Greek Comic Fragments A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Classical Review VOLUME 50 NO. 1 2000 WEST’S ILIAD M. L. W (ed.): Homeri Ilias. Volumen prius rhapsodias I–XII continens (Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana). Pp. lxii + 372. Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1998. Cased, £64.10 (Paper, £21.95). ISBN: 3-519-01430-0 (3-519- 01431-9 pbk). A better edition of the Iliad has long been needed. The readings of the OCT, which everyone trusts, depend more on Aristarchus’ recommendations than on MS tradition; it also prints without brackets dozens of lines introduced from parallel passages (‘concordance-interpolations’). H. van Thiel’s Iliad (Hildesheim, 1996), based on a judicious selection of medieval codices and many new scraps of ancient MSS (‘papyri’), exhibits the same peculiarities as his Odyssey (see Gnomon 66 [1994], 289–95). Those of West’s edition obtrude less, since W. aims both to remove weakly attested lines and to report the evidence from ancient scholarship. That he has not fully succeeded in either respect must not diminish our gratitude for the immense labour, knowledge, and text-critical acumen behind this edition. W. ’s Praefatio explains the transmission, largely rightly (but he thinks Homer wrote). Following van der Valk, he holds that Zenodotus was arbitrary and the majority of Aristarchus’ unique readings are wrong (p. 7); van Thiel explains their unacceptability differently, discounting them as marginal parallels (ZPE 115 [1997], 13–36). W. has gathered a mass of testimonia. As for MSS, he includes 840 (sic!) new Oxyrhynchus papyri; hence his numeration differs from van Thiel’s (his choice of codices and sigla are almost identical). The unity of the Roman and medieval vulgate becomes ever clearer. W.’s account of orthography may raise more hackles, but much of what he does is to report the progress of linguistics. One can disagree, not about the sequence of phonetic changes, but where Homer falls in relation to them; here a statistical approach helps, as does Milman Parry’s fundamental article ‘The Homeric Language as the Language of an Oral Poetry’ (HSCP 43 [1932], 1–50). But W. neglects Parry’s basic tenet that oral singers modernize their diction up to the point where metre prevents it, e.g. in diectasis. Hence the many inconsistencies of W.’s editing; hence his trust in ancient scholars who, unaware of oral poetry, contradict and in my view modify the paradosis. Thus W. prefers forms like τατι to the MSS’ τοτι, and prints βοξυα rather than the transmitted βψξυα, where the MSS support Parry’s principle. Puzzled (p. xxxiii) by the MSS’ preference for ξαιευ0ψτα over -ψτα, W.misses how the α remains when the root contains that sound (Parry, art. cit. 34). As W.knows, the alphabet of our Homer is neither the Ionic one in which the epics © Oxford University Press, 2000 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 10 Jul 2017 at 16:48:28, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1093/cr/50.1.12 2 were first written down, nor the Attic one without θ and ψ in which they were partly transmitted; in both E was used for ε and O for ο, written ει and οφ from c. 400. W. rightly abolishes the fourth-century use of εφ for εο with synizesis (but, alas, adds no synizesis-marks). Pace Aristarchus, he retains many augments; but Parry’s principle suggests that we should also restore them where possible—perhaps even against Hermann’s Bridge (as this remains unbroken only if we trust readings unique to Aristarchus, one wonders whether the latter built it). W. restores e.g. εµλε,once ΕΜΛΕ, but tolerates τυλει, ησευο, γρθταξ (1.570), λαυαν ωαυο (5.425) or δ# %δε (5.846). If there is no rule, then one should follow the MSS, but W. does not do that either. He puts ε%δθ for the past of ο&δα, because the MSS’ 'δθ is preceded by a hiatus, as if it had been unaugmented *ε(δθ (p. xxxiii); but such forms reflect diectasis with an early scriptio plena, e.g. υ0δ(ε) )*δθ. Again, W. reads ε+πµο-θξ (p. xxiv), but not `υσε-δθΚ or λϊµοΚ for λο1µοΚ (Myc. ko-wi-ro-); yet all entail contraction across a lost . Again, he prefers υερξθυοΚ (Aristarchus) to -ειυοΚ (the MSS), whereas -θ- is usual before e but -ει- before ο. For consistency, he would need to restore *2οΚ for unmetrical 3ψΚ, which he keeps (Parry’s principle requires εοΚ). He restores the old gen. *-οο where formulae once had it, putting e.g. 4Ιζ(υοο CC- rather than unmetrical 4Ιζ(υοφ; he does not consider whether Homer sang 4Ιζιυοφ,justas*7ο became 7οφ (2.325). Likewise one may reinterpret )πιδθν(οφ 8λσφεξυοΚ as )πιδθνιοφ λσφεξυοΚ,not-(οο λσ- (9.64), or ΜΦΛΟΟΣΗΟΧ (once *ΜφλεσηοΚ)as ΜφλοφσηοΚ. Since W.expels the article, e.g. at 3.18, he is reduced to daggering 1.11. 