1There is something missing in Euphorion’s fragments: Egypt. This is quite remarkable, and both Legrand and Körte pointed out, many decades ago, that Euphorion is “among the very few Hellenistic poets in regard to whom there is no trace of a direct connection with Ptolemaic Alexandria, and no sign of Ptolemaic patronage”.1 Some tiny evidence of such a connection (not a direct one, anyway) may indeed exist, if Wilamowitz was right in suggesting that the dedicatee of Euphorion’s Ἱππομέδων Μείζων (SH 416 = fr. 34 Lightfoot2) was the Spartan Hippomedon who ruled Thrace under Ptolemy III.3 This being uncertain in itself, it is even more speculative to assume that Euphorion actually enjoyed Hippomedon’s patronage, or was seeking for it.4 But this is not the point. What I find most striking is that, all Ptolemaic influences aside, not even a single allusion to Egyptian geography, history, or myths appears in some two hundred extant fragments of Euphorion. Egypt had an established place in Greek poetical tradition from the Odyssey onwards, and Hellenistic poets did not need to be under Ptolemaic influence to deal with Egyptian tales in their works: such is the case of Nicander, who appears to have spent his life between Colophon, Aetolia, and the Attalid court,5 and yet did not refrain – nor had any reason to – from inserting in his Theriaca (309-317) the story of Canobus, the helmsman of Menelaus’ ship, killed by a deadly snake near the Delta of the Nile and giving his name to the well-known Egyptian town. Nothing of this kind in Euphorion. It goes without saying that this may well be due to mere chance: less than 300 lines survive from Euphorion’s many poems (some of which probably were epyllia or the like, but others may have been quite longer6), and it would be far from anomalous that new papyrus finds would reveal a keen interest of his in Egyptian matters. Nonetheless, it is worth considering the possibility that the omission is intentional, and wondering whether other features of Euphorion’s poetry may point to the same conclusions.

2If Egypt is missing, East is pervasive. In fact, many Euphorionic fragments deal with Eastern places and subjects. Some of them are quite predictable: nobody will be surprised at our poet writing on the Trojan saga (Ajax’s suicide, fr. 40 Powell = 44 Lightfoot and probably 41-42 Powell = 45-46 Lightfoot; Philoctetes, fr. 44 Powell = 48 Lightfoot;7 Trojan dynasties, Greek heroes, and many other details of the story, frs. 54-62, 66-72, 90-91, 106 Powell + SH 428 = 78-90 and 92-98 Lightfoot, add SSH 454D; possibly also the rivers of the Troad in fr. 46 Powell = 49 Lightfoot and the wreck of the Greek fleet in fr. 73 Powell = 99 Lightfoot)8 or the Argonautic myth (Cyzicus, frs. 4 and 7 Powell = 6 and 9 Lightfoot; Hylas, Amycus, the Mariandynoi, and the river Euarchus, frs. 76-79 Powell = 74-77 Lightfoot;9 maybe also Periclymenus, fr. 64 Powell = 91 Lightfoot). But there are several more, not always connected with the traditional Greek Heldensage and even referring to historical – if sometimes legendary – people and events (Astyages and Harpagus, SH 413.18 = fr. 24.18 Lightfoot; Semiramis, SH 415. i. 9-11 and fr. 81 Powell = frs. 26.i.9-11 and 115 Lightfoot; the Galatians, fr. 38 Powell = 42 Lightfoot). None of them is either strange in itself or unknown to an educated Hellenistic audience:10 yet all together they testify to Euphorion’s distinct interest in the Near East, and make all the more remarkable his apparent lack of interest in Egypt and Lybia.11 Especially worth noting is, in my view, that some fragments appear to have in common the idea of a strong cultural link between Eastern world and mainland Greece – primarily Athens. Such is the case of Stephanus of Byzantium, p. 581.12-14 Meineke (Euph. fr. 1 Powell = 3 Lightfoot12):

Σόλοι· Κιλικίας πόλις, ἡ νν Πομπηιούπολις· Ἑκαταος Ἀσίᾳ [FGrHist 1 F 268]. κέκλεται δὲ ἀπὸ Σόλωνος, ὡς Εὐφορίων ἐν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ.

