Ancient Scholarship and Grammar: Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts (Trends in Classics - Supplementary Volumes - Volume 8)

Ancient Scholarship and Grammar

Trends in Classics Supplementary Volumes Edited by Franco Montanari and Antonios Rengakos

Scientific Committee Alberto Bernabe . Margarethe Billerbeck . Claude Calame Philip R. Hardie . Stephen J. Harrison . Stephen Hinds Richard Hunter . Christina Kraus . Giuseppe Mastromarco Gregory Nagy . Theodore D. Papanghelis . Giusto Picone Kurt Raafiaub . Bernhard Zimmermann

Volume 8

De Gruyter

Ancient Scholarship and Gra mmar Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts

Edited by

Stephanos Matthaios Franco Montanari Antonios Rengakos

ISBN 978-3-11-025403-7 e-ISBN 978-3-11-025404-4 ISSN 1868-4785

Library ofCongms o,tIIlDging-in-PublkllliDn Data: Ancieot scholarship and gnnunar: archetypes. concept> and con teXtS I edited by Steph.­

n... M.tthai.... Franco Monunari and Antonios Ren�.

p. cm. -- (Trends in classic s. Supplementary volumes; v. 8) Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-3-11-025403-7 (hardcover: alk. paper) - [SBN 978-3-11-025404-4 (ebk.)

1. Greek Janguage-Granunat. Hiotorical. I. Matthaios. Stephan.... 11. Montanari. Franco.

Ill. Rengakos,Antonios.

PA251.Af>3 2011 4RS--dc22 2010050347

Bib/iDgWlphic informAtion pub/isImJ bJ the Deutsche NllIiDnIllbibliDthelr The

Dcunchc Natiooalbibliothck li,t> tIris public.tion in the Dcunchc data an: .vailable in the Internet

Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic

at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

o 2011

Waiter

de

Gruytcr GmbH &. Co. KG. Berlin/New York

Typesctting: Mich.cl Pcscbke. Berlin Printing: Hubcrt &. Co. GmbH &. ('.0. KG. G8ttingcu

DO Printed OD acid-m:c paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Contents Introduction

1. "Philologi a perennis":

History and New Perspectives Franco Montanari Ancient Scholarship and Cla.�sical Studies

...

..................................... 11

H. The Ancient Scholars at Work Richard Hunter Plato's

Ion and

the Origin� of Scholarship

........................................

27

Marco Fantuzzi Scholarly Panic: TTavlKOS cp6l3os, Homeric Philology and the Beginning of the

Rhesus . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. ... .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. ... .. . . 41 .

Stephanos Matthaios Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings of his 'Grammar' Definition ............................................. 55 Filippomaria Pontani

Ex Homero grammatica

.. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . .

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

..

87

Rene Niinlist Aristarchus and Allegorical Interpretation

...

................................... 105

Martin Schmidt Portrait of an Unknown Scholiast

...

.............................................. 119

John Lundon Homeric Commentaries on Papyrus: A Survey

............................. 159

Bruce Karl Bra.�well Didymus on Pindar

............................................................ ..........

181

vi

Contents

Peter Bing Afterlives of a Tragic Poet: The

Hypothesis

in the Helleni�tic Reception of Euripides

199

Stelios Chronopoulos Re-writing the Personal Joke: Some A�pects in the Interpretation of in Ancient Scholarship

6voIJacrrl KWIJ�5Eiv

...... . . . ..................... . . . ...................... . . .........

207

Konstantinos Spanoudakis Ancient Scholia and Lost Identities: The Case of Simichidas

....................... . ......................... . . .........

.....

225

Ill. The Ancient Grammarians on the Greek Language

and Linguistic Correctness Jean Lallot Did the Alexandrian Grammarian� have a Sen�e of Hi�tory?

241

Louis Basset Apollonius between Homeric and Helleni�tic Greek: The Ca�e of the 'Pre-positive Article'

..

........ . . ..................

.. . . .........

251

Philomen Probert Attic Irregularities: Their Reinterpretation in the Light of Atticism . .......................... 269 ..

Ineke Sluiter A Champion of Analogy: Herodian's On

Lexical Singularity

.

.. . ... . . ..... ... .. .. .. .. .. . .

.

.

.

.

..

.. . .. . .. . ..

291

IV. Ancient Grammar in Historical Context Alfon� Wouters - Pierre Swiggers New Papyri and the History of Ancient Granunar: The

bripp1Wa

Chapter in

P.Berol.

9917

. .. ..

.....

...

.........

. .. .

......

. .. ..

..

313

Contents

vu

WolframAx Quintilian's 'Granunar'

(Inst.1.4-8)

and itIAocroq>eiv, as in tact is the case

18

Franco Monranari

in the whole poem.2 We will not dwell in detail here on these three fonn.� of allegoresis, which effectively belong to the most well-known and widespread typologies: they are interpretations which have in com­ mon the idea that the real meaning of the word� of the text is different, is 'something other' than what a stricdy philological method can derive from the author's word�, which, Aristarchu.� contend�, should in�tead be adhered to more stricdy. The above di.�tinction has the consequence that the choice of exe­ getic method requires the critic to take an important and decisive posi­ tion on the author's poetics (whatever the degree of awareness in this regard) . Only the conviction that the author deliberately intended to expres.� his thought by allegory, symbols, metaphors, enigma�, obscuri­ ties of sundry types, justifies the interpreter's adoption of decoding tech­ niques and tools (accepted and shared or completely idiosyncratic) de­ signed to highlight meanings attributable to the author and purportedly introduced by the author hinuelf into his works in a veiled, or even intentionally obscure and concealed manner. To take an example, one may contrast the Homeric interpretation allowed by Ari.�tarchus and the Alexandrian grammarians (nothing that goes beyond the word� of the poet) with that abundandy represented in the Homeric problems written by one Heraclitu.� of the imperial age. Heraclitus believed that Homer wrote his poem using allegory a� a means of expression, making deliber­ ate u.�e of this rhetorical tool: that is to say, the act of decoding the po­ etic creation enables the interpreter not only to defend the poet against any charge of impiety, but also to di.�cover in his lines an enormous quantity and an extremely elevated quality of knowledge and doctrines, which became common knowledge later on. Techniques of this kind, or similar procedures, led to the idea of Homer a� the source of all learning and all knowledge, widely pursued by ancient critics whose attitude was con�iderably different from that of Aristarchu.�. Aristarchu.� himself be­ lieved that Homer did not express hi� thought by means of allegories: thus he had no intention of attributing to Homer forms of knowledge which, for stricdy historical rea�ons, the poet could not possibly have had; rather, he saw Homer merely as availing him�elf of the poetic li2

Sch. D ad R. 5.385: 1>.plCTTapxos 6:90i Ta cppai;6llew UlrO TOO lrOIT'lTOO 1lv6IKooTepov lKS�xea6al KaTa Tr.V lrOIT'lTIKr.V l�ovalav, IlT'lS�V I� TOOV avIlCPPai;OIl�VOOV UlrO TOO lrOIT'lTOO lreplepyai;oll�VOVS. �(hos ow Kal 'Ecpl6ATTJS y6vc,> �v Tjaav noaelSoovos, [. . . ]. &AA0 1 S� 1rI6avooTEPOV l�yoVllEvOI Ta '01l';POV TOUS 1>.Aooe lSas TOVTOVS cpaal yev�a6al j3aalAeis Ti;s 'E}.A6Sos. [.. .]. 01 S� cpaow, lv -rijSe -rij ICTTo plc;t nepl TOOV llETeoopoov SlaA�yea6al TOV ·OIlT'lPOV, lla6T'11laTIKOV 6VTa [. . ]. 13�;>\TIov Myelv S� 6n cplAoaocpeiv j30UAeTal Sla TiiaSe Tiis paljlc,>Slas, 005 Kal SI' 6AT'lS Tiis lrol';aeoos. .

Ancient SchoJar.;hip and Classical Studies

19

cence to construct legendary stories based on the matter contained in myth. Before hin1, Eratosthenes had said the poet should concern hinl­ self with delighting the spirit and not seek to educate in some discipline or other; and even earlier Aristotle theorized that the art of poetry is not required to ensure correctness in reference to any TexYT] that happens to be the object of representation: poetry can say and teach true things with regard to a different sphere of knowledge, but it is not necessarily obliged to. One further observation on a related question. We should maintain a careful distinction between the idea of allegorical interpretation of the mythic content of a literary work, and the allegorical interpretation of the myth as such. The fact that the myth constitutes a semiotic system of an allegorical character, which conveys its meanings through this seman­ tic tool, is a problem that concerns religious-anthropological studies, wherea� what a poet intended to convey by utilizing mythic content i� a problem of exegesis and text interpretation. Thi� is a delicately problem­ atic point, but the two planes should not be confused, nor, much less, should they be identified, however intertwined or indeed overlaid they may come to be in actual practice. Moreover, it should al�o be clearly borne in mind that the problems pertaining to allegorical expression-interpretation do not concern merely the mythic content, even though myth i� typically the sphere most in­ tensely involved. One need only mention political allegory, such as the celebrated allegory of Alcaeus' ship, to realize that the overall issue of allegory goes beyond the problem of interpreting the mythic content of poetry. The twofold concept of all egory/all egoresi� already had a far wider scope even in antiquity, let alone in subsequent era�, from late antiquity and throughout tile medieval age in the Orient and in the West. Over tile course of history, the very term 'allegory' itself has covered an ex­ tremely broad and variegated range of meanings, both a� regard� the rhetorical-expressive mean and al�o the critical-exegetic tool. Thus con­ sideration of 'allegory' in the strict sense should be expanded to consid­ eration of all types of interpretation that seek real or supposed 'hidden' meanings beneath the letter of the text. But let us not yield to the temp­ tation of casting the net of our enquiry too wide, which would draw us towards theory-oriented ambitions both on literary criticism and poetics. Ratiler, let lL� restrict ourselves, almost playfully, to citing a pa�sage from Alcibiades ll, Platonic if not by Plato, in which it i� asserted that all po­ etry i� by its very nature a[vlYl.laTWBes and cannot be understood by a

mere ordinary per.;on,3 and then let us set this passage alongside the dec­ laration by Northrop Frye4 that 'it is not often realized that all commen­ tary is allegorical interpretation, an attaching of idea� to the structure of poetic imagery'. The exegete stand� in contrast to the 'mere ordinary person' and is seen a� the one who is capable of under.;tanding, who has the cultural and intellectual tools to perfonn the interpretation; furthennore, he attributes to his work and to hiImelf the right to extract all kinds of meaning from a text and to construct hi� own line of argument, focusing on what he regards a� lL�eful and important to develop. The exegete not only enjoys great freedom (which can go a� fur as arbitrary discretion), but he also wield� potentially enonnous cultural influence. So powerful can hi� influence be that he can sway widely held opinions and shape general attitudes, all the more so if the text he is dealing with is recog­ nized as a highly authoritative work and if the interpreter hinlself enjoys great authority. The critical currents linked to philosophical, political and religiolL� ideologies belong to thi� general and generic framework, in which even the most blatant anachroni�ms are present and are in ef­ fect admitted. The ancient interpreters could tenaciously trace in Homer numerous fonm of knowledge and discoveries actually belonging to later ages, and they had no hesitation in attributing to Homer references to hi�torical events, or element� of Platonic or Stoic or Chri�tian thought, leaving a�ide the mordant observation by Seneca (Epist. 88), according to whom the evidence that Homer was not a philosopher resides precisely in the fact that his worh are supposed to contain the entire ganlUt of doctrines, even though in contradiction to one another. It wa�, and it i�, better to have an open door through which to enli�t within one's own army any text viewed a� authoritative and important. History right up to the modern times is studded with manifestations of this attitude and these cultural operations (and each of lL� must decide individually whether to con.�ider them acceptable or not, and to what extent) . The crystal-clear methodological position in Homeric scholarship proposed by Aristarchus provides a fairly specific characterization of Alexandrian philology, but it does not represent the most common and widespread situation of criticism over the course of the centuries. Ha�i­ cally, allegoresis or any fonn of ideological, philosophical or religious interpretation has only rarely been excluded: in fact, [ believe that it can 3

Ale. 2, 1 47b 5-10.