3νΚ cannot be Doric and should not have a rough breathing (p. xvii); there are no other Doric forms, and it had a psilosis, of Asiatic Aeolic origin, which persisted when the tradition passed to Ionic singers, just as they retained 4ννεΚ rather than replace it with *νεΚ. W. should have dared to print acc. υσ(Κ (p. xxxvi). Pace p. xxvii, Aristarchus was inconsistent in adding ξ-mobile to pluperfects, and one should not (cf. van Thiel, art. cit. 33). W.’s text, nicely presented save that the apparatus often spills over the page, rightly runs the individual books together. He defies all known MSS in bracketing some 68 verses (not to mention the whole Doloneia): 2.491–2, 525–6, 535, 547–51 (‘Attic’—but see M. Haslam in I. Morris and B. Powell [edd.], New Companion to Homer, 83), 674, 703, 742–4; 3.18–20, 144; 4.60–1, 159; 5.398–402, 487–9, 887; 6.334, 388; 7.135, 196–9, 315, 334–5 (‘Attic’), 371; 8.73–4, 185, 199, 421–4, 528, 535–8 (this is in ring-composition!), 557 (but 558 is ill attested and should go); 9.320, 416, 523; 10.147 (if absence from ‘rr’ damns a verse, the recentiores involved should be named and used elsewhere), 409–11; 11.540–2; 12.6, 14, 372, 426, 449. Inattentive readers will be misled by how W.’s brackets fail to distinguish such speculations (which are not necessarily wrong, merely hard to prove) from weakly attested lines, as Aristarchus deployed athetesis alongside omission. Yet W. wrongly retains c. 25 weakly attested verses: 1.358 (interpolated from 18.36), 375 (from 16); 2.62 (from 25), 2.839 (from 12.97); 3.272 (from 19.253), 319 (from 297, to supply a verb of speaking), 343 (from 4.80); 4.196–7 (from 206–7: Talthybius saw the wounding, and so does not need to be told as Machaon does), 450 (from 8.64), 461 (from 503); 5.378 (added to supply Aeneas’ name), 444 (from 16.711), 532 (from 15.564); 6.283 (to supply an object); 7.174 (from 119), 326 (from 367), 385 (from 327), 419–20 (a variant for 418, but botched, as W.’s conjecture to 420 acknowledges); 8.244 (from 15.376, cf. van Thiel), 380 (from 13.832); 9.95 (from 7.367), 695 (from 30); 11.801 (from 16.43). W.fails to signal that mechanical error probably caused omission at 1.486, 493; 2.141, Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 10 Jul 2017 at 16:48:28, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1093/cr/50.1.12 3 644, 812; 4.55, 149–50, 484; 5.584, 669–70, 673; 8.263–5, 410, 429–30, 547; 9.44, 120; 11.215. As for choice of readings, W. standardizes some variations between repeated passages, which, I believe, reflect oral composition: thus he makes 4.205 conform to 195; 5.538 to 17.518; 5.757 to 872; 5.797 to 2.389; 5.883 to 458; 6.96 to 277; 8.116 to 137; 8.339 to 22.230; 8.353 to 202; 9.137 to 279; 9.151 to 293; 10.336 to 347. He adopts many readings unique to ancient scholarly editions, not all of which can be trusted: 1.124 (cf. The Iliad: A Commentary IV, 275), 142 = 309, 241, 424, 522; 2.144 (@Κ fits in Philodemus), 164, 264, 436, 579; 3.206 (read τε14), 362; 4.17 (αAυψΚ), 426, 527; 5.403, 542, 549, 656; 6.112, 266; 7.272; 8.349; 9.88, 132 = 274 (bis), 317, 393, 397, 564 (read λµα14 7 υε), 657; 10.54 (from 11.805), 169, 291, 341; 11.146, 314, 424, 564; 12.67, 465 (cf. op. cit. 83). I query the modern conjectures adopted at 1.453, 549; 3.22, etc., read βιβξυα (cf. op. cit. 260 and van Thiel, art. cit. 32 n. 39); 4.132 (I do not understand W.’s emendation); 11.413. Often the MS variants chosen are palmary (e.g. 2.210), but not always: 1.574, read τζ4; 1.581, ζBσυαυοΚ; 2.36, νεµµεξ; 2.204, 218; 2.462, 2ηαµµνεξαι; 801; 3.188; 3.295, 2ζφττ0νεξοι; 3.368, 393, 434; 3.442, omit η4; 5.272; 5.387, read υσιτ-; 5.567 (bis), 603; 6.226, ηγετι; 6.285, ζσBξ4 2υBσποφ; 6.484; 7.259, 284; 8.163; 9.58, 314, 383; 10.493, 2νβα(ξοξυεΚ; 10.579, where P.