index

With these words, Athena justifies her decision, unpleasant as it is, even to herself. Her action, according to her line of reasoning, is founded on ancient laws going back to the time of Cronos.² The reference to the laws of Cronos links, in an automatic way, the issue of punishment with a certain kind of law, which, indeed, is rooted in a very ancient era characterized by both justice and cruelty.³

And if the laws of Cronos (simultaneously harsh and just), determine Teiresias’ fate in Callimachus, one wonders what happens in other occasions.

This is exactly the question that I will attempt to answer. To be more exact, my question is whether the deprivation of vision is part of a system of justice, and whether this mention by Callimachus has a particular significance within the framework of the hymn. To the extent that blindness appears as punishment, was there in existence a legal system regulating the imposition and enforcement of this particular punishment? Who was responsible for the execution of the punishment and what were the conditions or the norms that delineated the whole framework?

Since we do not come across the concept of blindness as punishment in a real, historical level, in other words as a legal act,⁴ with the exception of the Lokroi,⁵ it seems to me that it is interesting to examine how the mythical thought has conceptualized the institutional framework and the rules that determine the imposition of this particular punishment.

There is no reason to repeat that within a culture of light, as was the ancient Greek, the deprivation of vision signifies the loss of life and that within the same culture, blindness is a complex state, since blind (τυφλός) is both he who does not see but also he who is not visible, he who cannot be seen.⁶ Accordingly, the deprivation of vision constitutes a very severe punishment, which refers to the total relationship of the ancient Greek with the world that surrounds him. On the other hand, it would be wrong to claim that the institutionalization of such a punishment implies a negative stance or attitude of the ancient Greek society toward blindness. As Rose has insisted, blind people were far from exceptional.⁷ Diseases of the eyes, due to pathological causes like old age, war wounds etc., were very common.

A first category, which has already been studied by R. Buxton,⁸ and E. Bernidaki-Aldous⁹ includes seers and poets.¹⁰ As in the case of Demodokos (Od. 7. 62 ff.) the Muse deprived him of eyesight, but bestowed upon him the gift of sweet song. I will simply underline that in all these cases blindness is nothing more than an etiological myth explaining the source of the specialized knowledge that these individuals gained or were given in a reciprocal sense. In this category, what is important is not the transgression and its punishment, but rather the gained gift in reference to which there are rules that determine what is allowed to be revealed.

In a second category belong those who have crossed the limits of human behavior in relation to the divine powers. In the Iliad, Lykourgos is blinded by Zeus due to his impious behavior toward the gods and because he was hated by all (Il. 6. 138–140: Καί μιν τυφλὸν ἔθηκε Kρόνου πάϊς). The Muses, daughters of Zeus, punished Thamyris in the course of a song contest due to his attempt to challenge their musical skills (Il. 2. 599): αἱ δὲ χολωσάμεναι πηρὸν θέσαν).¹¹ Aepytos, the son of Hippothous, entered the sanctuary of Poseidon at Mantineia, into which no mortal was allowed to pass. On entering he was struck blind and shortly after this calamity he died (Paus. 8. 5.4–5). Phineus was punished with blindness by the gods, because he revealed their secrets to the humans (Apoll. Rh. Arg. 2. 180–181, 212–246–47, 311–316, 342–343, 390–391). This punishment was enforced either by Poseidon because Phineus showed the correct way to Frixos (Hes. fr. 157 M.-W.) or by Helios, because he chose a long life instead of the light of the sun (Hes. fr. 157 M.-W., Schol. in Ap. Rhod. 2. 178–182 b), or by the Voreades because he had blinded their sons (Orf. Arg. 671–676, Apoll. 3. 15. 3).¹² Erymanthos was blinded because he saw Aphrodite while bathing (Ptol. Heph. in Phot. Bibl. cod. 190, 146–147). Ilus was blinded because he stole the Palladion as did Metellus in Rome (both stories in Plut. Parall. Greac. et Rom. 17 = Moralia 309 F–310). Anchises, after having boasted about his union with Aphrodite, was struck by a thunderbolt and was blinded (Serv. Aen. 2. 35, 687, Hyginus, Fab. 94).

