of Homer and Hesiod, and Their Contest 315; Hesiod Fragmenta Dubia 3; Plato Leges 658B). In brief, G.S. Kirk claims that somewhere between 625575 BCE there was a “progressive eclipse of the aoidos with his kitharis [κἱθαρις], and the firm establishment of the trained reciter, the rhapsode” (Kirk, Epic 314; cf. Hayman 150; Patzer 324). During the seventh and sixth centuries BCE the alphabet and writing became more pervasive; appreciation for literature became more widespread; the Iliad and Odyssey were popular, but the pronunciation of Homeric Greek was virtually lost. At this time, Rhapsodes began to establish themselves as professionals who not only claimed expertise as Homeric scholars but also as Homeric philologists and phoneticians who functioned as linguistic “guardians” of Homeric pronunciation.
Although the specific time during which the evolution from aoidos to rhapsode occurred is uncertain, there can be little doubt that the change from a preliterate to a literate Hellenic culture was a dominant force influencing the development of a rhapsodic tradition. Prior to the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, individuals relied upon their memories as the primary means for transmitting literature. Even a cursory reading of the Iliad and Odyssey reveals numerous formulae that were mnemonic aids in recalling passages. With the emergence of writing, however, Rhapsodes began to construct texts of Homeric literature to aid their oral presentations (Xenophon, Memorabilia 4.2.10; Symposium 3.6). A series of passages cited from ancient sources that support the notion of writing being used to aid memory can be found in Pfeiffer (26). Frederic George Kenyon and Colin Henderson Roberts explain: “Long after poems and other literary works were written down as a matter of course, the normal method of publication was oral. Books were essentially aides-memoire for the author or performer, not a primary means of communication to an audience. This view of the book as a hypomnema or substitute for recital persists until Plato, if not later” (OCD 173). Similarly, George Miller Calhoun offers a very informative presentation on the relationship between oral and written litigation (177–93).
Rhapsodes played an important part in the development of oral and written expression, for their texts of Homer not only facilitated memory but also codified and thus stabilized the literature (Kirk, Songs 309). Clearly, divergent copies existed, and corrected copies were undoubtedly numerous. During the dawning of the literary period, Rhapsodes shifted from preliterate improvisers to experts at codifying, preserving, and orally interpreting Homerica for listeners. Athens became the leader in booktrade, but up to the sixth century BCE no single authoritative text was compiled. On the contrary, considerable confusion must have resulted because of the numerous swatches and variant rhapsodic texts that existed (Pfeiffer 25). To resolve this confusion, a single text presenting the “entire” Iliad and Odyssey was needed and the Rhapsodes played a leading role in this ambitious project.
The opportunity for Rhapsodes to canonize Homer’s works came in the sixth century BCE during a Panathenaic contest under Pisistratus. Contests were an integral aspect of Greek life; they included athletic events as well as cultural performances. At the Pythian Games, for example, crowds of musicians actively competed for honors alongside athletes. These festivals, which were centered on religious themes, were a natural arena in which Rhapsodes practiced their art. By the eighth century BCE, the concept of Pan-Hellenic festivals drew competitors from major Greek states (Pfeiffer 5). Hellenic interest in art and athletics may account for the frequency of such contests (Isocrates, Panegyricus 43–46), and the deference that all Greeks shared toward the Iliad and Odyssey offered a universal bond.
Until the sixth century BCE, there was not a suitable Pan-Hellenic text that could function as a standard, authorized copy. By this time, Homeric readings were a recognized part of Panathenaic festivals (Kirk, Songs 302–03). In an attempt to resolve textual difficulties, the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus ordered the scattered readings of Homeric literature to be collected and assembled. The orator Lycurgus adds support to the contention that Rhapsodes were individuals chosen to stabilize the works of Homer when he said to the Athenians: “Your fathers held the poet [Homer] in such regard that they established a law so that at every five-yearly Panathenaea his epic works alone, of all the poets, would be chanted by the Rhapsodes” (Contra Leocratem 102). Plato argues that Hipparchus, not Pisistratus, ordered the canonization of the Iliad and Odyssey by Rhapsodes (Hipparchus 228B) while Diogenes Laertius (1.57) claims that the codification took place under Solon, a position supported by Hayman (144). T. W. Allen argues for a different date and locale for the canonization of Homer’s works but does not attack ancient references that credit Rhapsodes for their efforts (40, 48–49). Lastly, Josephus reinforced the testimony of Lycurgus by claiming that up to the time of Pisistratus such works were transmitted only orally (Contra Apionem 1.12).