3According to Plutarch (Sol. 26), one ancient biography of Aratus (Vita Arati I, p. 7.16ff. Martin), the τι]νες recorded in the prose fragment POxy. 680 (3rd c. AD), and other much later sources, Solon was involved in the re-foundation of the Cyprian town Aipeia, whose name the local king changed into Soloi to honour his Athenian guest:13 this may be read against Strabo 14.6.3 (C 683), according to whom Cypriot Soloi κτίσμα δ᾿ ἐστὶ Φαλήρου καὶ Ἀκάμαντος Ἀθηναίων. The alternative tradition presenting him as the eponymous founder of Cilician Soloi is first attested in our fragment, then in Diogenes Laertius 1.51, in POxy. 680 (this appears to be the opinion of the writer himself), and in schol. Plat. Resp. 599e (p. 272 Greene).14 Sykutris’ opinion that the Cypriot tale was a later version stemming from the Cilician one15 has won little credit, and now most scholars consider Plutarch’s version earlier (possibly tracing back to either Hermippus or a source of his?) and, to some extent at least, more reliable.16 We cannot be sure that the Cilician version was coined by Euphorion himself, as some scholars believe: be this as it may, it surely was in tune with his own interests. It goes without saying that the etymology is absolutely fictitious, since Σόλοι cannot derive from Σόλων: as commentators rightly note, one would rather expect Σολωνία or Σολώνεια.17

4It must be added that according to two other Lives of Aratus (Vita III, p. 14.5-7 Martin; Vita IV, p. 19.2-3 M.) the Cilician Soloi ὠνομάσθαι φασὶν ἀπὸ Σόλωνος το Λινδίου: but that Euphorion deals with this (otherwise unknown) Solon, as Meineke once thought,18 seems to me highly unplausible. Stephanus’ sentence κέκλεται δὲ ἀπὸ Σόλωνος, without further specification, clearly suggests the Athenian statesman, not his obscure Lindian namesake. Though often blamed by modern scholars for his uncritical attitude and occasional unreliability, Stephanus usually transmits his data with good accuracy:19 to mention only one instance out of many, when he quotes or mentions a not very widely known poet such as Alexander of Ephesus20 he calls him just Ἀλέξανδρος if the title of his work is added (ἐν Εὐρώπῃ, ἐν Ἀσίᾳ: one exception at p. 686.13 Meineke = Alex. Eph. SH 37), but when there is no title he always writes Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Ἐφέσιος or Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ καὶ Λύχνος,21 to avoid confusion. Had he been thinking of the elusive Solon of Lindos, I would expect to find το Λινδίου in his text (as in the Lives of Aratus quoted above).22 Nor am I sure that Stephanus knew Euphorion only from the indirect tradition (on this point I cannot subscribe to Margarethe Billerbeck’s authoritative opinion23). Shortly before his days,24 a number of works by Euphorion were still available–at least for a prodigiously learned writer like Nonnus, whose knowledge of the poet from Chalcis is beyond any doubt:25 Stephanus too, himself a considerably learned man,26 may have been able to read Euphorion and understand him properly. Followers of Meineke’s theory would better think that Stephanus’entry was badly mutilated. This is not unbelievable: the original text of the Ethnika was drastically abridged, as we can see comparing the small portions of its fuller version in the Coislinianus 228 (p. 240.12-259.3 Meineke = δ 139-ε 1 Billerbeck-Zubler) with the frustrating epitome preserved by other manuscripts.27 Yet one should also answer for Diogenes Laertius and the scholiast to Plato’s Republic, who do not just explicitly mention Solon of Athens, but add that he ὀλίγους τέ τινας τν Ἀθηναίων ἐγκατῴκισεν (D. L.: τοὺς κατοικισθέντας ὑπ’ αὐτο Ἀθηναίους in the scholion). Were such details invented sometime in the late Hellenistic or early Imperial age, after Euphorion’s text had been misunderstood? If we keep an eye on Ockham’s razor, we will be almost sure that the poet was concerned with the Athenian Solon, and that his alleged Lindian counterpart was the product of someone’s effort to blend this tradition with the one about Rhodians or, more specifically, Rhodians from Lindos taking part in the foundation of Soloi (Strabo 14.5.8, C 671; Polybius 21.24.11 with Walbank ad loc.28).

5Another passage worth discussing is schol. Dion. Per. 620, GGM II p. 452b. 10-16 (Euph. fr. 34 Powell = 37 Lightfoot29):

Ἀσία εἴρηται ἀπὸ το ἄσιν πολλὴν ἔχειν. οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ Ἀσίας, μητρὸς Προμηθέως. καὶ ἡ Ἀττικὴ δὲ Ἀσία πρώην ἐκαλετο, ὡς ἱστορε Διονύσιος ὁ Κυζικηνός· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Ποσειδωνία ἐκαλετο, ὡς Εὐφορίων φησίν·
Ἀκτς δὲ παροίτερα φωνηθείσης·
οἱ μὲν δὴ ἐνέπουσι καὶ Ἀσίδα κικλῄσκεσθαι,
οἱ δὲ Ποσειδάωνος ἐπώνυμον αὐδηθναι.

