Weaving Metis in Hes. Sc. 1-56

Timothy S. Heckenlively (Baylor University)

Traditional scholarship on the Ps. Hesiodic Scutum treats it as a paradigm of disjointed, degenerate epic.[1] Working from the ancient judgment of Aristophanes that the opening 56 verses are an appendage borrowed from the Catalog of Women, modern discussion begins from the premise that the Scutum is a pastiche. However, this position bypasses important objections. It overstates the evidence of the textual tradition. It overlooks several key parallels between the prologue and the body of the poem. Finally, it ignores a multifaceted traditional metaphor which lies at the heart of the passage. Awareness of these unities places important new limits on Hesiodic scholarship and paves the way for discussion of well-known allusions in Theocritus and Virgil.[2]

There is no reason to doubt that Aristophanes observed duplication between the Scutum and the Catalog. His conclusion is another matter. Until the 4^th century AD, the Catalog was the most celebrated of the “Hesiodic” poems.[3] To an Alexandrian critic, it would have been axiomatic that the inferior had copied the greater. Aristophanes’ deductions tell us much about his methodology, far less about the history of Sc. 1-56. Some scholars cite P.Oxy. 2355 and 2494A, each showing these verses embedded in the Catalog, as proof of Aristophanes’ position.[4] Such confirmation is more illusory than real. Both fragments are of Egyptian provenance, dating to the late 1^st or early 2^nd century AD. Although an important verification of later tradition, their value for the genesis of the Scutum and pre-Alexandrian textual development is highly debatable.

Shields draw special attention in Scutum 1-56 (cf. Sc. 13, φερεσσάκεις Καδμεῖοι; Sc. 24 ὑπὲρ σακέων πνείοντες). The weapon was a common Boeotian symbol; however, the epithet φερεσσακής is unique in early epic, a possible neologism.[5] Such creativity is suggestive given the subject of the ecphrasis which eventually follows. Moreover, Amphitryon’s expedition against the Teleboans is described as a χαλεπὸς πόνος (Sc. 44) motivated by divine wrath, μῆνις (Sc. 21). The Scutum relates a tale in which Herakles destroys Kyknos at the behest of Apollo for usurping the god’s τέμενος. Zeus begets Herakles as an ἀρῆς ἀλκτήρ (Sc. 29). This reference to Herakles’ traditional role as ἀλεξίκακος offers a natural point of departure for the monster-slaying tale which follows.[6] Moreover, the phrase evokes a potential word play on ἀρή, for the final battle of the Scutum is against Ares himself. Finally, the term ἀλκτήρ sets up a striking symmetry between wielder and weapon, for ἀλκή is fundamentally defensive in nature, the power to ward off. Defense is one of the primary functions of a shield.

The wording of Zeus’ plan for an ἀλκτήρ deserves special attention: ἄλλην μῆτιν ὕφαινε [sc. Ζεύς] μετὰ φρεσίν (Sc. 28-29). Weaving is one of the best-attested Indo-European metaphors for verse composition. Moreover, the specific object of this weaving is μῆτις, a word which came to encompass nearly every form of τεχνή, whether of mind, handicraft, or word.[7] Interpenetration of narrative and metaphor results in a multivalent phrase which can celebrate simultaneously the plan of Zeus, the upcoming craft of Hephaestus, and the skill of the poet in drawing these threads together. Wonder completes the picture (μήδετο θέσκαλα ἔργα, Sc. 34). It is natural that Zeus should produce awe-inspiring deeds; however, in this context they are distinctly bound to μῆτις. Likewise, wonder (θαῦμα) is the hallmark property of the μῆτις of Hephaestus, the described shield (cf. Sc. 140, 165, 218, 224, 318). One suspects that the poet hoped to attain a similar response to his own creative μῆτις.

These reflections will not satisfy all questions to the poetics of the Scutum, nor do they aim to do so. However, they do suggest a hitherto unrecognized level of unity within the work, a unity with at least two key implications. First, it is far from clear that verses 1-56, in their present form, had an existence independent of the Scutum. This militates against using these verses (pace West et al.), as a guide for reconstructing the Catalog of Women. Second, and more importantly, it benefits our understanding of the epic tradition. Theocritus draws upon Hesiodic diction for the cup description of Idyll 1, a poem where μῆτις and θαῦμα are also key themes. Likewise, Virgil alludes to the Scutum in the shield ecphrasis of Aeneid 8, a book in which he actively exploits parallelism between the “labors” of Hercules, Aeneas, and Augustus, each of whom must defeat an enemy of civilization and (re)establish divinely ordained order, a role which recalls that of Herakles as ἀλεξίκακος and ἀρῆς ἀλκτήρ.