4

Prye 1 957, 89 (my attention tani).

wa�

drawn to the passage by Pilippomaria Pon­

Ancient Scholanhip and CIa.��icaJ Studies

21

be said for Homer that after the Alexandrians such a kind of exegesis wa� no longer excluded, right up until the modem age. Again, under the skies of Thessaloniki, we can cite the case of the archbishop Eustathius, whose lengthy Homeric commentaries gathered up the phi­ lological heritage of the Alexandrian grammarian� but combined it with sweeping allegorical interpretation�, capable of forging a link between Christian culture and the most venerated monument of ancient pagan culture. The methodological choice adopted by Aristarchus in the field of Homeric critici.�m rests on the idea that the exegetic method utilized by the interpreter must correspond to the author's poetics, i.e. the in�tru­ ment must be in tune with the object. Careful reflection suggests that this theoretical a�pect accord� well with the principle of internal and analogical criticism which hold� that the author him.�elf i.� hi.� own best interpreter (no matter what wa� the exact formulation and to whom we owe it) . This principle i.� recognized a� essential and ba�ic in Ari.�tarchean exegetical practice. The picture that emerges i.� one of an intellectual framework of hi.�torical-philological exegesi.� , wherein studying and understanding a text is important and valid in its own right, and the objective is to correctly recon�truct and preserve a piece of historical evidence which ha� intrin�ic value (for Homeric criticism, the nature and character of TO 'O IlTlPIK6v) . Such an objective stand� in opposition to any critical methodology that faib to respect these two principles, i.e. that admits the possibility of applying to some work a method that i.� unsuited to its poetics, or condones the idea of seeking within the work meanings that are quite alien to it in terrn� of cultural background, spa­ tial location or time. All thi.� identifies Alexandrian philology as a sort of 'parenthesis' in the hi.�tory of ancient scholarship, since the predominant attitude throughout the long hi.�tory of ancient scholarship right up to the mod­ em age ha� been marked by critical attitudes of a sharply different orien­ tation, according to the typology outlined above. It would certainly be of great interest to analyze this di.�tinction and contraposition in modem scholarship from the Eighteenth century to the present day, but I am happy to avoid venturing into a province that is not my own, at lea�t in thi.� moment. Certainly, one can readily understand that within thi.� parenthesi.� the practice of producing new editions of the worb of the ancient 1Tal5ela originated and became con�olidated. In fact the Alex­ andrian scholars introduced a new idea in the sphere of scholarship, formulating for the first time the problem of the correctnes.� of cla�sical authors' texts a� they could read them, and addres.�ing the question of the damage the ancient texts had suffered in the course of their tran�mis-

22

Franco Montanari

sion. Such an approach involved collating different copies, exanurung and evaluating the variants of the textual tradition, deleting parts judged as SpuriOlL� and emending errors in order to reconstruct the authentic text. Thi� was enough to create a most peculiar intellectual and scientific situation, but it also compelled the scholars to consider the criteria of critical interpretation in a new light, and even to create new standards and principles arolL�ing need� that were different and deeper: because, as Giorgio Pasquali wrote, 'con�tituting a text r . . .l requires the same learn­ ing and knowledge as interpreting r . . .l con�tituting a text and interpret­ ing it are, ultimately, one and the same thing' .' What seems remarkable indeed is the oct that in comparison to the prolonged history of ancient scholarship, which has been built up over the centuries from the origins right up to modem tinle, this short paren­ thesis la�ting no more than the period from Zenodotus to the Augustan age, or possibly to the 2nd century AD, is the very period which we regard a� the cradle of philological science in the modern sense, of course with all the mutatis mutandis necessary both for a correct historical evaluation and al�o to placate the concerns displayed by a certain hyper­ critical hyper-sceptici�m, which denies sinlilarities perhaps because it i� unable to evaluate the differences properly. Let lL� now recall that the publication of the Venetian Homeric scholia by Villoison, in which (and thi� was the great novelty) the materials of the Alexandrian scholarship were mainly to be found, gave rise to the famous ProLegomena ad Home­ mm by F.A. Wolf (a pupil of C.H. Heyne) , always considered as one of the first and most significant turning points at the end of the Eighteenth century leading toward� the birth of modem classical philology. It will therefore hardly be considered intellectual snobbery to point out that Alexandrian philology once again played a vital role and exerted decisive influence at a crucial moment in the history of classical studies. In the second half of the twentieth century, studies on Alexandrian philology and in general on the hi�tory of erudition, exegesi� and gram­ mar in the cultural panorama of the ancient world, experienced a re­ newed period of great flowering, which continues unabated in thi� opening stage of the twenty-first century. A� compared to the state and tendencies of studies in the first half of the la�t century, today the picture appears radically changed. The by now cla�sic work of Rudolf Pfeiffer dating from 1 968, the two volumes of Kurt Latte's incomplete edition of Hesychius dating from 1 953 and 1 966, Hartmut Erbse's edition of the 5

Pasquali t 920, repr. t 9911, 26: 'Iruomma, a cosrituire un testo gli occm servono COS! come le mani a scrivere un poema; occorre invece la stessa preparazione cbe a interpretare e a gtlstare: cosrituire un testo e interpretarlo sono, in fondo, tutt'uno'.

Ancient SchoJar.;hip and Classical Studies

23

Scholia Vetera to the mad begun in 1 969, the launch in 1 974 of a series entided Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker (SGLG), can be remembered as significant symptoms and stimuli of a new season. These research themes have progressively grown in importance and presence in the current panorama of classical studies, and now rest on different cul­ tural foundations and orientations compared to the manner in which they were considered and treated, albeit with abundance and attention, in the context of nineteenth-century philology. A� new and adequate working tool� are devised and editions of texts become available, the effort to construct solid bases for research in this sector is acquiring more concrete form, while studies and essays continue to shed light in greater depth on a number of themes that are relevant for these aspects of the ancient literary civilization. Furthermore, such progress on the one hand can be seen as forming part of movement� toward� a positive reappraisal, which i� by now complete and consolidated, of the postclassical histori­ cal phases of ancient Greek culture, from the imperial to the Byzantine age. On the other hand, thi� can righdy be described as one of the im­ portant aspects of a definitive transition away from the aestheticizing and intuitionist tendencies of the misguided and often a-historical classici�m that characterised a great part of the twentieth century. One fundamental element is that the investigations on the philology and erudition of the ancient� no longer have an exclusively or predomi­ nandy ancillary value, and are no longer considered essentially or only as a repository of fragments of lost works, antiquarian curiosities or poten­ tial aid� to modem philology. Ancient erudite and philological­ granunatical production, in a word 'ancient scholarship', has acquired an independent meaning of it� own, ina.�much a.� it is now seen as an ex­ pression and manifestation of a precise intellectual sphere and as an im­ portant aspect of ancient civilization. The exegetic observations and the erudite knowledge of the ancients are no longer considered only for what they tell us about a work or a phenomenon they aim to explain: rather, today they are and must be perceived a.� useful and interesting for what they tell lL� about themselves, i.e. about the ideas and the culture of which they are an expression. Yet even today one still too often notes the tendency to discuss the data of ancient philology and grammar on the ba.�i� of the principle of what i� 'right' or 'wrong' from the point of view of modem science; in other word�, the tendency to try to gauge how far the ancients had drawn close to the 'correct' interpretation and to what extent they mi�sed the point, whether they were good or bad philologists, with regard to their textlLal choices as well. These are evaluations that distort the historical perspective. Moreover, too often the criterion for selection

of material� considered worthy of interest and study remains based es­ sentially on what appears to be lL�eful or useless for the specific purpose of interpreting today, according to our criteria and for our own ends, the ancient author who is the focus of attention. In other word�, too often the body of knowledge represented by ancient scholarship is viewed as potentially interesting and significant (only) when it is of aid in helping to solve a problem of modem scholarship. But this i� a drasti­ cally limited and reductive viewpoint. In.�tead, everything that is of no aid in specifically interpreting Homer or Pindar or Ari.�tophanes from our own point of view, is of the greatest aid in interpreting Zenodotus, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Aristarchus, and in understanding their cul­ tural context and their intellectual milieu. Thi� i� a perspective that has become con.�olidated over recent decades and has contributed to the undeniable progress in the general historical vi�ion of the ancient world: the products of scholarship have begun to be subjected to investigation for the purpose of di�cerning the critical principles, the ideas on litera­ ture and language, the interests, the thought of the scholars thenl.�elves in their cultural context. Of this important revival of studies on ancient scholarship in the current framework of cla�sical studies, thi� conference, with its rich array of themes, is the most recent epi�ode. Certainly it will not be the last, because the future path of this field of research promi�es to be long and rich in results.

1 1 . The Ancient Scholars at Work

Plato's Ion and the Origins of Scholarship Richard Hunter

The Ion has always been regarded as a very important source for Plato's views on poetry and for the history of rhapsodic perfonnance, but it hardly figures-unless I am mistaken-in modem accounts of the devel­ opment of ancient scholarship, 1 although we might have expected a fourth-century work in which Socrates cross-examines an expert in the presentation and interpretation (understood very broadly) of Homer to be a preciom stone in the lacunose mosaic which is our knowledge of the history of the di�cipline. Thi� neglect is perhaps particularly surpris­ ing given the fact that at the heart of Socrates' discussion with the rhap­ sode lies the issue of how to judge (KpivEIV) poetry; whereas, for exam­ ple, the famous di�cmsiom of Republic 2, 3 and 1 0 are largely concerned with the nature and effect of poetry, the Ion al�o focuses on the role and qualification.� of 'the critic', and krisis i.� , in the now canonical account, what lies at the heart of scholarship. When Socrates (no doubt ironi­ cally) count� rhapsodes lucky because they come thoroughly to learn/understand (eK�av66:vEIV) Homer's dianoia and can then trammit thi� dianoia to the audience (530b-c) ,2 he places them at the head of the whole scholarly tradition, as it was sununed up some four and a half centuries later by Dio Chrysostom in hi� nEpl 'O �"pov: Many others [i .e. as well a.. Democritu.l have written about Homer, some

(�YKc.uIllvAaKes �A66VTes q>6�1 VVKTrJYOPOVC71 Kai KeKillTjTal cnpaT6S;