In all these cases, those punished had crossed the allowed limits of getting involved with the divine world and broke the divine laws.¹³ Blindness is an appropriate penalty for seeing what is not themis for mortals to see. Yet, what interests us, namely who and in what way administers the punishment is quite intriguing. It becomes instantly apparent that the punishment is imposed by Zeus, Hera, Artemis, Aphrodite, Poseidon the Muses etc., namely by this divine ‘generation’ that appeared after or simultaneously with the domination of Zeus, who put order in place and determined the borderline between the divine and the human world. Let us recall the punishment of Sisyphus, Tantalus and others through which Zeus delineated the distance between men and gods. Accordingly, through blindness as punishment, norms are put in place, limits in relation to human deeds are determined and the stance of men toward the gods is clarified and sealed within a divine framework.

At the same time, the power of the gods in imposing justice in all human activities becomes obvious, a power rooted on the force, the omnipotence of their own gaze as is stressed by the phrase θεῶν ὄπιν οὐκ ἀλέγοντες, translated as not being able to face the view, the eyes of the gods and where the term “opis” has become synonymous with divine revenge and punishment.¹⁴

The omnipotence of the gods explains, in a sense, the fact that in all these examples the way that blindness is actually imposed is unclear. Only in the case of Teiresias is it well known that Athena was the one who committed the act of blinding (Apoll. 3.6.7: Τὴν δὲ ταῖς χερσὶ τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ καταλαβομένην πηρὸν ποιῆσαι) and Hera (κατανύξαι αὐτοῦ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς καὶ ποιῆσαι τυφλόν, Hesiod, fr. 275 M.-W.).

A third category of blindness as punishment is related to the framework of oikos. Amphissa or Metope is blinded by her father for her sexual union with a man and she is put in a ‘dark hut.’ Melanippe is blinded and imprisoned with a small amount of food and water in a tomb by her father (Hyg. Fab. 186).¹⁵ An unknown youth was accused of falsely seeking the favors of his father’s concubine and was blinded and imprisoned (Σούδα s.v. Ἀναγυράσιος). Eidothea, Phineus’ second wife took out her stepsons’ eyes when they spun her sexual advances (Sophocles, Antigone 966 ff.). The punishment of Phoenix seems also similar. He was blinded and exiled due to incest with his father’s concubine (Apoll. 3.175). In the same category belong several variations of the myth of Phineus, as it becomes apparent in Sophoclean Antigone, where Phineus’ sons were blinded by their stepmother.

The individual responsible for the administration of the punishment in these examples is usually the father or the victim of the sexual assault. Since the punishment of blindness is often linked with imprisonment or stoning¹⁶ (when Daphnis rejects the love of the Nymph Nomia she punishes him by blinding and by transforming him into stone, Ov. Met. 4. 276 ff.), it is obvious that we are dealing with the administration of a human system of law. We would even agree with Deborah Steiner that through this punishment, what is achieved is to exile the perpetrator from the community.¹⁷ The isolation has a double effect: the perpetrator is punished and he is also expelled from the polis as a ‘miasma,’ so that other individuals cannot become infected by his presence.

The clearest example of this category, leaving aside its particularities due to its dramaturgical exploitation by the poets of tragedy, is Oedipus. According to the Aeschylus’ version, Oedipus, being a miasma himself due to his marriage decided to work a twofold ill (The Seven, 782 ff.). He blinded himself and he put a curse to his sons. In other words, he erased both himself and his sons from the Lavdakides. According to Sophocles (in Oedipus Rex, 1268 ff.), Oedipus blinds himself with Iocasta’s dress-pins, because he no longer wants to be seen by others or to look upon his crimes (lines 12171 ff.: ὁθούνεκ’ οὐκ ὄψοιντό νιν / οὔθ’ οἷ’ ἔπασχεν οὔθ’ ὁποῖα ἔδρα κακά, / ἀλλ’ ἐν σκότῳ τὸ λοιπὸν οὓς μὲν οὐκ ἔδει/ ὀψοίαθ’ οὓς δὲ ἔχρηζεν οὐ γνωσοίατο).¹⁸

