Homer’s Thebes: Epic Rivalries and the Appropriation of Mythical Pasts by Elton T. E. Barker and Joel P. Christensen (review)

Barker and Christensen explore how the Iliad and Odyssey selectively redeploy Theban narratives and appropriate key themes of Theban myth to assert their own pre-eminence. The book marks the culmination of many years of collaboration, and most of the chapters are revised versions of previously published work, but they gain value here by being brought together into a larger framework. The authors offer a series of detailed and attractive interpretations, ranging widely across archaic hexameter poetry. They are especially well attuned to the larger political and ideological significances of the maneuvers they trace. In particular, they repeatedly emphasize how our surviving archaic epics chart not only the end of the race of heroes, but also the development of social and political institutions for the post-heroic age.

After a clear and helpful introduction, the first three chapters focus on Theban characters who are marginalized and distanced from Homer’s world. Both Tydeus (Ch. 1) and Heracles (Ch. 2) emerge as emblems of a bygone and outdated era, their exceptional individualism a counterpoint to the Iliad’s preference for collective action. In the Odyssey (Ch. 3), Oedipus’ “imperfect nostos” and his twisted relationship with Epicaste serve as a foil for Odysseus’ successful homecoming and his harmonious union with Penelope. Together, these three chapters contain many illuminating close readings. My most niggling question concerns Heracles: how central is his Theban background to his Homeric characterization? As the authors briefly acknowledge, the Iliad seems to show little interest in this origin (125), only mentioning it in passing (Il. 14.323–4, 19.98–9), in contrast to the emphatically “Theban” Teiresias of the Odyssey (238n93). I was left wondering whether this more Panhellenic Heracles can really be grouped in the same camp as Tydeus and Oedipus, whose myths revolve around the city of Thebes itself.

The following three chapters explore interactions on a broader and more thematic level. At times, it is harder to keep track of the larger arguments, but there is still a great deal of stimulating material here.

Chapters 4 and 5 center on strife, with analysis of the Iliad, Odyssey, Theogony and Works and Days, alongside our surviving fragments of Theban epic. Thebes comes in and out of focus, and we learn a lot about strife in archaic epic in general, including its competitive and co-operative aspects and its recurring association with neikos (quarrel), dasmos (division), and krisis (judgment). But the authors also suggest more specific parallels and contrasts between the Theban tradition and the rest of early Greek epic: with its opening clash between Achilles and the quasi-Oedipal Agamemnon, the Iliad almost begins by replaying internecine Theban conflict (195, 203), while the final burial of Hector resolves that recurring anxiety of Theban myth, the unburied corpse (227). I did wonder how distinctively “Theban” some of the relevant motifs are. For example, in the case of contested or unequal divisions among brothers (196–202), we could also think – beyond Oedipus’ sons – of Poseidon’s fractious relationship with Zeus (Il. 13.353–5; 15.165–7, 181–3, 185–99); the division of inheritance among Castor’s sons (Od. 14.208–10); and Hesiod’s clash with Perses (Op. 37–41); the authors only note this last comparandum (240–43). I suspect that we might sometimes be dealing with broader typological patterns across archaic poetry. But even so, the authors have still demonstrated the riches to be gained by comparing different traditions’ deployments of such themes.

The final chapter has a broader historical scope, exploring epic rivalries in the context of a growing Panhellenism. Among various case studies, the authors identify intra-regional rivalries in Boeotia (Thebes vs. Orchomenus) and ultimately suggest that this Boeotian in-fighting might have contributed to the eventual disappearance...