Hector answers, informing Aenea� of the watchmen's report about the many fires lit by the Creeks among the ships, together with his (wrong) conclusion that these fires prove that the Creeks are trying to flee. 14 A nocturnal debate follows, which resumes the issue of the preceding dis­ cus.�ion between Hector and the chorus (52--86), and Hector defends once again his idea of a nocturnal attack against the Creeks, so a� to prevent them from sailing from the Trojan shore unharmed. Later on, at 1 38--9 , this war council of Hector, Aenea�, and the watchmen concludes with a unanimous resolution: Hector is finally persuaded by Aenea�, with whom the chorus had agreed from the beginning, that before 1 1 ef. e.g. Apollod. FrGrHist 244F1 35, pertinently quoted by I Rh. 36. 12 A� we read in Pausanias (1 0.23.7-8) about the Gauls of BrennlL�: 'in the night the �jXls navIK6s fell on them (causeJes.� fears, they say, are in�pired by Pan), . . . at first only a few became mad, and these imagined that they heard the trampling of horses at a gallo p, and the attack of advancing enelnies; but after a little time the deJlL� ion spread to all ' (see also D.S. 1 5 .24.3, 20.69. 1 ) . 1 3 E.g. D . S . 1 5.24, 20.69; PalL� . 1 0.23.7; App. B C 4 . 1 3 . 1 04; Polyaen. Slrat. 1 .2, exc. 27; Sext.Jul. Cest. 1 . 17; Anon.Paradox. incred. 1 1 ; I E. Med. 1 1 72. Syn­ on)'lnic 'lTTo ITJ i� another definition of panic: Plut. Is. Osir. 356D8; Ona�. Slrat. 6.5 navlKCr Kai 'lTTolas; I Theocr. 5 . 1 4-6. 14 A� already noted by Goos.�ens 1 962, 299 n. 7 1 , Hector explains the fires in the Greek camp a� evidence of their intention to escape. Fleeing armies commonly employed the stratagem of lighting fires to sinlulate activity throughout the camp and thus divert the enemy from their true aim: cf. Hdt. 1 . 1 34f.; Thuc. 7.80. 1-4; Jos.Flav. A] 1 3 . 1 78 . 1 0. Differently e.g. Zanetto 1 998, 6 1 , who inter­ prets 97-8 a� 'hanno bisogno di luce per potem imbarcare e Ja�ciare la nostra terra', and Menzer 1 867, 1 5, who wrongly aCC\L�es the author of Rhesus of'im­ becillitas', because of Hector's interpretation of the Greek fires: 'nam si fugam paras.�nt, sine dubio obscuritate ILsi es.�ent'.

46

Marco Fanruzzi

launching an attack they need to be certain about the meaning of the fires and thus mu.�t send a spy. At this point, when the debate i� finally over, Hector once again expresses hi� fear that agitation may ari�e within the army if the soldiers realize that 'nocturnal a�semblies' are being held. Once he grudgingly yields to the opinion of his interlocutors about the spy mis.�ion (�yoo 6� 1TEIlIjlOO 1TOAellioov KOTaC71polo SleaaVTO ' Tol S' 0:1.1' hroVTO 1>.pyelwv J3aaIAfiES oaol KEKATtCXTO j30VATtV. Tois S' O:l.Ia MTlPI6VT)S Kal Necrro pos ayAaos vlos ii'iaav ' aUTol yap KCxAeOV 0'V1.Il.ITlTlaaa6al. Taq>pov S' �KSlaJ36VTES 6PVKTJiV tSPIOwVTO �v Ka6apooI, 061 S1'\ VEKVWV SIEq>aivETO xoopos

Scholarly Panic and the Beginning of the Rhesus

47

7Tl'TT"TOVTC >v · o6ev aVTlS CnTETp6:TrET' OI3Plllos "EKTWp oiJ..V S 1'.pye\OVS, oTe 5" mpi vV� EK6:AVljiev. £v6a Ka6e�ollevoI hre' aiJ..t'jAolal Tri<pavaKov. ..

The place chosen for the assembly, outside of the Greek camp and be­ yond the posts of the sentineL�, which are positioned in the space be­ tween the wall and the ditch (n. 9.87) , is strange. The £let that 1 0 . 1 99 repeat� the choice of the 'free space in the battlefield among the bodies,' which had already been chosen by Hector in n. 8.489-91 (Tpwc..>v aih'

6:YOPTJV lTOIT}aCrTO cpal511los "EKTc..> p / v6acpl VEWV 6:yaywv lTOTallWI ElTI 51v1'}EVTI, / EV Ka6apwl, 061 5" VEKVc..>V 51EcpalvETo xwpOS) lead� us to suppose that the assembly may have been arranged in thi� spot as a symbolic re-appropriation of the no-man's land. With this collocation of the assembly, the Greek leaders would have been confronted with how close Hector had come to them, how close he was to victory, and what they had to accomplish in the near future, nanlely the concrete re­ conquest of the positiom lost in their final retreat to the ships.1s Be that as it may, the reason why the Greeks of mad 1 0 decided to locate their as.�embly in the dangero\l.� no-man's land is left unexplained in Homer, and is difficult to discern. The semi-fonnulaic repetition in 1 0 . 1 99 of the precedent of 8.491 makes the topographical choice for the as.�embly of Book 1 0 not unparall eled, and both a.�semblies among the bodies suggest a taste for the horrid\(' which is in tune with the manneristic empha.�is on slaying and blood in the Rhesus. What remaim obscure, however, i.� the rationale according to which the Greek leaders run the great and real danger which is inherent in this location for their a.�sem­ bly. Differendy from Hector in Book 8, who as a winner fully controls the no man's land where the battle had taken place, and thus quite rea­ sonably organizes the assembly at some distance from the front line, which happened to coincide at this point with the ditch defending the ships of the Greeks, it wa.� quite dangerous for the Greeks of Book 10 to hold their assembly outside of that ditch. Our corp\l.� of the so call ed scholia vetera to the mad retlect� two slighdy different interpretations of this dangerous location of the a.�sem­ bly of n. HI. The exegetical L 1 0 . 1 94 from T stresses that the Greek leaders would have therefore avoided provoking 66pvJ3os, 'especially since' the soldiers were exhausted/di.�tressed from battle the day before: CC William.• 2000, 14. The verb SltaaUTo, which expres..es Nestor's crossing of the ditch, conveys the idea of aggres.o;ive eagemess (it comes a,. no surprise that in two of its five occurrences in Homer it is accompanied by the participle llalllOOWaa and is said of an arm: 5.66 1 , 1 5.542), and this idea is suitable to the possible act of symbolic redemption of the lost positiom. 16 CC Hainsworth 1 993, ad 1 94-200.

15

48

Marco Fantuzzi

510: TI 5e �r, �aAAOV eO"w TOO TElxovs aO"q>aAEo"TEpOV 130vAEvoVTal; aAA' �V T(;')1 O"TPaTEV�aTI VVKTOS O"vvI6VTES 66pv13ov &v eKIVT}O"av, Kat TaiiTa 1TpOTETaAalTTWprWEVWV ;;5fl TWV 'EAArlVWV, In this interpreta­ tion, there is no clear emphasis on the idea of, technically , military panic, and the readers could even simply suppose that the leaders' care not to make 'noise' or create 'disturbance' anlOng the soldiers was noth­ ing more than a semible concern for the exhausted soldiers in need of some good sleep. A� for the exegetical L to the same line from A, 51E13fl

510: TT1S TCxq>pOV, Iva �r, 66pv13os �v TWI O"TpaT01TE5wI ylvflTal, TT)V �ev crVv050v OpWVTWV, Tr,V 5e ahlav ayvoovVTwV, Iva �r, yvwo"lV chi KaTCxO"K01TOI 1TE�1TovTal, it involves an idea of 66pv[30s which is not overlapping with the 66pv13os of 'panic' . 17 A� it i� espe­ cially clear from the la�t specification Iva �r, yvwo"lv KTA., referring preci�ely to the leaders' intention to keep the spy mission hidden, the 66pv[30s that ignorance of the reasons for the assembly may create among the soldiers is slightly at variance with the endogenous and psy­ chological agitation of panic, as it comi�ts of the chaotic response of soldiers who recognize from the assembly that something new i� hap­ pening and would like to be informed, but cannot, becalL�e the leaders have decided to keep the spy mission top-secret. In other word�, it i� not that the soldiers fantasize, without any real motivation from actual facts, that something threatening is taking place (thi� would have been panic, technically speaking) . Rather, they lLllderstand that something is going on, and may riot because they want to know what that something IS.

An alternative interpretation, in hT, was not concerned at all with the ri�k of avoiding any kind of 66pv[30s anlOng the soldiers: the a.�sem­ bly would have been held in no-man's land in order to provide a good example and encornage the spy whom the Greeks were going to send to the Trojan camp: CxAAWS TE CxT01TOV tjv EiS KaTaO"Ko1Tr,v 6TpvvoVTas �r,

TOA�aV 1TP01EVal TWV 1TVAWV. ETI 5e Kal 1TpOS 1Tapa�v6[av TWV �EAA6vTWV �K1Te�1Tecr6al 1TpOS TO �r, 50KEiv 1TOAV 1TPOK61TTEIV TT1S q>CxAayyOS. Similarly the L A il EiS Ev6v�lav TWV KaTaO"K61TWV , Iva aq>oI3WTEpOV TVYXCxVWO"IV eyyvs OVTWV. Both of the last interpretations seem in tune with the perspective which also reflected in L D . l "

1 7 Though i t ha s been cOlmected t o the 'Aristotelian' inteIpretation o f the pa.�sage by Erose 1 969-1 988, III 38, app.----n ot appropriately enough, but .96pv�os is brought into focus from two slightly different points of view, in my opinion. 18 I D (ZYQX) van Thie! n. 10. 1 98 S\('x Tt st CPT)OlV, 01 ,;ye�oveS T';v Tacppov SlOj3aVTeS [:X>VAEVOVTOI; cpa�ev st, cm TOVTO TI010VmV els ev6VIllov

KOTOOK01TCuV, (vo vAa�v, EV Cxcrq>aAEi SE, lTAT)criov yap T&V q>VACxKc.uV. Kat alla TaxEc.us IJv E1T1TEAEcral Ta !56�avTa. A final explanation follows in Porphyrius' text describing the reason why the spot where the leaders convened was full of unburied bodies (the Greeks would have been too tired the night they retreated in defeat to collect the bodies2 I Bia hnypoq>ETal 'vuKTEyepcrla', E1ravacrTovTas TOUS 1Tpc;nous T&V 'EAA:r'iVc..>V KaTacrK61TouS 1Te�qJal yVWIlT)1 NecrTopos f1lo�"BT) Kai 'O Bucrcrea. Also � n. 8.91 adopts the sanle word as a tide to quote I. 1 64 from book 1 0: Kai EV Till 30 Montanari 2008 and Montanari (forthcoming) offer two case-studies of inter­ pretive problellL� posed by Aristode or his school, which continued to be ac­ tively debated, but developed in different directions, by Hellenistic scholars.

