RichardHunter Eustathian Moments Reading Eustathius’ commentaries Eustathius’ commentaries (παρεκβολαί)onthe IIiad and the Odyssey were de- clared by Paul Maas to be ‘the most important grammatical achievementof the Middle Ages’,¹ but for most modern classicists, even many ‘Homerists’,Eu- stathius remains little more than aname. There are anumber of reasons for this, not least the fact thatthe Odyssey commentary must be consulted, whether online or in book-form,inanedition of 1825‒1826,and even in the caseofthe Iliad,whereweare lucky enough to have the edition of Marchinus van der Valk in four bulky volumes (1971‒1987), one of the most extraordinary achieve- ments of modernphilology, Eustathius does not make thingseasyfor modern readers.Avery common structure in the commentaries is for ‘general’ discus- sions of apassageorepisode to be followed by more detailed, often line-by- line, observations,but Eustathius alsoregularlygoes back on himself to take asecond (or third) look, refers to discussions elsewhereinthe voluminous com- mentaries, or picks up adiscussion after what looks to moderneyeslike along digression; readingEustathius on Homer requires practice and patience, and – even then – one can often be left unsure whether Eustathius’ last wordonasub- ject has actuallybeen found.Moreover,Eustathius fills out his discussions with agreat deal of illustrative matter drawnfrom classical and later literature,and much of this would not pass modern tests of ‘relevance’;pageafter pagecan seem filled with amiscellanywhich might appear to amodern classicist as Some of the material presentedhere formed part of an opening lecturedelivered at the confer- enceonEustathius in ThessalonikiinFebruary2015; Iamvery grateful to Rebecca Lämmle, Fi- lippomaria Pontani,and aseminar audienceatVenice International University formuch helpful criticism of earlier versions. Iamvery consciousthatIknow farless about Byzantine culture and history than anyone who undertakestowriteonthissubjectshould know,but Ihope thatmy essay,and this volume, willencourageother classicists to takethe plunge; thereisagreat deal to do. Vander Valk’sedition of the commentaryonthe Iliad (1971‒1987) is cited throughout by author name and volume number; references to the commentaries use the traditional continu- ous numeration found in the editions of Stallbaum (Odyssey)and van der Valk (Iliad). Maas 1973,512.The best brief modern introduction to the commentaries is perhapsPontani 2005,170‒178, and cf. also Pontani 2015,385‒393. DOI 10.1515/9783110524901-002 Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library Authenticated Download Date | 11/8/18 5:35 PM 10 Richard Hunter more ‘stream of consciousness’ than commentary directed to the illumination of Homer. Beyond the sheer difficulty,adeeper reason for the relative neglect of Eusta- thius arisesperhaps from the nature of much of what he writes. Eustathius clear- ly had access to collections of scholia on Homer very much like thoseweour- selvespossess,² and much of the commentary repeats (often verbatim) and elaborates ancient and Byzantine views which are available to us elsewhere; this has led to the charge,the danger of which Eustathius himself acknowledged (in Il. 3.3‒7), that he is simplyanunoriginal compiler,who is not worth the time even of classicists interested in the ancient interpretation of Homer,for anything which is valuable in the Commentaries can be sought in, and is owedto, his sources.³ It is easy enough to point out thatsuch aperspective is remarkably pa- rochial, for this modernsearch for ‘das Eustathische in Eustathius’,for his ‘orig- inal’ contribution to the commentaries,istotreat him merelyasasourcefor our own interest in ancient and Byzantine Homeric criticism, and entirelytoneglect the context and purpose of the παρεκβολαί.Aswell as Paul Maas, however,Eu- stathius can in fact muster some pretty heavyweight voices in his defence,⁴ none more heavy perhaps thanWilamowitz,who stressed what Eustathius himself had contributed from his own learning and declared that some Byzantinist should write aproper monograph about him,⁵ awish which (I believe) remains to this dayunfulfilled. Be thatasit may, what should matter to us is the studyof the παρεκβολαί as an extraordinary moment of Homeric reception, and one pois- ed, as we shall see, between ancient exegesis and amuch more modernway of readingHomer. Eustathius’ commentaries werebased upon the teachinginrhetoric and classicalliterature that he gave in Constantinople over several decades before he moved to become Metropolitan of Thessaloniki (c. 1178); the commentaries Cf. Vander Valk Ilix‒lxiv; Erbse 1950,1‒22;Pagani, this volume. NotablydamningisWilson 1983, 198, whoalso (p.204) cites Voltaire’s ‘Le secret d’ennuyerest de tout dire’;the same