Homer’s Text and Language

  Use the following persistent identifier: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_Nagy.Homers_Text_and_Language.2004.

4. Editing the Homeric Text: Different Methods, Ancient and Modern*

4§3 There is a serious problem with this assumption. West is claiming that he can isolate one distinct and integral “version” of the Iliad, sorting it out from a mass of multiple versions contained in the Homeric textual tradition. He claims further that this “version” was produced by a single poet. Even further, he claims that he can distinguish between earlier and later “versions” stemming from this same poet.

4§10 From a diachronic and even historical point of view, it is indeed possible to think of a single given variant as the definitive variant at a single given time and a single given place. But the privileging of any given variant by any given audience is itself a matter of variation, and a diachronic perspective makes it clear that different variants were perceived as the “right” version at different points in the history of the Homeric tradition.

4§14 Sometimes a model, even if it happens to be flawed, turns out to be a useful approximation of reality. Let us assume, for the moment, that West’s model is the closest thing to reality. Even if that were so, it is unjustifiable for him to claim from the very start that his explanation is the absolute truth. Such a claim is evident from this statement of his:

A casual reader may be led to think that West’s “original text” is some kind of established reality. It is not. Nor can it be asserted as a fact that the business of rhapsodes was to perform “excerpts” from “specific poems.” Such an assertion assumes not only an “original text” but also a textual procedure of “excerpting” parts from a totality. While asserting this assumption, West ignores alternative arguments, including my argument for rhapsodic “relay mnemonics,” a performative procedure of sequencing a totality from start to finish. [

4§15 In West’s “Notes on Individual Passages,” he consistently makes a distinction between the “original” poet and the “interpolating” rhapsodes. [23] Here are examples from the first half of the Iliad, and in each case I will highlight the words “original,” “interpolate,” and “rhapsode.” At II 258, “rhapsodes had difficulty in remembering this unusual phrase (νύ περ [at] [Odyssey ii] 320 v.l.; not elsewhere, at least in Homer), and improvised substitutes.” [24] The verses at Iliad II 491–492 “must have been added by a rhapsode who misinterpreted πληθύν in 488, not realizing that the mass of the army was being distinguished from the leaders.” [25] On Iliad II 535: “perhaps it was added by a rhapsode who thought … East Locrians should be unequivocally distinguished from the Ozolian Locrians.” [26] On Iliad II 547–551: “I have therefore bracketed these five lines, assuming them to have replaced the original list of towns.” [27] On Iliad III 41: “but it [= an idiomatic usage containing an implicit comparative] may have prompted a later rhapsode to interpolate a line {80|81} containing the explicit comparative.” [28] On Iliad III 144: this verse “was added by someone who knew the Aithra story.” [29] On Iliad IV 177: “This verse may be a rhapsode’s addition. It adds a gratuitous crudity to a sentence which is perfect without it.” [30] On Iliad V 313: “this inorganic line … may be a rhapsode’s addition.” [31] On Iliad V 398–402: “Hades’ withdrawal to Olympus … cannot have been an essential part of the original myth.” [32] On Iliad V 778: τώ not αἵ “is the original, guaranteed by the principle ‘utrum in alterum abiturum erat?’” [33] On Iliad V 820–821: “Mechanical repetition is not foreign to Homeric technique, but it may also result from a rhapsode’s or copyist’s zeal.” [34] On Iliad VI 354, in conjunction with Iliad III 100 and XXIV 28, with reference to the variants ἀρχῆς and ἄτης in all three passages: “The explanation is probably that each noun is original in one or two of the three passages and was then introduced in the remainder by contamination in some sources.” [35] On Iliad VI 388: “the interpolator presumably felt that a nearer main verb [= nearer than the one at [Iliad VI] 386] should be provided.” [36] On Iliad VII 135 as an “interpolation”: “It might have been due to a rhapsode who had some particular interest in Pheia, or in pleasing an audience in Pheia (cf. [Odyssey xv] 297?).” [37] On Iliad VIII 359: “suspicion of a rhapsodic interpolation may well be founded. Not only is the line otiose as a whole, but ἐν πατρίδι γαίῃ is especially feeble and irrelevant.” [38] On Iliad IX 320: “The rhapsode responsible failed to follow the tenor of the argument.” [39] On Iliad IX 523: this verse “better fits the logic” of the context of Odyssey xxii 59 and is “surely a rhapsode’s addition.” [40] On Iliad XI 662: “It is an ill-considered interpolation from [Iliad XVI] 27” (similarly on [Iliad XI] 830). [41] On Iliad XII 175–180: “But it is hard to see why a rhapsode should have interpolated lines that seem so at variance with the situation. I suspect that we have here a fragment of composition originally {81|82} meant for another setting.” [42] Iliad XII 372 “seems to be an Attic interpolation” and Iliad XII 426 is “surely a gloss by a rhapsode,” [43] while Iliad XII 449 “was interpolated by a rhapsode who missed the point.” [44]