53

Scholarly Panic and the Beginning of the Rhesus

vUKTeyepaial, KTA. El�ewhere, the tenn aim occurs either as the title of It. 10 (at the end of the Hypothesis c Diggle to Rhesus and in Strabo 9. 5 . 1 8 (439), in a papyrus commentary to Hippon. lEG 1 29B6 De­ gani, and in Schol. Vat. GG 1 3 UhIig, 1 79.29-1 80.2) , or as the name of Odysseus' and Diomedes' nocturnal mi�sion (in [Plut.l vira Horn. 2(9); only the plural vUKTeyepaial occurs in isolation in a less specific sense, in Philon, Cher. 92, where it meam 'watches'. Through thi� title, what is emphasised about the action in the first part of Book 1 0 is its special =

feature as an action entertained by the leaders who 'wake up' one after the other in the night and arrange for an assembly, checking that other people, the sentinel�, are awake and do not sleep, and also arranging for the nocturnal action of other people, namely the future spies. The night usually is a span of time of inaction in epic, and thus the scholars who conceived of this title knowingly focu.�ed on the exceptional time set­ ting of the double spy mi�sions. Quite differently, and tellingly, Aristotle's school and its source(s) , anlOng which at thi� point [ would dare to include the Rhesus, pointed to a vUKTllyopla as the main theme of the action of book 10, or at least of its first episode. Their exegesis entertained an explanation of the 'noc­ turnal assembly' as intended to avoid the unwanted awakening of the soldiers, with its repercmsion of panic; consequentially, when entitling the episode, these pre-Aristarchean interpreters did not focus on the waking up of the leaders or on the necessity that the sentinel� are awoken, but on the anti-waking cautions of the peculiar assembly of the Creek leaders. In conclusion, it i� not implausible to conjecture that 'Ari�totle' or his forerunners learnt to entitle the first episode of mad 1 0 precisely from the Rhesus. Not only does the Rhesus enact the interpre­ tation which 'Ari�totle' fonnalizes at a scholarly level, but it is ai�o the only precedent for the use of vUKTllyopia: the word ha� a key role in the first part of thi� tragedy and seem� to belong to the sermo tragicus (and to have been adopted a� such by the Rhesus), since it i� most probably derived from Aesch. Sept. 29 vUKTllyopeioflal, also a hapax in the classi­ cal age, which had already designated a nocturnal assembly ( EV VUKTI ayopevea6al Kal �uAevea6al: so, vel sim. , the L ad loc.). The idea that the Rhesus adopts a pre-' Aristotelian' interpretation of the a�semb1y of mad 10 in term� of anti-panic caution, and/or that 'Ari�­ totle' i� perhaps induced to this reading by the Rhesus, i� a striking ca�e of the interaction of philological interpretation and the creation of new poetry, and it can hardly be paralleled before the age of the Hellenistic poetae dodi. It ha� become a common a�sumption of recent studies of Hellenistic poetry that many of the new trends traditionally a�cribed to the 3rd cent. are already operative in the 4th cent. , fully or in statu nas=

54

Marco Fantuzzi

centi. The Rhesus' philological re-use of the Homeric text is, in my opin­ ion, better understood in this pre-Hellenistic 4th cent. If the Rhesus is by Euripides, the atmosphere of panic at the begin­ ning of our tragedy would be evidence of a pre-Hellenistic attitude of Euripides, maybe the latest Euripides, as it anticipated (or shared the beginnings ot) the interpretation of the as.�embly in no-man's land in tenus of panic, which is later found in the Homerica aporemata. The dia­ chrony of a literary text stimulating the exegetical di�cussion of another text would be similar to the homosexual re-interpretation in Aeschylus' Mynnidons of the rdation�hip between the lliadic Achilles and Patroclus, which was probably the main foment triggering late 5th cent. discu.�­ sions of this issue.3! However, the very clear presentation of the military panic as generated by Pan, which we find in Rh. 36£ , makes a 4th cent. date preferable for this tragedy. In fact, this would be fully in tune with the 4th cent. interpretation and tenninology of Aenea� Tacticus, but it does not square with the way Herodotus, Thucydides or Euripides ap­ pear to connect the phenomenon of panic to no specific god or to Dio­ nysus (see above, pp. 42£) .

31

ef. my 'Nocturnal Warrio rs', in Fantuzzi (forthcoming).

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings of his ' Grammar' Definition Stephanos Matthaios

For Wolfram Ax on his 65'h birthday In the history of Hellenistic literature and science Eratosthenes has been considered as 'the great Alexandrian scholar' and 'the leading figure in Alexandria in the later third century' .l The enthusia.�tic reception of Eratosthenes' accompli�hments is confirmed by his wide-ranging inter­ ests and the scope of his writings, which are also compatible with hi� claim of the 'universality of knowledge' . This claim is reflected in the title
ypa��crrtK6s in the meaning 'scholar' in the pre-eratmthenian era, see Dihle 1 998, 88 and Geus 2002, 305 n. 1 1 4. 42 See S.E. M. 1 .44--49 . 43 See Sch. D. T. (L") 1 1 4.23-34; (L") 1 20.35-1 21 .3. On the explanation of the llilme ypa��crrtK'" in connection with the tenn yp6��aTa, �ee Seh. D. T. (Prol. Voss.) 3. 1 9-23; (2") 1 60. 1 1-23; (L") 1 63.31-164.4; (21) 447.31-448 .5. On the development of the tenus ypa��crr tK6s and ypa��crr tK'" in the �ense 'granunar' and 'granunarian', �ee Lehrs 1 848b, 387-393; Steinthal 1 890-- 1 891 , II 1 6-17; H. U�ener in Smemihl 1 891-1 892, II 663-{,65; Schreiner 1 954, 81 1 ; Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 57-158; Siebenbom 1 976, 1 3 1 -1 32; Kaster 1 988, 447-454 and 1 995, 86-88; Blank 1 998, 1 1 0-- 1 1 1 and 1 1 3-1 1 5; Lallot 1 999, 43-44 , and Matthaios 2008, 560--562. 44 See Kaibel 1 898, 25-28, esp. 27-28; c£ Miiller 1 903, 35-40; Di Benedetto 1 958, 203-204, and Pfeiffer 1 968, 1 58 with n. 7. Blank 1 998, XLIV-L goe� into the question of the role of A�clepiades a, a source of SexM' Empiricu, npas ypa��crrtKoVS afresh; c£ al�o Blank 2000, 405 and 410; Pagani 2007, 3 1 -34, esp. 33 with n. 86; de Jonge 2008a., 30--3 1 and 1 1 1-1 12. A,clepiades is also con,idered to be the source for the granunatical chapter of Qu.illtili an'� In­ stitutin oratoril1 (1 .4-8); on this que�tion, see Heinicke 1 904; c£ Blank 1 998, XLVI, 1 1 4 and 2000, 410 a' well a' Pagani 2007, 33 with n. 88. On the ques­ tion of to what extent Dionysius of Hilicarnao;.,u, wa� fanliliar with A,cepiades' grammatical writings, a' Blank 1 998, XLVI and 2000, 410 a,sumes, see de Jonge 2008a, 1 1 1-1 1 2. 45 See the commentary of Blank 1 998, 1 1 4-1 1 5 on this pa,sage. 46 See Kaibel 1 898, 27-28; c£ Pagani 2007, 33 with n. 87. Di Benedetto 1 958, 1 7 1-178 accepts a dependence of the Vatican Sch<J/ia, in which Eratosthenes' definition i, recorded, on the Neoplatoni,t cOllllnenraries. Thi, source recon­ struction i, alluded to inter alia in a reference in Olympiodorm' epigranl (App. Anth. III 1 77 Cougny) against Calli lnachu,' '1'. 23 P£ by David Prol/. 1 0 , 3 1 .27-32.9; c £ Di Benedetto 1 958, 1 76-1 78 and B lank 1 998, 1 1 8 with n. 72.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings ofhi\ 'Granunar' Definition

67

'grammar' is significandy reported in the Vatican Scholia to Dionysius Thrax abo in connection with the meaning and devdopment of the term ypallIlOTO. A�clepiades of Myrlea tum.� out not only to be the source for Clem­ ent's account on the introduction of the name ypollllaTIK6S with the meaning 'scholar' and on the exi�tence of Eratosthenes' rpOllllaTlKa, but abo to represent the first source from which the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax apparendy drew their information about Eratosthenes' definition. The Scholia provided Eratosthenes' definition with an explanation of the meaning of ypalllloTO through the participle KcxAOOV. It is pos.�ible that Eratosthenes himself contributed to this explanation and, closing hi� definition, gave hi� view on the problem of naming the philological discipline. If our a�sumption is correct, then we can date the discu.�sion that Asclepiades conducted about the name of scholarship back to the era of Eratosthenes and his contemporaries. Eratosthenes had a predeces­ sor, namdy Antidoru.� of Kyme. In a passage from the Scholia to Diony­ sius Thrax that ha� up to now been overlooked, the following informa­ tion about Antidoru.� is given (Sch. D. T. rProl. Voss.l 7.24-25) :

l'\VTISoopos S� TIS YPOllllaTlKOS YPOllllaTIKr,V oliTllv oov61loae 1TOpO: Tr,V yvooaIV TOOV YPollllaToov. According to thi� testimony, Antidoru.� is not only the one who first hdd the tide YPOllllaTIK6S, but should abo be seen a� the authority who introduced the name of the related di�ci­ pline. He attempted to explain this word with the etymological connec­ tion between the term YPOllllaTIK" and the expression ypallllaTO. But, if we believe this testimony, Antidorus-unknowingly or even known­ ingly-went one step further. Beyond the etymological explanation, he defined the nature of the philological discipline as yvooalS of its content, the ypalllloTO, in the form of a 'nominal definition'47: according to Antidorus, 'grammar is the knowledge of the writings'. Eratosthenes could have u.�ed the definition of Antidoru.� a� the ba�s of hi� own. Thank.� to his philosophical education, the Cyrenean succeeded in giv­ ing hi� definition, with reference to the term ��IS , a philosophical back­ ground and in incorporating it into the theoretical context of the Helle­ ni�tic science.

Callimachus' 23rd epigram wa.\ mentioned many times by the Neoplatonist commentators; see Kotzia 2004, 1 85-186 n. 3. 47 That wa.\ according to Aristotle (APo. II 1 0, 93b29-32) the Myos TOU Tt OTIl.laivEI TO ovol.la or the AOYoS 6vol.laToo5TJs. On the nominal definitions in Aristotle see De Rijk 2002, 1 69(H;94.