6The fragment probably comes from the Μοψοπία ἢ Ἄτακτα, apparently a collection of Attic myths and tales.30 Of these three ancient names of Attica, Ἀκτή is very well known:31 Ποσειδωνία is less widespread (cf. anyway Strabo 9.1.18, C 397), yet most easy to understand. Much more obscure is Ἀσίδα at line 2. Why should Attica be called ‘Asia’? (This is what Ἀσίς, attested in poetry from Hesiod, fr. 165.11 M.-W. onwards,32 invariably means.) Nearly all commentators were unable to find an answer. The most recent ones propose a very intriguing interpretation: “Strabon (IX, 1, 18) mentionne l’Ionie comme ancien nom de l’Attique: Euphorion joue sans doute sur la tradition des anciens noms de l’Attique en brouillant les pistes: il ne dit pas comme Strabon que l’Attique s’est appelée ‘Ionie’, mais il donne comme ancien nom Ἀσίς qui a désigné la région dénommée par la suite ‘Ionie’”.33 Euphorion’s οἱ μέν apparently reveals that he had some forerunners who also used this learned designation of Attica – perhaps a Dionysius of Cyzicus mentioned by the scholiast, though we totally ignore his chronology.34 At any rate, being an adopted citizen of Athens (Εὐφορίωνι τ φύσει μὲν Χαλκιδε, θέσει δὲ Ἀθηναίῳ: Helladius ap. Photius, Bibl. 279 = Euph. test. 3 Lightfoot35) did not prevent him from publishing this recondite piece of erudition about Attica’s ancient links with the East. Whether his Athenian acquaintances liked that or not, is a different question: but much time had elapsed since the Persian Wars, and the Attic obsession with autochthony was not what it used to be.

7Let me briefly discuss a third passage, i.e. schol. Clem. Alex., Protr. 2.11.3, p. 300.12-26 Stählin-Treu = 189.23-37 Marcovich (Euph. fr. 32 Powell = 35 Lightfoot36):

Καραν τ Ποιάνθους υἱ ἐξ Ἄργους μέλλοντι ἀποικίαν στέλλειν ἐπὶ Μακεδονίαν εἰς Δελφοὺς ἰόντι ἔχρησεν ὁ Ἀπόλλων [225 Parke-Wormell]·
φράζεο, δε Καρανέ, νόῳ δ᾿ ἐμὸν ἔνθεο μθον·
ἐκπρολιπὼν Ἄργος τε καὶ Ἑλλάδα καλλιγύναικα
χώρει πρὸς πηγὰς Ἁλιάκμονος· ἔνθα δ᾿ ἂν αγας
βοσκομένας ἐσίδῃς πρτον, τόθι [Meineke: τότε codd.] τοι χρεών ἐστιν
ζηλωτὸν ναίειν αὐτὸν γενεάν τε πρόπασαν.
ἐκ δὴ το χρησμο προθυμότερος γενόμενος [<ὁ> suppl. Wilamowitz] Καρανός, σύν τισιν Ἕλλησιν ἀποικίαν στειλάμενος ἐλθὼν εἰς Μακεδονίαν ἔκτισεν πόλιν καὶ Μακεδόνων ἐβασίλευσεν, καὶ τὴν πρότερον καλουμένην Ἔδεσσαν πόλιν Αἰγὰς [Meineke: αγας codd.] μετωνόμασεν ἀπὸ τν αἰγν. ᾠκετο δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν ἡ Ἔδεσσα ὑπὸ Φρυγν καὶ Λυδν καὶ τν μετὰ Μίδου διακομισθέντων εἰς τὴν Εὐρώπην. τατα Εὐφορίων ἱστορε ἐν τ Ἱστίᾳ [Ἱστιαίᾳ Meineke] καὶ τ Ἰνάχῳ [ἢ Ἰνάχῳ Bergk37: an καὶ <... ἐν> τ Ἰνάχῳ?].

8A recent, careful study38 has shown that the legend of Caranus, attested elsewhere, reflects the effort of the Macedonian kings to assert their Greekness and legitimate their role in the Greek world. We will never know how much of this story was in Euphorion: the oracle, Caranus’ travel to Macedonia, the re-naming of the city, its earlier inhabitants?39 Add that it is unclear whether the scholiast refers to one or two works by him, or even to a work by Euphorion and another work by a different author.40 Yet it is worth considering the possibility that the mention of Phrygians and Lydians as the first inhabitants of Aigai traces back to him. In 304 BC Seleucus I Nicator founded a city in upper Mesopotamia on the site of an older Assyrian settlement, and named it Edessa after the Macedonian city of that name: if Euphorion identified the Macedonian Edessa with Aigai (as modern scholars too used to do until recent times41), or at least knew of such an opinion and used it for his own purposes, he could well conceive a far older ‘delta connection’ involving Greece, Macedonia, and the East42. Needless to say, this remains very speculative.

