, ἀλλὰ μέγα ῥέξας τι

Not without a struggle let me die, nor ingloriously, but having

The feminine side of this Homeric code is characterized by Penelope who

The primary concern for an ἀγαθός was to constantly and consciously

THE HOMERIC CONCEPT OF NEMESIS

From these explanations, I would extrapolate a definition of nemesis as

Importantly, and contrary to Munn’s assertion that nemesis ‘refers to a sense of

Consequently, the guilt of doing something worthy of blame could potentially

nemesis and aidōs

Since aidōs and nemesis can both be construed as a sense of shame,

strengthening resolve to adhere to those values epitomized by themis for fear

ὤ μοι ἐγών, εἰ μέν κε λίπω κάτα τεύχεα καλὰ

Ah me! If I leave behind the exquisite armour, and Patroklos,

Similarly, purposefully avoiding danger would invariably evoke nemesis. In

For it is οὐ νέμεσις to flee from ruin, even by night. Better it is

Figure 3 depicts Aias demonstrating

ὥ μοι ἐγών, εἰ μέν κε πύλας καὶ τείχεα δύω, 99

Ah me, if I go inside the gates and the walls, Polydamas will be

individuals such as these should have nemesis for him is to Hektor an

ἀλλὰ μάλ’ αἰνῶς

excel always and to fight among the foremost Trojans, striving to

αἰσχρὸν γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο, μετὰ προμάχοισι πεσόντα

In certain contexts aidōs can also be construed as corresponding to ‘shrinking

Ὥς φάτο, τὸν δ’ οὔ τι προσέφη κρατερὸς Διομήδης,

Thus he spoke, and mighty Diomedes did not answer anything,

In its relationship to aidōs Homeric nemesis operated through a voluntary code

nemesis and the common man

connection with nemesis. He is described as the ugliest man to come to Troy:

Thersites’ ugliness, deformities, and behaviour,137 are forcefully emphasized as

authority, but also a metaphysical representation of ‘right order’ (themis)

ἔχθιστος δ’ Ἀχιλῆι μάλιστ’ ἦν ἠδ’ Ὀδυσῆι·

Hateful was he to Achilles above all, and to Odysseus, for those

Ὣς ἄρ’ ἔφη, σκήπτρῳ δὲ μετάφρενον ἠδὲ καὶ ὤμω

So he [Odysseus] spoke, and with the sceptre struck his

Here is no hero, no warrior, no agathos! Thersites cries at pain; he feels the

There is debate as to whether τῷ at 2.222: τῷ δ’ ἄρ’ Ἀχαιοὶ ἐκπάγλως