68

Stephano� Matthaio�

2. The Theoretical Background ofEratosthenes' Definition It ha� already been pointed out that Antidorus' definition of 'granunar' was founded on the explanation of the tenn ypO��o::T \ K" , In compari­ son to Antidorus, Eratosthenes tried to define the essence and nature of this discipline. A� Aristotle had already a.�certained, a definition of thi� kind is based on the description of the characteristics of genus and species of the dtfiniendum.4H The Scholia to Dionysius Thrax states that a definition consists of three elements:4'J firstly, the yevoS of the defined i� given. After that, the crVO'TcrTlKO\ 5\ocpopo\ or the Ei5T}, thus the specific dif­ ferences which account for the character of the defined object are de­ noted; in general, these are expressed by a verbal adjective that syntacti­ cally functions as an attribute to yevoS . Thirdly, the i510v of the defined, the characteristic that can exclusively be attributed to it, is nanled. In ca.�e of a TeXVT} definition, thi� element specifies the function and subject area of the discipline under discussion; syntactically, it is expressed by a genitive, which i� governed by the adjective that pre­ cedes it.'"' If we exanline Eratosthenes' definition according to thi� model, then all three elements seem to be included in hi� statement: the tenn e�IS stand� for the yevoS of the ypO��o::T \ K" TeXVT}. The kind of e�ls, which represents scholarship, i� qualified through the adjective lTOVTE""S. Fi­ nally , the subject of the philological di�cipline is given by the preposi­ tional expression EV ypa��ocr\. Due to the particular connection of the individual elements with each other, the expression e�IS i�, as will be shown at the end of tllls section, placed in the foreground and turned into the central concept of Eratosthenes' definition. The theoretical rea.�oning for thi� concept will be examined more thoroughly below. The few researchers who have taken Eratosthenes' 'gra.mmar' defini­ tion into consideration have translated e�IS a.� 'skill ' and 'craft' .5 1 There48 See e.g. Arist. Top. I 8 . 1 03b15-16: 6 6pla�os tK ytvovS Kat filacpopwv tcrriv . On definition< by Aristotle see De Rijk 2002, I 653-7 1 4. An overview of the c1uracteri. anoKpivEa6al · 6tVTES yap Ta npWTa !nl TtAOVS TEp6pEUOVTat WS ov v 56SElEV &v eTvat, Ka6arre p Kat �1Tt Tiis apeTiis Kat Tiis �1T1O""TTjIlT]S crull�alvEl · CxIlCPW yap ll1TO TO alrrO ytvos �O""Tlv · �KOTEpOV yap alrrOOV lSlS Kat 51a6eals �Cl"T1V. 77 See An.t. APo. II 19.99b20-100b5; Top. VI 6.1 45a34: 1Taaa yap 5106EalS Kat 1Tav 1Ta60s �v �KetV'!l m\cpVKE ylvea6al ov �Cl"T1 5106EC"lS ii 1Ta60s, Ka6arre p Kat t') �1T1O""TTjIlT] �V '+'lI)(ij, 5106eC"lS ovaa ,+,II)(;;S. 7B This is the interpretation of lSlS in the quoted pa.'-.ages in n. 55; c( De Rijk 2002, I 740-744. 79 See Arist. PA I 1 .639al : nEpt 1Taaav 6ewplav TE Kat 1l�6050V, ollolws

T01TelvoT�pav TE Kat TIIlI(.()T�pav, 5uo cpalvoVTal TP01TOl Tiis lSEWS eTval, OOV n,v Il�V �1T1O""TTjIlT]V TOO 1TPOYIlCXTOS KaAoos lXEl 1TpoaayopeuElv, n,v 5' oTov 1Ta15etav TLVO. cr Lennox 200 1 , 1 20. The explanation on the lSlS term given

in the Scholia to Dionysius Thrax is interesting in thi. regard. According to them lSls is synonymom with yVOOC"lS; see Sch. D. T (L1ll) 29B.37: TI �Cl"T1V lSlS;

OloVEt yVOOC"lS.

76

Stephano� Matthaio�

According to Detel (1 993, 1I 857) , e�IS is '[. . . 1 weder nur eine Di�posi­ tion der Seele [ . . . 1, noch eine bloBe Fahigkeit der Seele, irgend etwas zu tun---sondem primar ein epistenll�cher [ . . .1 ZlL�tand, in welchem die Seele etwas besitzt oder beherrscht' . The reason that (practical) ability or knowledge is understood as a condition is related to the ancient concept of knowledge, according to which the latter primarily represents dispos­ able knowledge and thlL� i� understood as the sum of cognitive abilities, and in the sense of a capability in a special field of activity."" After the investigation of the term e�IS, we now return to the 'granunar' definition of Eratosthenes. According to Eratoshenes ypa��aTIKtl TExvrr-literally : 'the art of the writings'-i� an epi�temic condition that presupposes the acqui�ition of a particular knowledge. From thi� condition derives one's ability to master problems that belong to this di�cipline. The e�IS which represents the ypa��aTIK"; is qualified by two characteristics: the first is the attribute TIOVTEA";S, the second the prepositional expression EV yp6:��a(1\. In what follows I will attempt to establish the meaning of these two characteristics. First of all the expression TIOVTEA";S: A� already mentioned, the at­ tribute con.�titutes a fixed element of the structure of an ancient TEXVT} definition. From a fonnal point of view, thi� attribute i� mosdy a verbal adjective that indicates the species and thus the function of a TEXVT}; this adjective depend� in general on a genitive that serves to denominate the subject of the respective TEXVT} .Kl Yet, there is nothing similar in the case of Eratosthenes' definition. It indeed contains an attribute, the adjective TIOVTEA";S; but this i� used to qualify the term e�IS, the YEVOS of 'gram­ mar' . What Eratosthenes aims to do with the adjective TIOVTEA";S i� to inten.�ify the teml e�IS as the central characteri�tic of the ypa��aTIKtl TEXVT}. For scholarship and its representatives, the Cyrenean postulates the highest, most fully accomplished level of the epistelnic condition that comes from the acqui�ition of knowledge in the field of writings (EV

yp6:��aO"J) . But what is the sen.�e of the attribute TIOVTEA";S and the theoretical background with its implied demand for scholarship? To answer these question.�, one mmt juxtapose Eratosthenes' definition with two later ones, those of Dionysius Thrax and A�clepiades of Myrlea respectively. According to the evidence of the manmcript tradition, the definition of DionysilL� Thrax i� (D .T. 1 .5.2-3) : ypa��aTIK"; ECTTIV E�TTElpla TWV

TIapa: TIOIT}Tais TE Ka! crvyypaV EiS "IAIOV, aAAOl 5e Ti)v ETvlloAoyiav, r,T1S a)(pl TOcrOVTov < . . . > 1'jMEV Eis KOplVeOV, Ked TIpOS Tral5Evcrlv ypallllaT1Ki'iS EAa!'E TOUS Trai5as TWV TrOAITWV ' ETIEITa epc..>TlleEiS {TIS} Tt ecrTlv EAAllv1crllos, ecpTJ, TO TracralS Tais 51aAEKT01S bpews )(Pi'icr6al. Testes praecipui: B (Par. gr. 255 1 ) U (Vind. phi!. gr. 263) 1 TOV TrOlllT"f]v BU: T"V TIOlllTIK1)V susp. Bois.•. , TWV TrOlllTWV Nauck 3 post TOcroVTov lacunam indicavit Nauck, praeeunte Boiss. (vide Reitzenstein 1897, 379-38 1 ) : 11. 3-5 de Dionysio iuniore Syracusarum tyranno agunt, c£ praes. PIu. Tim. 1 4--1 5, ubi compluria dicta Dionysii invenies 5 T1S delevi TO . . . xPi'icreat B: 0 ... XPi'iTal U

Here, Hellenismos is equated first with Homer himself-much a.� in Pin­ darion and to a certain extent in Aristarchus33-, then with the common language of the heroes at Troy, finally with etymology, an idea discu�sed at length and refuted by S.E. M. 1 .241 -247. Studying the manuscript evidence with the help of K. Hajdu's stenuna for Ps.-Herodian's DeA,!uris34, I found out that this paragraph of De soloecismo et barbarismo does not appear in witnesses earlier than 1 430, which might point to a late date for its very redaction35• But the issue should be left open, all the more so a.� the word� immediately after the lacuna, clearly dealing with Dionysius 11 of Syracu�e, are not attested elsewhere, and may refer to one of the sayings attributed to the dis-

the dominant tendency, Homerizing to indicate the extreme archai.m of the words u..ed'; Dalimier 199 1 , 20-25. 33 See Versteegh 1 986, 439: 'the fVIOI who held that EAAT]VI0'1l0S is identical with 'the poet' [ ...] probably did not want to go to such extremes and advocate the use of Homeric language in everyday life, but only to emphasize the correct­ ness of Homeric Greek'; Siebenbom 1 976, 30-3 1 and 88; Boatti 2000, 269270. 34 See esp. Hajdu 1 998, 33-41 and 85, and the stennlU on p. 92. 35 Boissonade 1 83 1 , 260 n. 3 had already suspected: 'AIiu.. sunt, opinor, auctoris'.

Ex Homero grammatiea

97

graced tyrant during his stay in Corinth as a schoolteacher--others of the same kind are transmitted by Plutarch.3li What is most interesting for us now is that the idea expres.�ed in thi� paragraph of De Soloecismo et barbarismo seem� to address an is.me ne­ glected by other sources: the scholia---and indeed Homer him�elf in a couple of lines--do highlight that the Achaean heroes do not need in­ terpreters, a� opposed to the Trojan.� f3apf3ap6cpoov ol and 1ToM­ YMlaaol ;37 yet no exegete seems to addres.� the problem of which common dialect Greek heroes actually spoke--a question that could arise spontaneously in such a rationalist exegete as Aristonicus, who found it strange that Odys.�eus' Greek could be understood by the Cy­ clops (see Sch. Hom. fDHM1 Od. 3 . 7 1 a, most probably drawing on Aristarchus: SOT�OV S�-CPlld-T4> 1TOlllTij Ta TOlcriiTa' Kal yap vavv aliTov 1Tap6:yel elS6Ta, '6:"M6: 1.101 eicp', ()1T1J kXec Iwv evepy�a viia ' rl 2791 , Kal c vvill c lv 'E"MllviSa cpooV1iv) . Of course, thi� view about the language of heroes should not be confused with the otherwise widespread a�sumption that Homer as a 36 The story of DionysilL" di'grace in Corinth wa' quite popular, and al,o a sub­ ject for rhetorical progymllasmata: see V. Max. 6.9. ext. 6: 'propter inopiam lit­ teras puerulos Corinthi docuit'; Cic. Tusc. 3.27: 'Corinthi pueros docebat'; lust. 21 .5; Ph. De Jos. 1 32: ypallllaTlaTJis a ToaoVTos 1')YEIlc.:>v ylvETal; De­ metro Eloc. 241 : ".,.WXEVEI �v Koplv6Cj) 515av U1fO TOU 1fOIT\TOU 1fEplepya�e(7eal im­ mediatdy remind� one of an Aristarchean principle that ha� no privi­ leged rdation to allegorical interpretation specifically. It nicdy catches the general principle that interpretation should be textimmanent, often referred to in the form of the maxim ·OIlT\POV �� 'O IlTJPOV (7acpT\vi�e\V (lit. 'to explain Homer out of Homer') . " This maxim applies, at least in principle, to every conceivable a�pect of a critic's ta�k (e.g. the analysis of a poet's habits in tenn� of verbal usage, semantics, syntax, style, and so forth) . 10 connection with Dione's three mythological exempla, in par­ ticular, it is worth remembering that Aristarchu.� scrutinised Greek po­ etry for mythographical stories and story dements that were known to later poets only but not to Homer hinuel£ He hdd the view that the Homeric text must be kept free of the story dements that were found in later sources only. Here again he made a sharp di�tinction between Homer and the veOOTepOI . This approach to Homer's mythographical stories notoriously includes the judgment of Paris, which Aristarchus thought unknown to Homer. 9 He therefore considered the rdevant pa�sage, n. 24.25-30, spuriou.�. SinIilarly, though less spectacularly, Homer did not give the dog in the Underworld a name, so the dog should not be called Cerberu.� with respect to the Homeric epics. lit Thi� list of examples could easily be added to. Aristarchu.�' treatment of Homer's myths i� rdevant to the present context becau.�e all three exem­ pia are dealt with very briefly in Dione's speech and together take up a mere 20 lines (n. 5 .385-404) . The underlying stories are more alluded to than actually narrated for their own sake. It i� conceivable that readers expanded the bare bones of the Homeric text by resorting to other, non-Homeric texts that gave a fuller version of the same stories. By 8 Cf. Cucchiarelli 1 997, 21 1-12. It L\ generally agreed that the maxim is in ac­ cordance with Ariswchu\' interpretative method, irre.\pective of the (disputed) question whether or not he bitu\eif actually used this phra.\e (transmitted by Porphyry, zet. 1 1 /12, p. 297 . 1 6 Schrader) . Even Pfeiffer, arguably the most de­ cided opponent of the phrase's authenticity, admits that 'it L\ not against hi.\ spirit' (1 9611, 227). 9 Cf. schol. All. 24.25-30 Ariston. and the test. coUected by Erose (ad schol. T R. 4.32a Arl.\ton.). An attempt to differentiate between mythical variants can al­ ready be found in PS.-Pl. Minos 31 8d-e. 10 Cf. schol. All. 11.368 Ariston. For a coUection of lliadic scholia that di.\CU'l.\ 'things unknown to Homer' see Erbse 1 969-1 988, VII 1 26.