essentiallydamningview of Eustathius’ Homer-commentaries appears at Reynolds-Wilson 1974,62(=2013:70‒71,where, however,anacknowledgement of Eustathius’ ‘high level of scholarlyability’ has been added). This essaywill onlybeconcerned with identi- fyingEustathius’‘sources’ when that can help in understanding Eustathius’ own methods. On the issue see also Pontani, this volume. Thereisahelpful bibliographical guide in Kambylis 1991,1n.1. The attitude that classicists too often take to Byzantine culture is rightlycastigated by,e.g., Alpers 1988, 348‒349, and some re- views of Wilson 1983tookasimilarlycorrective line, cf., e.g., Speck 1986;Dyck1986a. There is a niceappreciation of the commentaries in Browning 1992. Wilamowitz 1920,22, cf. Erbse 1950,7;Browning1995, 85‒86.Itisremarkable that exactlythe same wish is expressed by Browning 1995, 90,but without referencetoWilamowitz. Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library Authenticated Download Date | 11/8/18 5:35 PM Eustathian Moments 11 show signs of gestation and revision over asignificant period, and it is alsoclear that he continued to add material after moving east,perhaps under the influence of access to different books.⁶ We must,moreover,assume more thanone audi- ence for the commentaries. On the one hand, there willbeEustathius’ students, and it is to the young thatthe commentaries are explicitlyaddressed: for them, broadlyspeaking,what matters is what their teacher has to sayand how they can learn from him, not wherehis learning and material come from. There will, how- ever,also have been Eustathius’ fellow teachers and contemporary (and rival) πεπαιδευμένοι;the important element of learned displayand self-fashioning on show in the commentaries maybethoughtprimarilyaimedatthem, and it is perhaps not idle to recall that aparticularstyle of modern commentary on classicaltexts also places ahighvalue on the displayofthe commentator’s learning.Moreover,claims that Eustathius seeks to conceal his sources and his debt to earlier writers and compilers can be overstated; the seriousness of the charge has certainlybeen exaggerated. Whether he cites his sources or not,the material in the commentaries is aimedatthe benefit and education of his audience,and accurate ‘footnoting’,aswemight call it,unsurprisingly takes second place to that. So too, Eustathius oftencites aclassical author as though thatauthor is, at that moment,inhis handsorthe front of his mind, whereas in fact we can es- tablish that the citation is mediated through an anthologising source; this may be in part an epideixis of learning,the attempt to appear more learned than was in reality the case,⁷ but it is hardlyjust emptyshow.When such citational practices are seen within adidactic context,let alone within the contemporary circumstances governing the consultation and quotation of earlier literature, the seriousness of the charge might be thoughttobegreatlydiminished.Itisob- viouslymore impressive and memorable for studentsifapoint is illustrated, for example, from Aristotle thanfrom ‘Aristotle reported by Strabo’ or from Thucy- dides rather than from ‘Thucydidesascited by the lexicon of Stephanus’.The fact that Eustathius does not behave entirelyasamodern classical commentator might does not seem avery gravecharge;what,after all, would be gainedfrom the more ‘accurate’ mode of quotation?The task of establishing Eustathius’ exact sources is, of course, very important for the studyofByzantine reading, scholarship and the availability of books, and Eustathius’ methods can certainly lead to confusion and error,but his is aview of Greek tradition which is synoptic, The most important case here is that of the citationsfromAthenaeus,cf. van der Valk Ixvi‒ii; on the period of composition of the commentaries cf. also van der Valk Icxxxvii‒ix. Forexam- ples of added material cf. below pp. 30,37n.67, 41,44, 45,62, 68. So, e.g., Vander Valk Ixlviii. Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library Authenticated Download Date | 11/8/18 5:35 PM 12 Richard Hunter cumulative and all-embracing,and that in itself is avery important lesson about Byzantine learning and teaching. If agreat deal, perhaps the majority, of Eustathius’ work does indeed have roots in earlier critical traditions, often preserved for us by the Homeric scholia, much also extends or elaborates that inheritedmaterial in such away that the attempt clearlytodelineate ‘das Eustathische’ can become both fraught with dif- ficulty and methodologicallyproblematic. Letmeoffer just one example. Among the most famous similes of the Iliad is 22.199‒201inwhich Achilles’ pursuit of Hector is compared to asimilar pursuit in adream: ὡςδ’ἐνὀνείρωι οὐ δύναται φεύγοντα διώκειν· οὔτ’ ἄρ’ ὃ τὸνδύναται ὑποφεύγειν οὔθ’ ὃ διώκειν· ὣς ὃ τὸνοὐδύνατο μάρψαι ποσίν, οὐδ’