Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ANE-2] On the Historicity of Troy

Expand Messages
  • Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
    Graham, you do not understand what the Athenian use of these two Iliadic lines from the Catalogue of the Ships (sorry for the wrong reference ; my only excuse
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 24 3:20 PM
    • 0 Attachment

      you do not understand what the Athenian use of these two Iliadic
      lines from the Catalogue of the Ships (sorry for the wrong reference ;
      my only excuse was the very late hour in Frence) demonstrates as to the
      textual canonization of the poem. Aristotle, Rhetoric, I, 1375 b 28-30
      (p. 69 Kassel [1976]) tells us that "by ancient witnesses I mean the
      poets and all famous figures whose decisions [KRISEIS] are notorious,
      like the Athenians who invoked Homer as witness with respect to Salamis"
      in 560 BC, which is confirmed by Plutarch (Life of Solon, 10) and
      Diogenes Laertius (I, 48), both of whom declare that the Attic
      leader-poet Solon cited Iliad 2. 557 with verse 558 of his own invention
      to bolster the claims of Athens on the great island against the rival
      ones of the Megarians. Though that story has been shown to lack
      credibility, the spuriousness of 558 was unquestioned in later times and
      is nearly universally admitted by modern scholars (contra, R. Hope
      Simpson and J. F. Lazenby, The Catalogue of Ships in Homer's Iliad
      [Oxford, 1970], pp. 59-61, see E. Visser, Homers Katalog der Schiffe
      [Stuttgart & Leipzig, 1997], pp. 449-452, who concludes that "fasst man
      alle Gesichtpunkte zusammen, so spricht doch mehr dafür, in B 558 einen
      Vers zu sehen, der nicht vom Iliasdichter stammt" ; the same Visser
      wrote the commentary on the Catalogue in Latacz's Basler
      Gesamtkommentar, vol. II [Munich & Leipzig, 2003], here at pp. 179-180,
      which replaces the badly defective G. S. Kirk, The Iliad. A Commentary,
      I [Cambridge, 1985], pp. 208-209). The line was omitted by Aristarchus
      in his epoch-making editions, in all probability because he only found
      it in a few of his chosen manuscripts (a point demonstrated beyond
      reasonable doubt by M. J. Apthorp, The Manuscript Evidence for
      Interpolation in Homer [Heidelberg, 1980], pp. 165-177 [text], 188-194
      [notes]), and it re-entered the textual tradition later on an unsecure
      footing (as it is omitted by six papyri and roughly one half of the
      best-known mediaeval manuscripts ; an instructive tale is told by the
      comparison of the apparatuses of G. M. Bolling's Ilias Atheniensium
      [Lancaster, 1950] , p. 39, and West's Teubner eddition, I [1998], p.
      71). The problem is highly complex and cannot be sketched in a few
      sentences - see Apthorp for a complete, if heavy-going, unravelling of
      it -, but, unless the interpolation was well-known by Solon's time, viz.
      textually fixed orally and in some exemplars of the poem, it is
      inconveivable that the Athenians could ever have invoked it and the
      judges of the quarrel with the Megarians accepted it. Homeric scholars
      were thus lead to posit an updating of the geographic-mythical map of
      heroic Greece as preserved by the Catalogue and some interpolations in
      Hesiod with a view to the interests of Athens and other regional powers
      of the middle of the 6th century (M. Finkelberg, 'Ajax's Entry in the
      Hesiodic Catalogue of Women', Classical Quarterly 38, 1988, pp. 31-41 at
      35-38) - if this is not an airtight sign of canonized textualization,
      then what can it be ?