Ariswchu� and Allegorical Interpretation

109

doing so they incurred the criticism of Aristarchus, who told them not to 1TEplepYeX�eaeal ��Ct.) TOOV cppa�oll�VCt.>v liTro Toii 1TOITlTOii. In conclusion, there i� no need to as.�ume that Aristarchus' critici�m in schol. D n. 5 .385 is directed specifically and uniquely against allegori­ cal interpretations. He does take exception to 'importing' stuff from outside, which, however, includes many phenomena other than alle­ gorical explanations of the pas.�ge under consideration. The broad and un�pecific fonnulation of the D-scholion should not be narrowed down by inserting with Eustathiu.� the word eXAATlYOPIKOOS. This position i�, in fact, not new and essentially Pfeiffer's, but it needed to be restated and argued at greater length because it is now generally ignored. 1t In addi­ tion, the fonner and, as has been argued, defensive part of the D­ scholion must be given its due and not simply be glos.�ed over or ig­ nored. Ari�tarchus is making several points in the quotation tran�tted by the D-scholion: readers should not be bothered by mythical stories that might test their sense of credibility, but accept them a� fiction and thu.� a� belonging to the arsenal that is typical of poets (i. e. poetic li­ cence) . Moreover, they should adhere to an interpretation that i� text­ immanent.12 Before turning to other evidence for Aristarchus' views about alle­ gorical interpretation, it may be worth asking the question why Eustathius inserted the crucial word eXAATlYOPIKOOS and thus reduced the scope of the D-scholion. 1 3 Con�iderations of terminology suggest the 11

ef. Pfeiffer 1 968, 227 n. 1 : 'Eu�tathius ... probably "interpolated" aAATlYOPIKOOS; according to Schol. D Ari�wchu�' sentence wa.� more general, not particularly again.�t allegory' (cf. van der VaIk 1 976, on Eust. 561 .30: 'Eust(athiu�) adi(ecit) aAATlYOPIKOOS '). Perhaps the most curious treatment of Pfeiffer's position i� the one by Dawson 1 992, 267 n. 85, who refers to the relevant footnote but fail� to mention Pfeiffer's reservation. 12 Two additional, minor observation�: (i) it might have been counter-productive to reject allegorical interpretation� in the name of 'poetic licence', becau�e the other side could ea.�ily use the same argument for their purposes, which rein­ forces the point that the two parts of the in.�truction better be kept separate; (ii) Iikewi�e, the phrase ��w TOOV cpp�o�vwv may not be ideal for an anti­ allegorical argument, becau�e tenn� such a.� vn6vola imply that the all egorical meaning i� so to speak stored up within the text itself, but concealed under­ neath the superficial meaning from which it mu�t be recovered. It is, in other word.�, not brought in from outside. 13 Even though Eu�tathius mention� Aristarchu�' allegedly anti-allegorical views three more rimes in his commentary (3.23 = 1 .4.22-3, 40.28-32 = 1 .65.22-7, 6 1 4.5-6 = 2.21 5.6-8), these other pa.,-'1age5 add little that is of importance. It is therefore unlikely that he had acces.� to substantially more evidence than what we can read today in schol. D R. 5.385.

1 10

Rene Niinlist

following al1.'iWer. For Eustathius and his contemporaries, the terms llu61KWS and 6AAllYOP1KWS are technical expressions that are diametri­ cally opposed. In hi� parlance llu61KWS essentially means 'non­ allegorically ' . 1 4 It i� therefore likely that the phrase llu61Kc.::lTe pOv EK5exea6m in the D-scholion imperceptibly called up the opposite term 6AAllYOP1KWS, which led him to insert it because he considered it the obvious, if implied, counterpart. Needless to say, this opposition of the tenus llu61KWS vs. 6AAllYOP1KWS dearly postdates Aristarchus and can­ not be what he had in mind. I S It has already been mentioned that schol. D n. 5.385 often acts as the sole witness for Aristarchus' alleged anti-allegorism. Other passages have, however, been quoted in support of this view and must therefore be examined in turn.H'

1 4 CC e.g. j..lV 6IKOOS j..l�V yap aK6Aov60v Tjv Tij avCil6ev pilflel TOU 'HcpaiCTTov TO Kat els y;;v lTOV ellTelv KCXTeve)(6;;VaI cx\rr6v ... Kat 0 j..l�V j..lU60S OVTCil 1TI6avooS lThrAaCTTal, t'l O� c'x(1)yopia . . . TOIaVTO: Tlva voel . . . (Emt. 1 57.2430 = 1 .242.21-7) : 'Mythically (i.e. non-allegorically), it wa.� consequent (sc. for Homer) also to say that Hephaestu.�, after he had been hurled down from above, wa.� borne to earth ... and the myth is thu.� mshioned in a plau.�ible way, but the allegory (i.e. an allegorical interpretation of the pa.�) ... meam some­ thing like this .. .'; cC the pas.�s listed by van der Valk 1 976, LXXVI n. 5.-J. Lall o t (p.c.) draws my attention to scho!. D n. 1 5. 1 8, where, surprisingly, j..lV6IKOOS seem� to refer to allegory (this and the D-scholion quoted above are the only attestatiom of the word in the D-scholia to the lliad) . Contrast scho!. D Od. 1 2.63b (ed. N. Ernst), where the adverb ha� the expected meaning. 1 5 In mct, it i� by no means certain that the word c'x(1)yopia (or cognates) itself was already in use in Aristarchus' time and, if it wa.�, what meaning it had. The earliest attestatiom (on which see Hahn 1 967, 1 5-20; Montanari 1 987) do not predate the first century B. C. and have a decidedly rhetorical background: c'x(1)yopia designates a trope that is comparable to metaphor, riddle and other forn}.� of 'saying one thing and meaning another' (cC e.g. the definition of Try­ pho 1 93.9-1 1 Spengel: c'x(1)yopia � daughters of Zeu� and Hera.

< EIAeI6vias : > OTI TCxS ooSivas ElAel6vlas gIP". schol. A n. 19.1 19b Ariston. Eileithuiai: becau�e he (se. Homer) called the throes of child­ birth 'Eileithuiai. '

Aristarchus identifies a personification in Homer, while a similar per­ sonification qualifies a� all egory for Heraclitus. The question thu.� arises what the exact target of Aristarchus' all eged anti-allegorism i.� . It seern� unlikely that he would have taken exception to Heraclitu.�' treatment of the Prayers. The preceding argument does not, of course, intend to suggest a complete revision of the communis opinio and advocate the view that Aristarchus is in fact a proponent of allegorical interpretation. Such a claim would plainly be absurd----and contrary to expectation. For Ari.�­ tarchus follows in the footsteps of Plato and Aristode, both of whom show little inclination to make use of allegorical interpretation. 31 It i.� therefore not surprising that Aristarchu.� normally interprets the text of Homer and other poets in non-allegorical terms. He is by no means alone in doing so. Moreover, one should take into account that hi.� 'dis­ agreement' with allegorical interpretations i.� mosdy implicit. In light of the fact that, elsewhere, Aristarchus is only too happy to engage in open polemic (e.g. with Zenodotus) , it is important to note that his alleged opposition to allegory is not voiced more often and more explicidy. Hi.� repeated polemics ebewhere should make us pause before we take the relative silence about allegory a� indicative of a particularly subde thing but signifies something other than what it says receives the name "alle­ gory" preci�ely from thi�·, trans. Russell-Kon�tan); cf. n. 1 5 . 31 C f. PI. R. 37Rc-e, for Aristode see next n . ; c f. al�o Plut. dud. poet. 1 ge.

Aristarchus and All egorical Interpretation

117

method, that is, to fight one's opponent� by deliberately ignoring them. It i.� equally possible that Ari.�tarchus simply did not con.�ider allegorical interpretation as urgent a problem a.� some scholars would have it. 32 At any rate, the preceding analysi.� will have shown that his attitude vi.�-a­ vis 6Mllyopla is multi-faceted and complex. To picture him as a fer­ vent and uncompromising opponent of allegory requires an inappropri­ ately narrow understanding of the relevant evidence that takes it� cue from Eu.�tathiu.�.

32 Incidentally, the same hold. true, in my view, for Aristotle, whose reservation about all egorical interpretation remains mostly implicit. The attempt by Struck to bring out what he calls Aristotle's 'decidedly anti-allegorical project' (2004, 1 3 , sim. 63-8) i.. not persuasive, not lea..t so because it is ba..ed (2004, 64--6) on a forced interpretation of the tenn afvly�a (and cognates) For if ' [t)he Der­ veni text does nor prove that all early enigmas are connected with allegorical reading' (2004, 39), it is difficult to see why the same tenn should have thi. specific connection in Aristotle (or any other author) On the (broad) applica­ tions of alvh'To�al in general see also Niinli.t 2009, 225-37. .

"

"

.

Portrait of an Unknown Scholiast *

Martin Schmidt After fourty years, I now attempt to answer the final question that Uvo Hoelscher a�ked in 1 969 in his assessment of my dissertation (published 1 976) : 'Is it possible to categorise groups of scholia and maybe even trace them back to specific commentaries through the systematic com­ parison of drift, temunology and principles?' ! All these years I have been hesitant to attempt to give an answer, but in the last years there have been some new impul�es. At the Genoa conference in 2000 I tried to define what i� specific and new in the bT-scholia to the fliad as ba�ed on the current state of the field2 and my own thoughts. I argued that this method of explana­ tion, oriented on the relation between poet and hearer, i� the real nov­ elty of late ancient philology against Aristarchus and all his friends and enemies. Martin West then told me: 'That is not the common tendency, that i� one person.' In 2006 Paul Draeger publi�hed the original transcript and his com­ mentary of a lecture on the fliad held by Wilamowitz in the faIl term of 1 887/88, to which I was able to contribute some footnotes on questions of lexicography and scholia. In doing thi� study I again encountered the author of the 'main body' of the scholia. There I once more noticed that Wilamowitz treats the 'main body' of the scholia as being the work of one and the same author, something which, thirty years ago, I had described as 'strange'3 . When the friendly hosts of this conference (to whom I wi�h to express my gratitude) invited me to present a topic of

2 3

I am grateful to my daughter, Or Alma Schmidt, for help with the EngIi�h tramlation of thi� text and to Kamran Monrocq for preparation of the final copy. KIam Nickau and Rene Niinlist have thankfully made u�eful annotation.. to the manmcript. 'Kann man durch VergIeichung nach Tendenz, Tenninologie und Prinzipien Scholiengruppen ZU'l:Ulmlenfassen und womoglich aufbestinunte Konnnentate zuriickfuhren?' . Especially Nannini 1 986 and Meijering 1 987. Schmidt 1 976, 67 n.6: 'Seltsanlerweise ,pricht Wilamowitz [ . . . ] von eitlem Verfa....�er' .