4§17 I have gone to all the trouble of collecting these examples because they show the pervasiveness of West’s attitude. They give a valuable insight into his overall approach in establishing the text of the Iliad. There is no reason, of course, to question West’s attempts to pass editorial judgment on variations in the Homeric textual tradition. But there is indeed reason to question his setting up an arbitrary dichotomy between “original” poet and rhapsodes, “original” text and interpolation. Such a dichotomy flattens the history of Homeric reception. I see here a “unitext” explanatory model of Homeric poetry, based on the pseudo-synchronic perspective of imagining an “original” poet. Such a model requires, ideally, the editorial elimination of all variants from a once-uniform text. But the textual variations noted by West—and he could have adduced hundreds and even thousands of further examples from the Iliad—have a history of their own, which cannot be extricated from the compositional variations inherent in Homeric poetry itself. This history—which is the history of Homeric reception—can be studied systematically by applying what I have described as a multitext model of Homeric poetry. Such a model allows an editorial evaluation of variants from a diachronic perspective encompassing the entire history of Homeric performance traditions.

4§19 I offer some further examples. On Iliad XV 263–268, “repeated from” Iliad VI 506–511, West remarks: “There is no reason why the poet should not have repeated at least a part of the simile in Iliad VI. But the truism that ‘repetition inheres in the oral style’ (Janko ad loc.) should not be used as a defence of the whole passage, since it is equally true that repetition from other contexts is typical of interpolations.” [51] At least we see here a concession about the realities of “oral style.” Then there is Iliad XIX 365–368, which is parallel to verse 164 of the Hesiodic Shield of Herakles; this parallelism, says West, “puts the author in bad company, and it may be suspected that he was a rhapsode of the same period (early sixth century) who saw fit to add what he thought was a dramatic touch to the account of Achilles’ arming.” [52] A more positive way of looking at this parallelism is to investigate further the implications of the relative dating to the sixth century. On Iliad XX 213–241: “The genealogy … looks like an addition to the original speech, hardly anticipated in 203–209. But it may be an addition by the first poet, after he received the impulse to honour the [Aineiadai] as the latter-day royalty of Troy.” [53] West’s category of “first poet” is a roundabout way of admitting that the wording of the “interpolation” rivals in importance the wording of the “original.” On Iliad XX 485–499: “Andromache’s lament is one of the emotional high points of the Iliad. We are in the presence of great poetry here, but also of a passage irreconcilable with the view that our text is the product of a straightforward {83|84} process of dictation by an oral poet who never altered or added to his primary effusions.” [54] The “dictating oral poet” seems to me a “straw man”; what is of primary importance, rather, is West’s concession about the “great poetry.” On Iliad XXIV 662–663: these verses are “genuine lines, but not part of the passage as originally composed. They were inserted later by the poet, after he had related the domestic laments for Hector (723–776) and found himself with nine days still to fill.” [55] Once again, West’s speculation about textual tampering can be reinterpreted in terms of distinct phases in the history of the Iliad as a composition subject to ongoing recomposition-in-performance.