He also states that he would prefer to be expelled from the boundaries of the land (1340, 1436) and be hidden from the sight of men, or to be put in a place where he would not see those he should not see, since he is no longer able to face his mother, the city, the towers and the statues of the gods (lines 1371 ff. : ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐκ οἶδ’ ὄμμασιν ποίοις βλέπων/ πατέρα ποτ’ ἂν προσεῖδον εἰς Ἅιδου μολών, /Οὐδ’ αὖ τάλαιναν μητέρ’).¹⁹

Consequently, through his own decision Oedipus blinds himself, punishes himself into blindness in both terms of the word. He wants to go away from the oikos in order not to be seen and also not to see his fellow citizens. What sets the case of Oedipus apart from other cases of the same category is that he carries out the execution of his own punishment and decides to be blinded and removed from the oikos of Thebes. Given that blindness, patricide and incest are inscribed in the context of shame and pollution (1440–1442, 1436–1437), Oedipus personally undertakes deliverance from his heavy sins.

However, if the whole of an oikos imposes rules according to which its members should be isolated with the punishment of blindness, the mythical thought of ancient Greeks has imposed the same punishment to those who ignore the rules of a social group (fourth category).

To use an example from Euripides’ Hecuba: Polymestor is punished with blindness because he did not respect the rules of hospitality (803–804, 1234–1235).²⁰ Snatching the pins from their garments,²¹ the Queen’s servants attack the eyes of Polymestor and made them turn full of blood (1169 ff).

Even more obvious is the case of Cyclops in the homonymous satyr play of Euripides, where Odysseus uses a concept of Athenian law telling Polyphemus that he is punished because of his unholy banquet (line 693: δώσειν δ’ ἔμελλες ἀνοσίου δαιτὸς δίκας). The blindness of the main character in a context of justice stresses the importance of the institutions that must be respected by both parties. The answer of Cyclops (line 699: δίκας ὑφέξειν ἀντὶ τῶν δ’ ἐθέσπισεν) that Odysseus will be punished and suffer at sea for his wrongdoings, is inscribed in a judicial context.

This scheme is already present in the Odyssey. Here, the lack of norms and of respect for the laws of hospitality, constitute the reasons for Odysseus blinding Polyphemus (Od. 10. 477–479). This is a very particular scene that is rendered in many details. It is probably the only scene in ancient literature where the exact process of piercing the eyes is described: 16 verses for the description itself and 10 verses for the cries, the pain and the bloodshed that follows (Od. 9. 382 ff.).²² Certainly, in Homeric times, human acts are dictated by the will of gods; it is thus stated very clearly at the end, that the administration of justice is a work of Zeus and other gods (Od. 9. 479: τῷ σε Zεὺς τίσατο καὶ θεοὶ ἄλλοι).

Another social example is the case of a Thracian king who blinds his sons when they break faith with their father’s prohibition of not becoming allies with Xerxes’ armies (Hdt. 8. 116. 2–117.1: Ἐξώρυξεν αὐτῶν ὁ πατὴρ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ... καὶ οὗτοι μὲν τοῦτον τὸν μισθὸν ἔλαβον). A certain Telesphorus was punished by the king Lysimachus with blindness (Plutarch Moralia 606 B), cutting off the nose, the tongue and the ears as a result of treason (Athenaeus 16. 616c tells that Telesphorus is punished for jesting about Lysimachus’ wife). According to Apollodorus (2. 168), Yllos beheaded Eurystheus and Alcmene gouged out his eyes with weaving pins.

