Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:39:00.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Gift of Aphrodite in Iliad 24.30

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2020

Cristian Mancilla*
Affiliation:
Independent Scholarcristian.mancilla@umce.cl

Abstract

In the famous story of Paris’ choice, he favoured the goddess who offered him ‘grievous lust’ (μαχλοσύνην ἀλɛγɛινήν). This is what Homer tells us in Il. 24.30. It has not often been noticed that Cratinus (5th cent. BC) and Lucian (2nd cent. AD) mention another gift – that Aphrodite's bribe was to make Paris irresistible to women. This alternative version happens to correspond to a high degree with several literary and artistic representations of the same story, telling it in a manner that implies or suggests the variant account. This paper argues that the set of instances containing this alternative gift may be based on an actual episode within the oral tradition. Homer himself seems to hint at this link when he refers to the ‘grievous lust’ of Paris. The Homeric reference to the alternative gift was acknowledged by Herbert Rose in 1951, even though he rejected the line in Homer which mentioned the Judgement of Paris (Il. 24.30). This seeming contradiction of Rose's accepting the alternative gift while rejecting the Judgement makes his explanation rather atypical. His uncommon viewpoint, nevertheless, will allow us to identify the presence of this alternative gift in many literary and artistic works, whether explicitly mentioned, implied, or suggested.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adkins, A. W. H. (1969), ‘Threatening, Abusing and Feeling Angry in the Homeric Poems’, JHS 89, 721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakola, E. (2010), Cratinus and the Art of Comedy. Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
Clairmont, C. (1951), Das Parisurteil in der antiken Kunst. Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (1981), ‘The Judgement of Paris and Iliad Book XXIV’, JHS 101, 5662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2003), ‘The Judgements of Paris and Solomon’, CQ 53, 3243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erbse, H. (1977), Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia Vetera). Volumen Quintum: Scholia ad Libros Υ–Ω Continens. Berlin.Google Scholar
Harrison, J. (1903), Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Iacobacci, M. (2011), Cratino e la satira politica. PhD thesis. Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’.Google Scholar
Jaeger, W. (1940), ‘Diocles of Carystus: A New Pupil of Aristotle’, PhR 49, 393414.Google Scholar
Kahil, L. L. (1955), Les enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène. Paris.Google Scholar
Kahil, L. L. (1988), ‘Helene’, in Boardman, J. et al. (eds.), Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Vol. 4, 498563. Zurich.Google Scholar
Mackie, C. (2013), ‘Iliad 24 and the Judgement of Paris’, CQ 63, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raab, I. (1972), Zu den Darstellungen des Parisurteils in der griechischen Kunst. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, K. (1948), ‘Das Parisurteil’. Reprinted in K. Reinhardt, Von Werken und Formen: Vorträge und Aufsätze. Godesberg, 1136.Google Scholar
Richardson, N. (1993), The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume VI: Books 21–24. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rose, H. J. (1951), ‘De loco homerico male intellecto’, Humanitas 3, 281–5.Google Scholar
Schäublin, C. (1977), ‘Homerum ex Homero’, MH 34, 221–7.Google Scholar
Scott, J. A. (1919), ‘The Choice of Paris in Homer’, CJ 14, 326–30.Google Scholar
Stinton, T. C. W. (1965), Euripides and the Judgement of Paris. London.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. F. (1998), ‘Nuptial Eros: The Visual Discourse of Marriage in Classical Athens’, JWAG 55/56, 2748.Google Scholar
Walcot, P. (1977), ‘The Judgement of Paris’, G&R 24, 31–9.Google Scholar