4§23 Montanari points out that Aristarchus’ first publication of commentaries or hupomnēmata to the text of Homer was keyed to the text established by his predecessor, Aristophanes, as we see from the wording in scholia A at Iliad II 133a, where Didymus says: ἐν τοῖς κατ’ Ἀριστοφάνην ὑπομνήμασιν Ἀριστάρχου ‘in the commentaries [hupomnēmata] of Aristarchus according to the text of Aristophanes’. After that, there was an ekdosis—that is, a ‘publication’—of Aristarchus’ own diorthōsis ‘corrective editing’ of Homer. After that, according to Montanari, there followed a new set of hupomnēmata that were keyed to the editorial work of Aristarchus himself. Relevant are the titles of two monographs produced by Aristarchus’ direct successor, Ammonius: (1) περὶ τοῦ μὴ γεγονέναι πλείονας ἐκδόσεις τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως ‘About the fact that there did not exist more ekdoseis of the Aristarchean diorthōsis’ (via Didymus in scholia A at Iliad X 397–399a) and (2) περὶ τῆς ἐπεκδοθείσης διορθώσεως ‘about the re-edited diorthōsis’ (via Didymus in scholia A at Iliad XIX 365–368a). Montanari argues persuasively that the two titles are not mutually contradictory. The ekdosis or ‘edition’ of Aristarchus can be viewed as an ongoing process of diorthōsis, which, to repeat, I have been translating as ‘corrective editing’. Such is the idea in the first of the two titles of monographs attributed to Ammonius, where this Aristarchean scholar refers to a single ekdosis (ἔκδοσις) or ‘edition’ of Homer as opposed to more than one edition; the same idea accounts for {85|86} Ammonius’ reference in the second title to a ‘re-edition’, as expressed by the wording ἐπεκδοθείσης. It seems that Ammonius preferred to think of two distinct phases in the history of Aristarchus’ editing of Homer, while others thought—wrongly, according to Ammonius—that there were two distinct editions. [62]

4§29 Even in his 2001 book, however, West was still saying: “Not once does he [Aristarchus] appeal to the authority of manuscripts.” [73] West justifies this statement by adding in his next sentence: “It is Didymus, not Aristarchus, who makes all the references.” At this point, West lists various terms used in the Homeric scholia to designate various manuscript traditions: αἱ πλείους ‘the majority [of the ekdoseis]’, αἱ πᾶσαι ‘all’, αἱ χαριέστεραι (khariesterai) ‘the more elegant ones’ or αἱ ἀστειότεραι (asteioterai) ‘the more cultivated ones’. He lists also the antithetical terms ἡ κοινή (koinē) or αἱ κοιναί (koinai) ‘the common one(s)’, κοινότεραι (koinoterai) ‘the more common ones’, δημώδεις (dēmōdeis) ‘the popular ones’, εἰκαιότεραι (eikaioterai) ‘the simpler ones’, φαυλότεραι (phauloterai) ‘the inferior ones’. He thinks that all these terms reflect the usage of Didymus, not of Aristarchus. In addition, he thinks that it was Didymus, not Aristarchus, who “cites the texts” of such early sources as Antimachus of Colophon (late fifth century) and Rhianus of Crete (second half of the third century)—though West immediately appends this qualification: “… even though his [Didymus’] knowledge of some of these sources was indirect.” [74] In fact, there is a further qualification implicit in the very fact that West says “cites the texts” here instead of “collates the texts.” West is forced to say it this way because, as it turns out, he has no proof that Didymus had direct access to the Homer text of either Antimachus or Rhianus. [75] As we will see later, the question of Didymus’ access, especially to the text of Antimachus, is crucial for determining the validity of West’s theories about the sources used by Didymus. In what follows, I maintain that these theories are not supported by the evidence of the Homeric scholia.

4§30 No doubt, Didymus was a direct source for the information transmitted by the A scholia about variant readings in the Homeric textual tradition. Nor is there any doubt that Didymus spoke with authority about these variant {88|89} readings. This authority, however, came not from Didymus’ searching for variant readings in texts available to him but from Aristarchus himself. Didymus, as a successor of Aristarchus, spoke with the authority of Aristarchus because he situated himself as a continuator of that authority. When Aristarchus said εὕρομεν ‘it is our finding’, the authority of his finding could be passed on to the latest of Aristarcheans. In this case, that man was Didymus, who flourished over a century after Aristarchus. When Didymus said εὕρομεν ‘it is our finding’ in his own turn, he too was speaking with the authority of Aristarchus, just as previous Aristarcheans had spoken before him. Such is the dominant mentality of the reportage we read in the scholia of Homer, especially in the Venetus A. My formulation in this paragraph will now be supported by a selection of examples, with commentary.