The last myth that I want to mention is that of the shepherd Euenius. According to Herodotus (9. 92–95), one night Euenius fell asleep during his watch and wolves slipped past him into the cave and killed about sixty of the sheep of the flock. This event was not hidden from the people of Apollonia, and when it came to their knowledge they hold him to judgment and condemned him to lose his eyesight for sleeping during his watch (καὶ οὐ γὰρ ἔλαθε τοὺς Ἀπολωνιήτας ταῦτα γενόμενα, ἀλλὰ ὡς ἐπύθοντο, ὑπαγαγόντες μιν ὑπὸ δικαστήριον κατέκρινον, ὡς τὴν φυλακὴν κατακοιμίσαντα, τῆς ὄψιος στερηθῆναι).²³ After they blinded him, because the sheep stopped giving birth and the earth ceased to deliver fruit, they asked the oracle of Dodone and Delphes about it and were given the answer that they had done unjustly in blinding Euenius (ἐπείτε δὲ τὸν Eὐήνιον ἐξετύφλωσαν, αὐτίκα μετὰ ταῦτα οὔτε πρόβατά σφι ἔτικτε οὔτε γῆ ἔφερε ὁμοίως καρπόν. πρόφαντα δέ σφι ἔν τε Δωδώνη καὶ ὲν Δελφοῖσι ἐγίνετο, …ὅτι ἀδίκως τὸν φύλακον τῶν ἱρῶν προβάτων Eὐήνιον τῆς ὄψιος ἐστέρησαν).

And they said that they are not going to cease from avenging him until he stands trial and defends himself (οὐ πρότερόν τε παύσασθαι τιμωρέοντες ἐκείνῳ πρὶν ἢ δίκας δῶσι τῶν ἐποίησαν ταύτας τὰς ἂν αὐτὸς ἕληται καὶ δικαιοῖ … ταύτῃ δὲ ὑπάγοντες εἰρώτων τίνα δίκην ἂν ἕλοιτο, εἰ ἐθέλοιεν Ἀπολλωνιῆται δίκας ὑποστῆναι δώσειν τῶν ἐποίησαν).

What is very interesting is the fact that the whole procedure related to blindness in these examples follows a typical judicial setting. Also, the conceptual matrix in use is that of the legal system of a city that collectively regulates the wrongs of the citizens. Of course, Euenius, who failed in what was his main duty (to remain awake), was ultimately held innocent by the gods. The ambiguity between human and divine law is more than obvious.²⁴ The inclusion of the punishment of Euenius in the judicial system of the city, marks a change of policy: problems are now tackled with social institutions.

In summarizing the categories presented so far, it is easy to conclude that the punishment of blindness is a symbolic means for stating the isolation of the perpetrators either from the divine or the human society. One can observe a very wide range of cases, where, depending on the circumstances, either the divine or the human laws are applied, and the punishment is administrated by gods or even by humans within a precise institutional framework. The example of Phineus is very useful, since the relevant mythological variations cover both cases.

A last observation takes us back to our initial question, namely how is it possible to conceptualize the laws of Cronos referred to by Callimachus. It seems, therefore, that the poet has formulated his own system for administering the punishment of blinding, borrowing elements from almost all the previous categories. From the moment that Teiresias crosses the limit by looking at the naked body of the goddess, his natural punisher would be Athena, as in older versions. The poet, however, resorts to a kind of law, a characteristic of the other categories, thus making the callimacheian punishment of Teiresias an extraordinary case. Taking the blame off Athena, who abides by the laws of primordial deity, Cronos, the poet merges all the previous categories by referring them back to the remotest past.

It is known that the era of Cronos, an ambiguous era (referred to as the golden era), precedes that of Zeus in which the rules of distinguishing gods and men are put in place. It is also known that the mythical figure of Teiresias is famous for sex transformations and as a mediator par excellence.

If in the preceding tradition Athena, or Hera, or Zeus were the punishers of Teiresias, here Athena becomes free of any responsibility. Accordingly, what comes to the forefront is the positive power of the goddess who will provide the ultimate forgiveness²⁵ by presenting blindness as a gift and transforming Teiresias into a mediator of the wishes of the gods. The Blinding of Teiresias is the greatest gift to the son of Chariclo (lines 101–102):

Praising both Athena for her ability to look sharply²⁷ and Teiresias for seeing despite being blind (τυφλόν ἰδέσθαι 109),²⁸ the poet leads to a literary trick more complex than a simple game of looking/not looking. Placing the facts in a very ancient era he incorporates the elements of the myth into his own aim. By describing the secret ritual of Athena’s Bath the poet brings to light the invisible. Through this trick, Callimachus demands for himelf his induction to the realm of the great poets, the blind poets.