9Other fragments can be read in the very same way, though we must always beware of overinterpretation. The myths of the seers Calchas, Mopsus, and Amphilochus, and the related foundation legends (Euph. frs. 97-98 Powell = 102-103 Lightfoot), also implied strong connections between East and West:43 Évelyne Prioux and Claude Pouzadoux treat them properly in their brilliant contributions to this volume, investigating their cultural and ideological meaning and rightly highlighting the importance of fr. 174 Powell = 119 Lightfoot44 on Laodice’s prediction about Seleucus I. Adrian Hollis acutely suggested that Euphorion’s treatment of the myth of Iphigenia (frs. 90-91 Powell = 85-86 Lightfoot) may have a Seleucid connection, since the ancient statue of Artemis supposedly brought by Iphigenia and Orestes to Brauron had been located by Seleucus at Laodicea on Sea, the city which he founded in honour of his mother.45 Hollis also made a good case for thinking that the myth on the origins of Apamea in [Oppian] Cyn. 2.100-158 derives from Euphorion.46 Even his Dionysus (frs. 13-17 Powell = 14-18 Lightfoot, and possibly SH 418, 421 = fr. 19a-b Lightfoot47) may be read in the light of the aims and interests of the Seleucids, as Stéphanie Wyler aptly shows in her contribution to this volume. Dionysus, “one of the two great representatives and ambassadors of international Hellenism”48 (the other being Heracles), was celebrated by Neoptolemus of Parion in a Διονυσιάς, by Theolytus of Methymna is his Βακχικὰ ἔπη, and by Dinarchus of Delos in a poem of unknown title (SH 379B)49, some of them possibly earlier than Euphorion. Whether they narrated the god’s triumph in India, we do not know:50 but it is remarkable that no fragment of Euphorion’s poem deals with the Far East. All the extant fragments record Attic demes and other places in mainland Greece, one (fr. 15 Powell = 16 Lightfoot) mentions a Lydian city.51 It looks like Euphorion’s Dionysus was moving from the Near East to the West – and Wyler rightly stresses the relevance that this may have had for, say, the celebration of Seleucus Nicator’s deeds.

10To be sure, I am not willing to walk in the steps of Piero Treves, who tried to place almost every extant fragment of Euphorion in a definite period of the poet’s career, thus reconstructing a ‘Macedonian’ phase of his poetry, a ‘Thracian/Ptolemaic’ one, and finally a ‘Seleucid’ one. His approach was rightly criticized by many a reviewer,52 and we do not need to revive it. In other words, I am not suggesting that all the fragments dealing with Eastern topics belong to the last decades of Euphorion’s life, when he was working in Antioch under Antiochus III the Great. Some of them are indeed likely to have been written in that period, in return for Antiochus’ patronage: Peter Bing has brilliantly demonstrated that the geographical distribution of stones in the Lithika-section of the New Posidippus reflects the territorial ambitions of the Ptolemaic empire,53 and Euphorion might have similar aims in shaping a Seleucid-oriented world. But this is, I think, only half the story. I am rather inclined to believe that Euphorion’s poetical geography preceded his Seleucid affiliation, and that the poet conceived it as a way of emulating, rather than imitating, his Alexandrian models. Callimachus mentions the East quite often, and contemporary history sometimes lurks behind literary topics. It is tempting to feel a derogatory nuance in his use of the word ‘Assyrian’: apart from the well known Catullus 66.12 (Callimachus, Aet. fr. 110 Pf. = 213 Massimilla) uastatum finis ierat Assyrios, concerning the Third Syrian War,54 frs. 505 Pf. τηλο ἀπ’ Ἀσσυρίων ἡμεδαπὴ στρατιή and 506 Pf. ἥμισυ μὲν Πέρσην, ἥμισυ δ’ Ἀσσύριον55 may also conceal allusions to the unending rivalry between Ptolemies and Seleucids;56 and the Ἀσσυρίου ποταμοο μέγας ῥόος of Ap. 108 is definitely unpleasant to the Callimachean taste. ‘Assyrian’ as an equivalent of ‘not Greek’ – only the Ptolemies are true heirs to Alexander’s Hellenic legacy. Euphorion does not speak ill of them (at least in the extant fragments), yet creates an alternative world, a ‘mnemotope’,57 whose focal points are Greece and Asia, neglecting Egypt and thus apparently excluding it from his cultural horizon. One of the most enthusiastic disciples of the great Alexandrian poets, he has used his vast mythological and geographical knowledge to produce highly refined poetry without Alexandria.58