4§31 My premier example is a quotation taken directly from Aristarchus himself, as preserved in scholia A at Iliad I 423–424. In my 2000a review of West’s 1998 edition of Iliad I–XII, I had cited this quotation, not mentioned in West’s introduction to his edition, as evidence against his theories about Didymus. [76] The quotation, designated as the lexis ‘wording’ of Aristarchus, is introduced this way: λέξις Ἀριστάρχου ἐκ τοῦ Α τῆς Ἰλιάδος ὑπομνήματος ‘here is the lexis of Aristarchus, from his hupomnēma on volume I of the Iliad’. The expression λέξις Ἀριστάρχου ‘the lexis of Aristarchus’, as I noted earlier, seems to convey the idea that the hupomnēmata of Aristarchus were not only commentaries written down in papyrus scrolls but also, at least notionally, commentaries delivered as lectures by Aristarchus, as if these commentaries were meant to be transcribed by his students. [77] As the quotation proceeds, it is difficult to determine exactly where the words of Aristarchus himself leave off, to be picked up by the words of Didymus. [78] I give the full sequence here, as printed by Erbse: [79]

Scholia A at Iliad I 423–424. Ζεὺς … μετ’ ἀμύμονας Αἰθιοπῆας | χθιζὸς ἔβη κατὰ δαῖτα, θεοὶ δ’ ἅμα πάντες ἕπονται· λέξις Ἀριστάρχου ἐκ τοῦ Α τῆς Ἰλιάδος ὑπομνήματος· “τὸ μὲν μετ’ ἀμύμονας (423) ἐπ’ ἀμύμονας, ὅ ἐστι πρὸς ἀμώμους, ἀγαθούς, τὸ δὲ κατὰ δαῖτα (424) ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ δαῖτα· οὕτως γὰρ νῦν Ὅμηρος τέθεικεν. ἔνιοι δὲ ποιοῦσι ‘μετὰ δαῖτα’, ὅπως ᾖ αὐτοῖς αὐτόθεν τὸ μετά ἐπί. χρῶνται δὲ καὶ πλείονες ἄλλοι τῶν ποιητῶν τῇ κατά ἀντὶ τῆς ἐπί. Σοφοκλῆς (F 812 N = 898 P = R)· ‘ἐγὼ κατ’ αὐτόν, ὡς ὁρᾷς, ἐξέρχομαι’. οὕτως δὲ εὕρομεν καὶ ἐν τῇ Μασσαλιωτικῇ καὶ Σινωπικῇ καὶ {89|90} Κυπρίᾳ καὶ Ἀντιμαχείῳ (Φ 132) καὶ Ἀριστοφανείῳ (F 43).” [Erbse places the end of the quotation here.] Καλλίστρατος δὲ ἐν τῷ Πρὸς τὰς ἀθετήσεις (p. 320.36) ὁμοίως, καὶ ὁ Σιδώνιος καὶ ὁ Ἰξίων ἐν τῷ ἕκτῳ Πρὸς τὰς ἐξηγήσεις (F 27).

As I stressed in my 2000a review, the person who is being quoted here, after he expresses his preference for the variant reading κατὰ δαῖτα instead of μετὰ δαῖτα, says the following: οὕτως δὲ εὕρομεν καὶ ἐν τῇ Μασσαλιωτικῇ καὶ Σινωπικῇ καὶ Κυπρίᾳ καὶ Ἀντιμαχείῳ καὶ Ἀριστοφανείῳ ‘this is the way we found it in the Massaliōtikē and the Sinōpikē and the Kupria and the Antimakheios and the Aristophaneios’. [
81] I argued that this wording provides evidence against West’s claim that Aristarchus did not collate manuscripts. Agreeing with Ludwich, [82] I argued further that the subject of οὕτως … εὕρομεν ‘this is the way we found it’ is Aristarchus, not Didymus: “the first person of εὕρομεν comes from the direct quotation of words ‘spoken’ (notionally and I would say perhaps even literally) by the master teacher. In other words, the rhetoric of the quotation is set in the mode of a master’s ipse dixit.” [83]