NOTES

1. Text and Translation, A.W. Bulloch, Callimachus. The Fifth Hymn. Edited with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

2. In Pherecydes’ version Athena was physically respοnsible for Teiresias’ blinding (FGrHis t 3 F 92). For all the versions, see L. Brisson, Le mythe de Tirésias. Essais d’analyse stucturale (Leiden, 1976). K. Zimmerman, LIMC, VIII, 1 (Suppl.) s.v. Teiresias (1997), 1288 ff. Cl. Calame, ‘Tirésias dans un hymne alexandrin,’ in Poéti- que des mythes dans la Grèce antique (Paris, 2000): 169–205. N. Loraux, ‘Ce que vit Tirésias,’ Les expériences de Tirésias. Le féminin et l’homme grec (Paris, 1989): 253–271. E. Σιστάκου, ‘Tο παιχνίδι των αισθήσεων στον Ύμνο της Παλλάδος του Kαλλιμάχου, ’ in Ξένη Σκαρτσή , H ποίηση των ύμνων, Πρακτικά εικοστού τέταρτου Συμποσίoυ ποίησης, Πανεπιστήμιο Πατρών 2–4 Iουλίου 2004 (Patras, 2005): 62–75.

3. K. J. McKay , The Poet at Play, Kallimachos, the Bath of Pallas, Mnemosyne Suppl. 6 (Leiden, 1962), 43 ff., 75 argues that this law belongs to a cruel age. Bulloch, Callimachus. The Fifth Hym, 212 refers to the ancient laws. But the age of Cronos is ambiguοus. See Plato, Laws 4, 713b–e for the age of justice and Aristophanes’ Nubes, 398 and Plato’s Eythudymos, 287b 2–3 for an age of decadence. For the age of Cronos, see H. S. Versnel, ‘Kronos and the Kronia,’ in Transition and Reversal in Myth and Ritual, Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion II, ed. H. S. Versnel (Leyden, New York, Köln, 1994): 89–135. E. D. Serbeti, LIMC, VI, 1, s.v. Kronos (1992), 142 ff.

4. For the system of punishment in ancient Greece, see D. S. Allen, The World of Prometheus. The Pοlitics of Punishing in Democratic Athens (Princeton, New York, 2000). E. Cantarella, I supplici capitali in Grecia e a Roma (Milano, 1991) [French Translation: N. Gallet, Les Peines de mort en Grèce et à Rome. Origines et fonctions des supplices capitaux dans l’Antiquité, (Paris, 1991, 1996)].

5. The earliest record of Greek judicial blinding was by Zaleukos in Lokroi in the seventh century for punishing adultery (Val. Max. 6.5.7) and by Charondas, cf. E. M. Tetlow, Women, Crime, and Punishment in Ancient Law and Society, in Ancient Greece Vol. II (London, 2005), 19 ‘he asigned penalties of gorral mutilation, such as amputation of one or both eyes in case of assault or violence.’

6. For the way of seeing in ancient Greece and the fundamental role of vision, see G. Simon, Le regard, l’être et l’apparence dans l’Optique de l’Antiquité (Paris, 1988). E. Bernidaki–Aldous, Blindness in a Culture of Light. Especially the Case of Oedipus at Colonus of Sophocles (New York, Bern, Frankfurt, Paris, Md.: American University Studies, Series xvii, 1990), 11ff. Études sur la vision dans l’Antiquité classique, ed. L. Villard (Md.: Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre, 2005). S. Constantinidou, ‘The Vision of Homer: The Eyes of Heroes and Gods,’ Antichton 28 (1994): 1–15. S. Constantinidou, ‘Homeric Eyes in a Ritual Context,’ Δωδώνη 23 (1994): 59–65.· Ch. Darbo-Peschanski, ‘La folie pour un regrad. Oreste et les divinités de l’échange (Érinyes, Euménides, Charites),’ Mètis (N.S. 2006): 13–28, esp. 22 note 34.