While it is clear that arguments about locale, time and authority exist concerning the literate standardization of the Iliad and Odyssey, there is no disagreement that the Rhapsodes were the composers and consequently the sources for literate compositional techniques and form. The construction of a standardized Homeric text may have meant that one rhapsode had to begin his interpretation where the preceding rhapsode had finished; the process continued until the entire work was completed. Whether this phenomenon, called the “Pisistratean recension,” actually took place during the rule of Pisistratus has been contested (Kirk, Songs 312, 317; Pfeiffer 6, 7). By the fifth century BCE, private texts of Homer were not uncommon, and Rhapsodes who knew Homer by heart were common in Athens (Xenophon, Symposium 3.6; Memorabilia 4.2.10).
With the codification of the Iliad and Odyssey came the formation of the Homeridae, the most prestigious members of the rhapsodic guild who may well have functioned as judges in interpretative contests (Plato, Ion 530D; Hargis, “Socrates” 1–12). The exact date the Homeridae guild was formed and their relationship to Rhapsodes in general has neither been thoroughly examined nor completely understood (Oxford 526). Homeridae prospered on the island of Chios, the legendary birthplace of Homer, and claimed to be his descendants (OCD 526). The reference to Homeridae as types of Rhapsodes is made by Pindar, who describes these “sons of Homer” as “weavers of chants” (Nemean Odes 2.1–2; [Plutarch], Homeri Vita 2.2). In scholia referring to Pindar (Nemean Odes 2.1, 2) Athenaeus (22B) indicates that the most famous of these Homeridae at his time was Cynaethus of Chios, who flourished about 504 BCE. The influence of the Homeridae spread as Rhapsodes such as Xenophanes of Colophron (b. 570 BCE) traveled throughout Greece reciting his own poetry and critiquing both Homer and Hesiod (DK 21.A.1). Theagenes of Rhegium (fl. circa 525 BCE) was the author of On Homer. In it, he argued that the gods of Homeric literature were actually personifications of natural elements and abstract entities. His interpretation of Homer included comments on linguistics as well as literary and grammatical criticism (DK 8.2, 1, 1a; Pfeiffer 10–11). Although Theagenes cannot be considered one of the Homeridae with absolute certainty, there is little doubt that he represents the essence of rhapsodic scholarship—that is, an interpreter of both literary meaning and linguistic accuracy. Eventually, Rhapsodes other than those who came from Chios were admitted to the Homeric guild, and by Plato’s time Homeridae were highly esteemed throughout Athens (Ion 530D; Phaedrus 252B). In short, Homeridae were a distinguished guild of itinerant Rhapsodes who consciously attempted to illuminate meaning in Homer and to preserve written collections of words which were becoming increasingly rare, obsolete, and therefore difficult to pronounce (Pfeiffer 12; Aristotle, Poetica 1459a9ff.; Isocrates, Helen 65).
The recognition Rhapsodes had received under Pisistratus continued. As festivals and games gained popularity, so did the contests for Rhapsodes. Musicians and poets, who shared honors equally with athletes, were encouraged to compete at the Pythian, Nemean, Isthmian, and Olympian games—as Pindar’s lyric poems reveal. As the intellectual center for the Hellenic world, Athens also encouraged Rhapsodes to participate in her contests. Pericles established by decree not only a general contest for music and poetry, but also an odeion, or concert/lecture hall, to house such displays (Plutarch, Vita Parallelae: Pericles 13; Pausanias 1.8.6 and 7.20.6; Philostratus, Vita Sophistarum 571, 579). By Plato’s time, rhapsodic contests at the Panathenaea held great prestige. Plato’s dialogue-character Ion proudly referred to his competition in the event (Ion 530B; Leges 658B). By Plato’s time, Rhapsodes commonly dressed in conspicuous apparel and declaimed from a dais (Ion 530B, 535D, E). Contrary to Plato’s implications, respect for Rhapsodes was widespread, particularly among Sophists such as Protagoras, who admired Rhapsodes for their attempts to use Homer as a means of providing a practical education