4§32 For confirmation of this way of interpreting οὕτως … εὕρομεν ‘this is the way we found it [attested]’ in scholia A at Iliad I 423–424, I note the wording οὕτως εὑρών ‘having found it [attested] this way’, applied to Aristarchus {90|91} himself by Didymus, in the scholia A at Iliad IX 222. Didymus says: ἄμεινον οὖν εἶχεν ἄν, φησὶν ὁ Ἀρίσταρχος, [εἰ] ἐγέγραπτο “ἂψ ἐπάσαντο” ἢ “αἶψ’ ἐπάσαντο,” … ἀλλ’ ὅμως ὑπὸ περιττῆς εὐλαβείας οὐδὲν μετέθηκεν, ἐν πολλαῖς οὕτως εὑρὼν φερομένην τὴν γραφήν ‘it would have been better, says Aristarchus, if it had been written “ἂψ ἐπάσαντο” or “αἶψ’ ἐπάσαντο”; nevertheless, because of his extreme caution, he changed nothing, having found in many of the texts this attested way of writing it [= “ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο” in place of “ἂψ ἐπάσαντο”]’. I highlighted the pertinent wording, as underlined here, in my 2000a review of West’s 1998 edition of Iliad I–XII. [84] As I noted, the wording is quoted in the apparatus criticus of Ludwich but not in that of West. More important for now, the usage of οὕτως εὑρών ‘having found it this way’ shows once again that the ‘we’ of Didymus represents the Aristarchean tradition writ large, of which Didymus considers himself the extension and even culmination—whether or not we agree with this self-assessment. The magisterial οὕτως … εὕρομεν ‘this is the way we found it’, as ‘spoken’ by Aristarchus, is perpetuated by Didymus. [85]

4§35 In the fourth instance, the wording suggests that Didymus uses εὕρομεν {91|92} ‘we found’ in the sense that he is participating in the authoritative report of Aristarchus concerning what variants are attested where:

Scholia A at Iliad XV 469–470a. νευρὴν δ’ ἐξέρρηξε νεόστροφον, ἣν ἐνέδησα | πρώϊον: ἀμφότερα γράφεσθαί φησιν ὁ Ἀρίσταρχος, “πρῴην” καὶ πρώϊον (470), <οὐ> ταὐτὸν δὲ ἐξ ἑκατέρου σημαίνεσθαι. εὕρομεν δὲ καὶ “ἐΰστροφον” (469) γεγραμμένον, καὶ ἔχει τινὰ ἐπί<σ>τασιν.

Scholia A at Iliad XV 469–470a. νευρὴν δ’ ἐξέρρηξε νεόστροφον, ἣν ἐνέδησα | πρώϊον: (‘He [= the god] snapped my newly-twisted bowstring, which I strung to my bow this morning’.) Aristarchus says that both ways of writing it are attested, “πρῴην” [= ‘just now’] and πρώϊον [= ‘this morning’] (470), and that the same meaning can<not> be extracted from each of these two forms. And we found it [= νεόστροφον ‘newly-twisted’] written also as “ἐΰστροφον” [‘well-twisted’] (469), which has some merit.

Aristarchus here is reported by Didymus to be saying that both variants at verse 470, πρῴην ‘just now’ and πρώϊον ‘this morning’, are attested or ‘written’ in the manuscript evidence, γράφεσθαι, and then it is further reported by Didymus that the variant ἐΰστροφον ‘well-twisted’ is also found to be ‘written’, γεγραμμένον, alongside the variant νεόστροφον ‘newly-twisted’ at the previous verse, 469. The train of thought conveys a unified discovery procedure, not a separation of Didymus’ authority from that of Aristarchus. The speaker who reports the procedure has just quoted a sequence of Homeric phraseology; this quotation is the lēmma, the basis for the speaker’s discussion. The speaker then proceeds to discuss the manuscript variants that he finds within the whole lēmma. In this case, the lēmma spills over from one Homeric verse to the next: νευρὴν δ’ ἐξέρρηξε νεόστροφον, ἣν ἐνέδησα | πρώϊον ‘he [= the god] snapped my newly-twisted bowstring, which I strung to my bow this morning’. The speaker begins the discussion by focusing on the last word of the lēmma, taking note of an attested variant—πρῴην ‘just now’ instead of πρώϊον ‘this morning’—and then adds, working backwards, that there is another case of variation earlier on in the lēmma, since ‘we find’ an attested variant ἐΰστροφον ‘well-twisted’ instead of νεόστροφον ‘newly-twisted’, just as πρῴην ‘just now’ was found instead of πρώϊον ‘this morning’.