7. M. L. Rose, The Staff of Oedipus. Transforming Disability in Ancient Greece (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2003, 2006).

8. R. G. A. Buxton, ‘Blindness and Limits: Sophokles and the Logic of Myth,’ JHS 100 (1980): 22–37.

9. A. Esser, Das Anlitz der Blinheit in der Antike (Leiden, 1961), 56–72. G. Devereux, ‘The Self-Blinding of Oedipus in Sophocles: Oidipus Tyrannos,’ JHS 93 (1973): 36–49 for blindness as punishment especially for sexual crimes, Bernidaki–Aldous, Blindness in a Culture of Light, 60 ff.

10. See also, Fr. Létoublon, in this chapter.

11. A. Nercessian, LIMC, VII, s.v. Thamyris, Thamyras (1994), 903 ff.

12. For Phineus, who was also blinded by the Argonauts according tο Apollodorus 1. 9.21, Diodorus 4.44.4, see Sophocles, fr. 704–719, Radt 4. D. Bouvier, Ph. Moreau, ‘Phinée ou le père aveugle et la marâtre aveuglante,’ RBPhH 61 (1983): 5–19. A. Kossatz-Deissmann, LIMC, VII, 1, s.v. Phineus I (1994), 387 ff., Bernidaki-Aldous, Blindness in a Culture of Light, 61 ff., Buxton, Blindness and Limits, 28 ff.

13. Bernidaki-Aldous, Blindness in a Culture of Light, 71.

14. On the contrary W. Burkert, ‘ΘEΩN OΠIN OYK AΛEΓONTEΣ. Götterfurch und Leumannsches Missverständniss,’ MH 38 (1981): 195–204 [= Kleine Schriften I, Homerica, Her. von Christofer Riedweg, et al., Hypomnemata Suppl.-Reihe; Bd 2 (Göttingen, 2001), 95–104] thinks that the phrase θεῶν ὄπιν οὐκ ἀλέγοντες (Il. 16, 388, Od. 14, 88, etc.), is not connected with ὄψις but with ὄπισθεν.

15. R. Seaford, ‘The Imprisonment of Women in Greek Tragedy,’ JHS 90 (1990): 76–90, esp. 84.

16. Fοr stoning, see J. V. Rosivach, ‘Execution by Stoning in Athens,’ CA 6 (1987): 232–49.· D. T. Steiner, ‘Stoning and Sight: A Structural Equivalence in Greek Mythology,’ CA 14 (1995): 194–211.

17. Steiner, ‘Stoning and Sight,’ 205.

18. Steiner, ‘Stoning and Sight,’ 205, 207.

19. Text A. C. Pearson, Sophocles Fabulae (Oxford 1924, 1971).

20. A. M. Mesturini, ‘Tracce di torie ottiche nell’ Ecuba euripidea,’ SIFC 4 (1986): 207–209. R. Meridor, ‘The Function of Polymestor’s Crime in the Hecuba of Euripides,’ Eranos 81 (1983): 13–20. C. Collard, ‘Euripides’ Hecuba 1056–1106: Monody of the Blinded Polymestor,’ in Estudios actuales sobre textos griegos, Il jornadas internaciona- les, UNED, 25–28 Octobre 1989, ed. J. A. Lόpez Férez (Madrid, 1991): 161–173.

21. For the use of the pins, see J. Gregory , Euripides: Hecuba. Introduction, Text and Commentary, (Atlanta: American Philological Association, 1999), 183 ad 1170 (πόρπαξ).

22. Depiction of the blinding of Cyclops is preserved on some vases from the seventh and fifth centuries, see N. Icard-Gianolio, LIMC, VI, 1, s.v. Kyklops, Kyklopes (1992), 154 ff., ns 17–20. According to M. Buchan, The Limits of Heroism. Homer and the Ethics of Reading (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2004), 21 ‘the removal of his central eye destroys his wholeness and introduces him to a world beyond his previous self-sufficiency.’