1 20

Martin Sclunidt

my own choosing, I, imprudently, decided to look for the author Wilamowitz had then imagined.

The Research Record In an 1 884 article which he wrote as part of his work on the T-scholia published in 1 887 /88, Em.�t Maass argued that the core of the bT­ scholia could be traced back to 'a group of rather old exegetical com­ mentaries' . He added: 'the subject matter is difficult and requires inten­ sive work' . 4 In the section 'Mehrere Quellen in T' ('multiple sources in the T­ scholia') of his 1 91 2 Auswahl aus den Diasscholien, Wilhem Deecke dis­ covered two purely exegetical commentaries in the bT-scholia and at various in�tances tried to demonstrate their divergent tendencies. s How­ ever, this did not gain acceptance.l, In 1953, during the preparation for hi� edition of the Diad-scholia, Hartmut Erbse looked at the usage of the chiffie &AAOOS in the Codex T. 7 He concluded that at least three exegetical commentaries were used in the compilation of the bT-scholia (beyond the VMK, the D-scholia, Porphyriu.� and other 'scholienfremde Bestandteile') . M. van der Valk concurred (van der Valk 1 963-- 1 964, 1 434) and this has since become the scholarly consen�u.�. I accepted this as well. However, in re-examining all in�tances of double &AAOOS (thi� is Erbse's indicator) , I did not find any case in which three scholia on the same section and subject matter had to be traced back to three separate exegetical commentaries." The third scholion is almost always from the VMK, sometimes from Porphyriu.� . We can therefore imagine that the production of the scholia manuscript c, the Mother of all b T-scholia manuscripts, wa� little ea�ier than previou.�ly thought: beyond the VMK, a copy of the D-scholia and Porphyriu.� , the 4 5

6 7 R

Maa.'l� l RR4, 564: 'Der Gegen�tand erfordert eine eingehende. nicht leichte Albeit'. Deecke 1 912. 5R-64, especially 59, n. to line 5: 'Dem einen kOllunenw (a) konunt es, wie A 1 3 und I 434 bewei.�en, vor aJIem darauf an, die befolgung der rhetori.�chen kun�tregeJn im Homer nachzuwei.�en. der andere (b) kon�ta­ tiere nur g1eicluam anhan�wei.�e am schllL'l�e seiner interpretation. da'l� Homer mit den gesetzen der rhetorik vercraut war' . Deecke's di.�tinction i.� not helpful, c( Howald 1 9 1 7 / 1 91R, 409; Erose 1 953. R. Erose 1 953, Rf[ Referring to Sch. n. 5.77R; 7.9; l R.20; l R .9R; 20.332 und 24.54 (Erh�e 1 953, 1 0) .

Portrait of an Unknown Scholi ...t

121

author(s) had to regularly consult not three, but only two continuous commentaries. Ulrich von Wilamowitz helped Emst Maa�s in 1 884/85, making multiple correctiom in the edition of the T -scholia that are signed 'W' . During the fall tenn of 1 887/88, Wilamowitz gave a lecture on the fliad in Gottingen. A transcript, made by the student Alfred Zuericher, was publi�hed in 2006. In this lecture Wilamowitz engages direcdy with the transmi�sion of the epos and the granunatical treatment in antiquity. He describes the bT-scholia as follows: 'the main part [of the scholial i� a commentary by somebody who wanted to explain Homer step by step both in its words and its content. He quotes a number of authors [ . . l It suggests a later period. This can only have been written after Saeculum Two .' " In an essay for the Homer scholia that appears in 1 888 and which was probably written during the same period, he makes explicit reference to only one exegetical commentary 'in its character clearly identifiable', an 'individual by it�elf . He al�o sticks to one author in his 1 900 review of the 2nd volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (with the Pap. 22 1 for the 2 1 st Hook of the fliacl) .lH This i� puzzling. After all , there are many Homeric verses to which there are two scholia which can either be very similar or can al�o conflict. Wilamowitz had surely read all these. And the di�tinction of the scholia according to their origin through OAA<J.)S was right before everybody's eyes. I believe that Wilamowitz would have acknowledged thi�. Rather, hi� insistence on a single author refers to the distinctive voice that can be heard in the bT­ scholia. Let lL� try to uncover it. I start with a long scholion, which appears to stem from a single author, and then draw connections from it� key arguments to identical or similar interpretatiom, mainly in the bT-scholia to Hooks 8, 1 1 , 12 and 13 of the fliad.1 1 WS q>lAEAAT)V 0 1TOIT)-nlS IJEXPI TWV VEWV TOIJS "EAAT)vaS avv EAO:cras Kai �1TavAI�OIJEVOVS TaiS vavcri 1Ton'lcras TOUS l3ap�povs OUK Eli6eoos TEIXOlJaxiav �1To'T)crev oUSE T1']V �1Ti TaiS vavcri lJaXT)v, (mep Ka\ KaTCx 9 Wilamowitz 2006 [200!f] , 1 34: 'Die Hauptmas.•e war aber ein Commentar von Jemandem, der Homer Schritt ftic Schritt in Wort und Inhalt erkIaren wollte [ . . . ) . R. deutet auf eine spatere Zeit. Er kann also erst nach Saeculwll Zwei geschrieben sein.' 10 See Wilamowitz 1 888, 1 45, n. 1 and id. 1 900, 39. 1 1 The text of the scholia follows Erbse; the scholia without the sign of the codex are bT- or T -scholia. Generally, the scholia will be quoted without the lem­ mata. The translation i. mine, unless I am able to use that of Rene Niinli.t, for which I wish to express my gratitude.

1 22

Martin Sclunidt

S6I;av fiv ToiS O:KPOWIlEVOIS, o:Ma lTPOTEPOV T1iv 1>.yallEllvoVOS o:plCTT elav SIEypaljlE Kal !lET' a\IT1'lv T1iv TOOV /!iM.wv O:PICTTEWV, ETTa �1TEISt'l TOUS o:pltTTovS �lTl TaS VcxVS 6:1TEtTTE IAe Tpw6eVTas , TOTe TOUS "EM1lvas �lTOI1lC7EV r,TTWIlEVOVS. �1TEl Se lTElTOV1lIlEVOVS TOUS "EM1lvas 6:1Ti6avov fiv lTapEIC7ayelV O:vSpaya60uVTas Ew6EV, EUAOYWS r, VU� lTapallv6eiTal al'JToov Tt'lV fiTTav, Kal TOC7oVTov O:vaAallJXtVEI WS C7vVf.t)6iiC7al lTCxAIV lleXPI TelXOVS TOUS TpOOaS, axplS chov lTCxAIV Tiis lTapa TOU t.IOS nixwC7lv �lTIKovplas' �lTISEh(WC71 yap OTI TuxalS, ou yvwllalS �AellTOVTO "ru1lveS. SIKalws Il£V 0011 1>.yaIlEIlVf.t)V O:PltTTEUEI 6appoUVTa lleV yap Tois lTpaYllaC7lv OUK eVAoyov fiv aVTOV lTPOlTETOOS �lTl TOUS KIVSUVOVS lJIepeC76al, o:Ma Sux T1iv r,YEllovlav O:C7lJ1aMtTTEpOV llaMov i\ IJIIAOKIVSWOTEPOV O:ywvll;Ea6al . �lTl �vpOU Se vVV, Kal TauTa SI' al'JTov, OVTWV 'EM,;vwv O:vayKalws KlvSVVEUel. yeyovE Se 6:VTitTTpolJla Ta lTpaYllaTa' t.IOIl';S 1lS yo:p UlT' 1>.yallEllvoVOS 6velSIC76eiS EUSOKlllEi, Kal lTaAIV 1>.yaIlEIlVf.t)V UlTO t.IOIl';SOVS· "EKTWp Se !lEyaAa VlTIO)(VoVllevos SlwKETal. Sch. n. 1 1 .0

As a friend of the Greeks the poet, in rounding up the Greeks at the ships and letting the barbarian� bivouac does not start with the battle over the wall and at the ships, which would have corresponded to the expectation� of the listeners. Instead he presents the aristeia of Agamemnon followed by those of the other leaders, and only after having sent the wounded leaders back to the ships does he all ow the Greeks to be defeated. It would have hardly been believable if the exhausted Greek.� had started the next morn­ ing to accompli�h heroic feats. The night plausibly alleviates the defeat and has them recover to the point that they can push the Trojan� back to the wall until the moment when they get once again help from Zeu.� . Homer shows that the Greek.� lacked fortune, not rational deliberation. Agamemnon righdy stand� out: he who approaches all thing! with courage would not plau.�bly have launched him�elf imprudendy into danger. Be­ cause he is a leader, he i� not reckless but fights with deliberation. How­ ever, when the fate of the Greek.� stand� on a knife's edge becau.�e of him, he will , by neces.�ty, endanger himself. Events reverse: Diomedes, ma­ ligned by Agamenmon, distinguished him�elf-and so does in turn, Aga­ menmon, maligned by Diomedes. Hector, however, who promi�ed great­ nes.�, has to flee.

I use the following points from this scholion: 1 . Homer i� a friend of the Greeks (CPIASAAl1V) . 2. The Trojan� are barbarian� ([3ap[3apol) . 3. Before the battle over the wall and the battle at the ships, all Greek leaders have to be injured to prepare Patroclus' aristeia. 4. The Greeks only loose when the Trojan� are helped by the gods. 5. The aristeia of Agamemnon takes place at the right moment.

123

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia,t

1 . Homer is

a

Friend of the Greeks (oov aei apl61lei Kai vVv. Sch. n. 8.274-6a Because he is a friend of the Greeks, he doesn't list all of those that were kill ed in the previou� defeat by name. The Troyan� however are always counted and named-as they are now.

write: xeipas Ka\ vovv OcvapTO:v (e.g. in Athana�us, Epist. I, Epistulae CXV

47).

1 7 This tide for the 8th book is already u�ed by Ari.,tonicus (see Sch. n. 5.734-6; 1 1 . 1 1 a) .

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia..[

125

(9)

WS q)\AeAAT)V TTapaTpexel '" Ta Svaxepfj, �TT' 6Alya TTpOac...ma T'l'Jv i'jTTav vyoVTas �yKwl.1I6:�el TOUS "EMTlvas.

Sm. n. 17.603-4a

He praises the Greek.\, aL\O when they flee.