4§36 In the case of finding the different readings πρῴην and πρώϊον in different manuscripts, the authority is explicitly Aristarchus. In the case of the {92|93} different readings ἐΰστροφον and νεόστροφον, the authority for finding the variant ἐΰστροφον is the ambiguous ‘we’ of the statement εὕρομεν ‘we found’. Despite its ambiguity, this statement about the variants ἐΰστροφον and νεόστροφον is semantically and even syntactically integrated with the earlier statement about the variants πρῴην and πρώϊον. The authority that supports the comparison of different readings in different manuscript traditions is presented as the same. That authority is Aristarchus.

4§38 Now we come to the fifth of the five instances adduced by West to support his claim that Didymus is the subject of the verb εὕρομεν ‘we found’ in the scholia A at Iliad I 423–424. The wording is as follows:

Scholia A at Iliad XVI 636c. ῥινοῦ τε βοῶν τ’ εὐποιητάων: “ἄμεινον εἶχε,” φησὶν ὁ Ἀρίσταρχος, “εἰ ἐγέγραπτο ῾βοῶν εὐποιητάων’, ἔξω τοῦ τέ συνδέσμου.” Aim. ἐν δέ τισιν εὕρομεν ῥινῶν τε βοῶν τ’ εὐποιητάων κατὰ τὸ πληθυντικόν.

Scholia A at Iliad XVI 636c. ῥινῶν τε βοῶν τ’ εὐποιητάων: “It would have been better,” says Aristarchus, “if it had been written ‘βοῶν εὐποιητάων’, without the conjunction τέ.” Aim. And in some texts we found ῥινῶν τε βοῶν τ’ εὐποιητάων in the plural.

In this case, we see a collocation of εὕρομεν ‘we found’ with a direct quotation from Aristarchus himself. Moreover, it could be argued that the subject of εὕρομεν is likewise Aristarchus, since the statement that starts with the {93|94} phrase ἐν δέ τισιν εὕρομεν … ‘but in some texts we found…’ may be a direct quotation in its own right.

4§40 West goes even further in his discussion of this passage. Not only the wording but also the content, he claims, points to Didymus and not Aristarchus. As I argue in what follows, there is no support for this additional claim.

4§42 It is quite another thing, however, for West to say that the man who consulted the Massaliōtikē, the Sinōpikē, the Kupria, the Antimakheios, and the Aristophaneios was not Aristarchus but Didymus himself. In order to justify such a claim, West would need to prove that Didymus had direct access to each of these five sources mentioned in the statement introduced by οὕτως δὲ εὕρομεν ‘this is the way we found it’. As I hope to show in an overview of the five sources, West produces no such proof.

4§45 I conclude the overview by turning to the three other mentioned sources in the passage starting with οὕτως δὲ εὕρομεν ‘this is the way we found it’: the Massaliōtikē, the Sinōpikē, and the Kupria. All three are representatives {95|96} of the so-called ‘city editions’, the politikai (πολιτικαί). West describes as “a serious misconception” the idea that it was Aristarchus who collated the politikai (he gives a list of those who share this idea, including Ludwich, Erbse, Pfeiffer, Janko, and myself). [102] He claims that the politikai—that is, Homeric texts from Massalia (= ἡ Μασσαλιωτική / Massaliōtikē), Chios (= ἡ Χία / Khia), Argos (= ἡ Ἀργολική / Argolikē), Sinope (= ἡ Σινωπική / Sinōpikē), Cyprus (= ἡ Κυπρία / Kupria), and Crete (= ἡ Κρητική / Krētikē)—were collated not by Aristarchus but by Didymus (in the case of the Massaliōtikē, Khia, Argolikē, and Sinōpikē) and by Seleucus (in the case of the Kupria and the Krētikē). His claim is not based on any attempt to establish a relatively later date for the Homeric variants contained by the politikai—a date that would somehow suit the era of Didymus better than the era of Aristarchus. It is evident from his discussion that he can find no proof for any such redating. [103] Rather, the claim is based on West’s examination of the patterns of associations linking the politikai with other sources named in the Homer scholia. [104] I propose here to re-examine these patterns.