23. Text C. Hude, Herodoti Historiae (Oxford, 1988, 1966).

24. C. Grottanelli, ‘L’Événios d’Hérodote, ix 92–95, mauvais pasterur, fameux devin,’ Métis 9–10 (1994–1995): 79–98.

25. J. R. Heath, ‘The Blessing of Epiphany in Callimachus’ Bath of Pallas,’ CA 19 (1988): 72–90.

26. For the use of μισθῷ in the context of punishment, cf. Hdt. 8. 117.1.

27. A. D. Morrison, ‘Sexual Ambiguity and the Identity of Narrator in Callimachus’ Hymn to Athena,’ BICS 48 (2005): 27–46, esp. 44.

28. Cl. Calame, ‘Tirésias dans un hymne alexandrin,’ 190.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, D. S. The World of Prometheus. The Pοlitics of Punishing in Democratic Athens. Princeton, New York, 2000.

Bernidaki-Aldous, E. Blindness in a Culture of Light. Especially the Case of Oedipus at Colonus of Sophocles. New York, Bern, Frankfurt, Paris: American University Studies, Series xvii, 1990.

Bouvier, D. and Ph. Moreau. ‘Phinée ou le père aveugle et la marâtre aveuglante,’ RBPhH 61 (1983): 5–19.

Brisson, L. Le mythe de Tirésias. Essais d’analyse stucturale. Leiden, 1976.

Buchan, M. The Limits of Heroism.Homer and the Ethics of Reading. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2004, 2007.

Bulloch, A. W. Callimachus. The Fifth Hymn. Edited with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Buxton, R. G. A. ‘Blindness and Limits: Sophokles and the Logic of Myth,’ JHS 100 (1980): 22–37.

Calame, Cl. ‘Tirésias dans un hymne alexandrin,’ in Poétique des mythes dans la Grèce antique (Paris, 2000): 169–220.

Collard C., ‘Euripides’ Hecuba 1056–1106: Monody of the Blinded Polymestor,’ in Estudios actuales sobre textos griegos, Il jornadas internacionales, UNED, 25–28 Octobre 1989, edited by J. A. Lόpez Férez. Madrid, 1991: 161–173.

Devereux, G. ‘The Self-Blinding of Oedipus in Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannos,’ JHS 93 (1973): 36–49.

Gregory, J. Euripides: Hecuba. Introduction, Text and Commentary (Atlanta: American Philological Association, 1999).

Grottanelli, C. ‘L’Événios d’Hérodote, ix 92–95, mauvais pasterur, fameux devin,’ Métis 9–10 (1994–1995): 79–98.

Heath, J. R. ‘The Blessing of Epiphany in Callimachus’ Bath of Pallas,’ CA 19 (1988): 72–90.

Loraux, N. ‘Ce que vit Tirésias,’ in Les expériences de Tirésias. Le féminin et l’homme grec (Paris, 1989): 253–271.

McKay, K. J. The Poet at Play, Kallimachos, the Bath of Pallas, Mnemosyne Suppl. 6. Leiden, 1962.

Morrison, A. D. ‘Sexual Ambiguity and the Identity of Narrator in Callimachus’ Hymn to Athena,’ BICS 48 (2005): 27–46.

Rose, M. L. The Staff of Oedipus. Transforming Disabilty in Ancient Greece. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2003, 2006.

Seaford, R. “The Imprisonment of Women in Greek Tragedy,” JHS 90 (1990): 76–90.

Steiner, D. T. ‘Stoning and Sight: A Structural Equivalence in Greek Mythology,’ CA 14 (1995): 194–211.

Footnote

* I am indebted to my son Alexios Tattis, and to my friends Soteroula Constantinidou and Christos Pistofidis for their help in adapting this text into English.

Chapter Twelve

Blindness as Punishment*

Ariadni Tatti-Gartziou

NOTES

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Footnote