(29) wS mOS, tva KW TOUT,!> a\i9;0"tJ TOV "EMTlva 1.11'1 �� laov aTTTlMaYIlEVOV, 6TrEp r,SU ToiS QJIJ30Aov 6 Myos TOU /110S, 6TTWS Ilr, SOKi) ToiS :a.XaloiS xapl�ea6al 6 TTOITl-n;S. Sch. n. 4.13 The unclear situation i s decided b y the word o f Zeu.\, s o that i t doesn't ap­ pear a.� if the poet sided with the Greek.\ .25

(31) ov SVvaTal aq>IV / xpalaj.IEiv: Tva Ilr, SOKi) xapl�ea6al "OOTlal, AeATl60TWS Tij TTapaJ30Ai) TO ayevEs TOOV TPWwv ST)Aoi. Sch. n. 1 1 . 1 1 6-7 So that he does not seem to write to plea.� the Greeks, he imperceptibly shows the ignobility of the Trojans with the simile.26

CC also the almost identical wording in Sch. fl. 1 1 .304 and 1 6.569a.

2 . The Trojans are Barbarians (j36:pl3apoly7 In his book 'On rthe meaning of] Aristarchus' signs on the fliad (and the Odyssey?) ' Aristonicus2H refers so naturally to the Trojans in their en­ tirety, to their women and al�o to a single inhabitant of the Troas like

24 25 26 27 28

On this Piu.\ see below 6. 1 . C f. NiinIi\t 2009, 1 1 9 with n . 1 4. Cf. NiinIi\t 2009, 21 1 . See Dittenberger 1 905; von Franz 1 940; Erbse 1 969-1 988, VII, s.v. j36:pJ3aPOI. This is reconstructed using mosdy the A-scholia to the niad by L Friedlaender.

1 30

Martin Sclunidt

Chryses, as 'barbarians',2'J that we may safely assume that it represents the original tone of Aristarchus. According to Aristonicus in Sch. n. 2.867a, Aristarchus used the oc­ curence of the adjective f3apf3ap6cpoovoS ('speaking a foreign tongue') to conclude that Homer also knew the word f3Cxpf3apos, although he did not use it. 3< t At lea�t once Aristarchus describes Trojan habits and cir­ cumstances a� barbaric moeurs: 31

(32) OTl lktplktPIK6v f60s TO �K lI"Ae16vCA>V YVVCXIKWV lI"CXISoll"oleia6cxl.

Sch. n. 5.70

It is barbarian to have children with multiple women.

How far this is meant in a pejorative sense is debatable, but it certainly implies a clear demarcation from his own civilised Greek culture. 32 The bT-scholia include characterizations of the barbarians as raucous or a reference to flutes being barbaric in� truments. This is linked with the statement that the poet mocks the Trojan� as barbarians because, rather than sleeping and preparing themselves for the next day, they make mu.� c instead: (3 3)

eIK6TCA>S TO �plktpov 6opvj:lWSts �C7TIV'hep6yAWO"aov yap �C7TIV. a Si; OUK EC7TIV oll6cpwvov, TOOTo cXvayKIJ 6opvj:lWSes.

Sch. n. 4 .437

Of course, the barbarians are noisy: they speak various languages. And whatever doe.� not sound the 5an1e, is neces.�arily noisy. (34)

�lI"l Si; T pweS KeAcXSTlacxv: KexAWS �lI"l lleV 'EAA';Vc..>V qlTlalv ·1'.pyeiol Si; Ilty' icxxov, eXllqll Se vijes / alJEPSexAtov' [no 2.333-4] , �lI"l Se TWV Tpt:Jwv KeAaSTlaCXV Aeyel'60pvj:lWSes yap TO �cxplktpIK6v.

Sch. n. 8.542 With the Greeks, he puts it well: 'the Argives' battlecry wa� awesome, and the surrounding ships reverbarated with it' [no 2, 333-4] . For the Trojan� he says: 'They made noi�e'. For barbarians produce only noise. 29 �plktpOI: sch. n. 2, 1 22a; 2, 1 30-3; 2, 872a; 8, 562; 24, 2 1 5b; Chryses �p�pOS Kal l.lla�AATlv: sch. n. 1 , 454. 30 The comment i� directed against Thucydides who, in the scholiast's view, thought �p�pOS to be a post-Homeric word. But Thuc . 1 .3.3 only says that Homer doesn't lL�e the tenn 'the barbarians' to designate the Trojan�. 31 The comment on j3a6VKOAlI"OS which says that it i� only lL�ed as an attribute of barbarian women does not refer to moeurs. 32 Ari�tarchus already described the Trojans a� noisy: 8opvj300 5 elS (sch. n. 13.41a).

Portr.lit of an Unknown Scholia.\t

131

(35)

0Vx, 'EMllvlKOV SI; 01 cxVAol· oUTE yap aiaKES oCITE I.Ivllcrrii p Es oCITE EIs TOUS ycXl.IOVS 'Epl.llov"s oUTE nllVEAOlTllS �xpOOVTO TOVTOIS. TJ)V �p�pCtJv SI; ayvolav KCtJI.I,!>SEi �v TOIOVT,!> KalPctl 1.I0ValKEVOI.IEVCtJV �lTl ToaoVTCtJv lTTCtJl.lcXTCtJV Kai 1.1"; I.IcxMov Tctl KOII.ICXaeal lTopll;ol.lEVCtJV laxuv Eis TJ)V avplov

Sch. n. 10.13b

The flutes are not Greek: they were not used either by the Pbaeacians, nor by the suitors, and neither during Hennione's nor Pendope's weddings. He mocks the barbarian\ for their fooJi.�bness in making music when so many are dead, and to do so rather than rest and sleep to prepare for the next day.

The poet, according to the scholia, derides a number of character traits such a� : Cowardice: (36)

Kal TJ)V �IOI.I';SOVS aPET";V aV�1 Kal TJ)V �p�pCtJv SEIAlav KCtJI.I,!>SEi. El S"; TOU �IOS �lTaI.lVVOVTOS aliToiS Ka&Elpx6fival �KlvSlivEvaav lTpoj:lcXTCtJV TpOlTOV. Kai ovSI; TOVTCtJV TEAeiCtJv.

Sch. n. 8 . 1 33b

He both extols Diomedes' bravery and ridicules the barbarian�' cowardice. Despite Zeus' hdp, they find thernsdves enclosed like small livestock, not fully grown ones to boot. (37)

1Jl1AEMllV 6 lTOlllTilS. KaTaKCtJI.I'!>SooV TOV j:lcXp�pov Kai TJ)V TOU naTpOKAOV Slival.llv av�v.

Sch. n. 16.81 4-5

The poet is a philhellene: he mocks the barbarian� and extols Patroclu.�' power.

Shirking: (38)

6pa. Ti KaTaAal.lj:lcXVETal lTPcXTTCtJV 6 j:lcXp�poS' lO'TTJ K EV apyos �lTi TOOV apl.lcXTCtJv I.I';TE lTOAeI.lOOV I.I';TE �yKEAeVOI.IEVOS ToiS IJIEliyovalv. "rullv SI; OVK Qv �lTOiEI TOUTo.

Sch. n. 1 1 . 1 97-8 (cf. Sch. n. 1 1 .212)

Look by which activity the barbarian [se. Hector] is caught: he stands idly by the chariots, neither intervening in the battle, nor commanding those fleeing. A Greek would never act like this.

1 32

Martin ScJunidt

Fickleness: (39)

Ked 'll"W S 'll" p O oAlyov KaVO'al t'\6eAev a\/"Tlxs; Kooll'flSei Toivvv nlV jktpjktplKflV IJETa�oAflv 0 'll" OIT)nlS.

Sch. n. 8. 1 96-7 And how could he [se. Hector] have wanted to bum them [se . the ships] so shortly before? The poet ridicules the barbarian inconsistency.

Boastfulness: (40)

KEKAVTE IJEV, TpweS: VrrepT)'PWias lleO'Tos 6 MyoS' OV yap eOvovs 6EAel 'll"01";O'a0'6al TOUS aKpoooIlEVOVS, aAAa IlOVOV Kavxaa6al, 0\Jx ooS TO '00 IJIIAOI, t'\pooeS l1avaol' [no 2 . 1 1 0] . &h. n. 8.497

' Hear me, Trojan.�': His [se. Hector's] speech i� full of arrogance: for he [se. Hector] doesn't ask for his Ji.�tener's sympathies but only wants to praise himself; unlike 'Oh frjend�, heroes of the Danaans!' [no 2. 1 1 0] (4 1 ) opa TO ill'll"AT)KTOV TOU �apJ3

'll" p olJlepoIlEVT)

lle6'

&h. n. 1 1 . 432 3 -

Barbaric arrogance i� what is displayed in such a situation, with exaggerated conceit. (43)

O'TpaTT)yIKWs lleV nlV eVT)lleplav aVToiS ST)Aoi, olKElouTal SI; aVTt'lv V'll"E pO'll"TooS. 61l0looS Ka\ TO 'KTElvw SI; Ka\ aUTOVS' [no 8 . 1 82] . 6 Se "OOT)V aAA avSpas KTelvwllev' [no 6.70] IJIT)O'iv. '

'

&h. n. 8 . 1 75

Strategically, he [se. Hector] describes them the good situation, which he overconfidently a�cribes to his doing . Similarly: 'and I kille d them [se. the Argives] myself [no 8 . 1 82] . The Greek however says: 'but let's kill the men' [no 6.70] .

Portrait of an Unknown Scholia..[

133

(44)

1T(IA1V OiKE10ihal TO KCXTOp6wIla Kal �V ToiS �9'is 'SAlTOllal EIi)(OIlEVOS ' " t�EM:av tv6evSE KUVas Kl1pEaICpOpr,TOVS'. [no 8.526-7] Sch. n. 8.498-9a' Again he appropriates the success, a.. in the subsequent '1 hope and pray . . . t o chase away th e dogs, led here b y the goddesses o f death' [no 8 .526-7] .

CC al�o Seh. n. 8 . 1 80; 8.515b and 1 1 .288-9. Disobedience: (45)

I3ap�aplK" t'l CrnEI6Ela. hEpOS IlEV &v 1TOll1Tt'lS T0 nOAvSallaVTl �lToil1aE lTaVTas lTEI6oIlEVOVS, 0 SE 'Olll1poS 1l11l0UIlEVOS TTjv &/o.r,6Elav Eva yow TOV Cl1TEI60VVTa EiaayEI . SIC): Tf SE Eva TOVTOV; cm llaA1O"Ta ToiS ilTlT01S r,yaAAETo' 'IlEyaAol' [no 1 2.97] yap !'jaav' ols Kal 6appwv Cl1TOAAVTal. Seh. n. 12.1 l Oa' Disobedience is barbaric. A different poet would have them all follow Pou­ lydama•. Yet Homer, who imitates reality, presents only one who doesn't obey. Why this one? Because he put most faith in his horses: 'they were big' [n. 1 2.97] . Trusting them, he i.. kill e d.

The barbarian is also somebody who likes to complain and who exag­ gerates the natural love for his woman: (46)

qllAOlTEv6ES yap TO �ap�apov.

Seh. n. 24.664

For the barbarian likes to mourn.

(47)

lI1T EpE�aAETo T"V Tiis YVValKOS qIlAoaTopyfav' 1') IlEV yap aVTl TWV OUKETl OVTWV OiKElwv e6ETO aUTOV, 0 Se Kal TWV lTEP10VTWV aUTTjv lTpOT11l