4§46 To begin this re-examination, I offer a formulation that anticipates my conclusion. West’s claim about the politikai seems to me impossible to sustain in view of the fact that the Homer scholia, especially those of Venetus A, refer consistently to these politikai as sources directly comparable with other sources that Didymus himself could not possibly have consulted. Such other sources include not only the Homer texts of Antimachus of Colophon and Aristophanes of Byzantium, as we see them mentioned in the scholia A at Iliad I 423–424 and elsewhere, but also the Homer text of Zenodotus. The scholia are in fact so consistent in comparing the texts of the politikai with the texts of Antimachus, Zenodotus, and Aristophanes—all three—that it becomes impossible or at least near-impossible to escape the conclusion that this consistency reflects a sustained system of collating choice texts. To accept West’s theories about Didymus is to deny the existence of any system, let alone any system devised by Didymus, since there is no evidence that Didymus had any direct access to the Homer texts of Antimachus, Zenodotus, and Aristophanes. By contrast, Aristarchus did indeed have such direct access. As the testimony of the Homer scholia shows, Aristarchus had the opportunity to compare systematically the texts of Antimachus, {96|97} Zenodotus, and Aristophanes, whereas Didymus did not. Moreover, the testimony of the Homer scholia shows an ongoing systematic comparison of these texts with the texts of the politikai. On these grounds, I infer that it was Aristarchus and not Didymus who collated the texts of the politikai just as he collated the texts of Antimachus, Zenodotus, and Aristophanes.

4§47 For a test case, I turn to the scholia A at Iliad XXI 870–871. Here the received text of Didymus is evidently this:

σπερχόμενος δ’ ἄρα Μηριόνης ἐξείρυσε χειρός
τόξον· ἀτὰρ δὴ ὀϊστὸν ἔχεν πάλαι, ὡς ἴθυνεν.

Eagerly Meriones grabbed from his hand [= from the hand of Teucer]
the bow. But the arrow he [= Meriones] was already holding, taking aim.

Iliad XXI 870–871 (via Didymus)

The scholia A first quote the variant verses found in the Massaliōtikē:

σπερχόμενος δ’ ἄρα Μηριόνης ἐπεθήκατ’ ὀϊστόν
τόξῳ· ἐν γὰρ χερσὶν ἔχε<ν> πάλαι, ὡς ἴθυνεν.

Eagerly Meriones placed the arrow
on the bow. For he [= Meriones] was already holding it [= the bow] in his hands, taking aim.

Iliad XXI 870–871 (via the Massaliōtikē)

The scholia A then quote the variant verses found in the Antimakheios (the reading seems to have been damaged in scholia A, but scholia T have preserved the undamaged reading, which is given below). Then the scholia A continue with a paraphrase of what Aristarchus had said in his hupomnēmata:

ὁ μέντοι Ἀρίσταρχος διὰ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων ἐπειγόμενον βούλεται τὸν Μηριόνην ἐκσπάσαι τῆς τοῦ Τεύκρου χειρὸς τὸ τόξον· καὶ γὰρ κοινὸν τῶν ἀγωνιζομένων αὐτὸ εἶναι ὥσπερ τὸν δίσκον. τὸ δὲ ἀτὰρ <δὴ> ὀϊστὸν ἔχεν πάλαι (871) ἐπὶ τοῦ Μηριόνου ἀκουστέον.

But Aristarchus in his hupomnēmata wants Meriones, in his eagerness, to grab the bow from the hand of Teucer. For it [= the bow], like the discus, was shared by those who were competing. The phrase ἀτὰρ <δὴ> ὀϊστὸν ἔχεν πάλαι is to be understood [‘heard’] as applying to Meriones.