      I can only hope that, tonight, I suceeded in making my point
      J.-F. Nardelli
      Université de Provence
    • Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
      As my last words on the topic, unless the debate bounces back with new arguments going beyond mere generalities, I would like to commend the view that the text
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 25 4:42 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        As my last words on the topic, unless the debate bounces back with new
        arguments going beyond mere generalities, I would like to commend the
        view that the text of the Homeric epics was submitted to a gradual
        process of textualization from the archaic period until the the middle
        of the sixth century, not my own creed, for I am rather convinced that
        we have in all essentials a ca. 750 BC Iliad, not the poem of some
        anonymous sixth century oral singers / arrangers (reasons in S. T.
        Teodorsson, 'Eastern Literacy, Greek Alphabet, and Homer', Mnemosyne
        LIX, 2006, pp. 161-187, and my Motif de la paire d'amis héroïque à
        prolongements homophiles. Perspectives odysséennes et proches-orientales
        [Amsterdam, 2004], pp. 170-180), yet a model that I find impossible to
        confine to silence (an interesting account of that progressive
        textualization can be found in L. E. Rossi, 'Dividing Homer. When and
        How Were the Iliad and the Odyssey Divided into Songs ? (Continued)',
        Symbolae Osloenses 76, 2001, pp. 103-112). Of course, the implications
        of the oral-traditional mechanisms on the textual criticism of the poem
        are far from assessed, witness, e.g., N. Kelly, A Referential Commentary
        and Lexicon to Homer, Iliad VIII (Oxford, 2007), pp. 378-384, who "is
        concerned to find out whether the feature under discussion is the kind
        of thing a traditionally trained poet would have produced" (p. 385),
        beyond the conspicuous fact that "von Anfang an hatten die Rhapsoden
        zweifellos dazu tendiert, den Text euphonischer und geschmeidiger zu
        machen, indem sie logisch überflüssige Partikeln zufügten, um Hiat oder
        andere metrische Anomalien auszuschalten (die häufig als Ergebnis des
        Digamma-Verlusts entstanden waren), und indem sie ungewöhnliche
        archaische Formen durch modernere ersetzten. Das war ohne Zweifel ein
        Grundzug der mündlichen Tradition schon lange bevor die Ilias geschaffen
        wurde" (West, in the Basler Gesamtkommentar, Prolegomena [Munich &
        Leipzig, 2003 ; 3rd ed., Berlin & New York, 2009], p. 31). The genious
        of the poet should not be downgraded or lost sight of in the
        appreciation of this process, if only because Homer may very well have
        brought out crucial modifications to the meter and dialect he inherited
        (N. Berg and D. Haug, 'Dividing Homer (continued). Innovation vs.
        Tradition in Homer - An Overlooked Piece of Evidence', Symbolae
        Osloenses 75, 2000, pp. 5-23, cf. p. 21 : "it is hard to see how a
        metrical change like the introduction of the equivalence between one
        long and two short syllables in thesi can have evolved gradually. For
        reasons shown above, these changes cannot have happened during the
        Aeolic phase and we see no way that they can be connected with an Ionian
        tradition which is but poorly supported by facts and contradicted by
        analyses of the epic diction like that of Hoekstra. That is why we would
        like to ascribe them to the monumental composer himself, or in Latacz’s
        words 1989, 26) : the “Begründer der abendländischen Textualität”) ; now
        the very existence of an Aeolic slice of the Greek dialectal continuum
        has been demolished by H. N. Parker, 'The Linguistic Case for the
        Aiolian Migration Reconsidered', Hesperia 77, 2008, pp. 431-464 at
        443-459, cf. 460 "the idea of an Aiolic dialect group itself falls
        apart. Boiotian is an archaic dialect, most closely related to West
        Greek, which underwent the First Compensatory Lengthening but retained
        *r° (with later independent change of *r° > ρο) and the labiovelars
        (with the default change to labials), and which underwent various later
        minor changes of its own. Lesbian and Thessalian are both archaic
        branches of Greek that did not undergo the First Compensatory
        Lengthening. They share no demonstrable common innovations, and nothing
        argues for a relationship between them. They are best viewed as two
        relic areas of a relatively unaltered early Greek" (I shall only declare
        here that I, like most Homerists with enough philological and linguistic
        expertise, remain unconvinced ; it has been trendy, for the past five
        decades, to minimize, or even rule out, the impact of Aeolic on both
        Homer and the dialectal map of Greece, with disastrous consequences ;
        cf. rather Finkelberg, 'The Dialect Continuum of Ancient Greek', Harvard
        Studies in Classical Philology 96, 1994,, pp. 1-36). Nor should the
        relevant technicalities in Homeric textual poetics and narratology, of
        which list members hardly suspect the level of intricacy and
        sophistication - sometimes oppressive, if not counterproductive : see
        further my Aristarchus Antibarbarus, pp. LXI-LXII note ************ - be
        ignored by all those who invoke Homer or the Iliad around Troy, lest
        what they say be heavily naive ; see C. Tsagalis, 'Towards an Oral,
        Intertextual Neoanalysis', Trends in Classics 3, 2011, pp. 209-244 at
        211-228, paper of which I must remark : es ist auf einem
        Spekulationsgebäude erbaut, ein neues schönes Beispiel dafür, wie
        produktiv unsere Irrtümer und fixen Ideen sein können.

        J.-F. Nardelli
        Université de Provence
        > _,_._,___

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.