This paraphrase suggests that Aristarchus prefers the reading of the received text (and of the Antimakheios), which amounts to what survives as the received text of Didymus. There is further reinforcement in scholia T, where {97|98} the comment οὕτως Ἀρίσταρχος ‘Aristarchus has it this way …’ is followed by this further comment: ἡ δὲ Μασσαλιωτικὴ οὕτω· … ‘but the Massaliōtikē has it this way …’ At this point the scholia T quote the same variant verses from the Massaliōtikē that we have already seen quoted by the scholia A. Then the scholia T follow up with this further comment: Ἀντίμαχος δὲ … ‘but Antimachus…’ At this point the scholia T quote the variant verses found in the Antimakheios (the reading of which seems to have been damaged in scholia A), which agree with the sense of the received text and which disagree with the sense of the Massaliōtikē:

σπερχόμενος δ’ ἄρα Μηριόνης ἐξείρυσε Τεύκρου
τόξον· χερσὶ δ’ ὀϊστὸν ἔχεν πάλαι, ὡς ἴθυνεν

Eagerly Meriones grabbed from Teucer
the bow. But the arrow he [= Meriones] was already holding in his hands, taking aim.

Iliad XXI 870–871 (via the Antimakheios)

4§48 Throughout this discussion of variant verses at Iliad XXI 870–871, I have spoken in terms of quotations and comments by “scholia A” and “scholia T,” as if the scholiasts were speakers on their own. Of course the immediate speaker is notionally Didymus himself, even if we cannot reconstruct his exact words on the basis of the dual testimony provided by scholia A and T. As for the ultimate speaker, however, I maintain that it must be Aristarchus: what Didymus is saying is simply a reaffirmation of what Aristarchus had said before him concerning the master’s preference of the wording provided by his received text as opposed to the wording provided, in this case, by the Massaliōtikē. The wording of scholia T indicates that Aristarchus in his hupomnēmata had expressed his preference in the context of juxtaposing the reading of his received text with the reading of the Massaliōtikē and, secondarily, with the reading of the Antimakheios. To repeat, in this case the sense of the reading of the Antimakheios agrees with the received text, whereas the sense of the reading of the Massaliōtikē disagrees with it. The reference in the T scholia to the editorial choice of Aristarchus, οὕτως Ἀρίσταρχος ‘Aristarchus has it this way…’ is being juxtaposed with the reference to the reading of the Massaliōtikē. The οὕτω ‘this way’ in the expression ἡ δὲ Μασσαλιωτικὴ οὕτω ‘but the Massaliōtikē has it this way…’ marks the variant reading, while the οὕτως ‘this way’ of οὕτως Ἀρίσταρχος ‘Aristarchus has it this way…’ marks the judgment of Aristarchus.

4§52 Here it is relevant to mention another student of Aristophanes, Callistratus, who made explicit references to the variants derived from Rhianus. It is understandable that Callistratus, who produced his own ekdosis ‘edition’ of Homer, would have named his teacher Aristophanes, not his peer Aristarchus, as the editorial source. It is also understandable that Didymus, who referred to both Aristarchus and Callistratus, would likewise have named Aristophanes, not Aristarchus, as the editorial source for variants derived from Rhianus. But the point is, the systematic consultation of Rhianus as a source of Homeric variants did not start with Didymus, nor even with Aristarchus, but rather with Aristarchus’ mentor, Aristophanes.

4§55 West states that Didymus regularly consulted the two ekdoseis of Aristarchus and his hupomnēmata. [120] This statement requires a further observation: these two ekdoseis or ‘editions’ that Didymus attributes to Aristarchus may be described as modified base texts dating from a post-Aristarchean era and featuring the master’s preferred readings as extrapolated from his hupomnēmata or ‘commentaries’, which had originally been published in volumes separate from the volumes of the base text. Aristarchus himself in his hupomnēmata must have used as his point of reference a relatively unmodified base text—a more “standard” version, so to speak, than the versions represented by the two later ekdoseis ‘editions’ attributed to him by Didymus. The left margin of the earlier standard version was marked by critical signs that referred to variant readings as discussed by Aristarchus in his hupomnēmata, where he indicated his preferred readings and the reasons for his preferences. This earlier standard {101|102} version used by Aristarchus was similar to, though slightly different from, the still earlier standard version used by Aristophanes. Aristarchus’ system of critical signs and his verse-count of “genuine” verses were likewise similar to, though slightly different from, the corresponding system and verse-count of Aristophanes. The reasoning of Aristarchus was an exercise in balancing the evidence: he weighed the external evidence of variations in manuscripts against the internal evidence of Homeric diction as a system. Aristonicus must have used this same “standard version” as his own point of reference, systematically discussing variants signaled by the Aristarchean critical signs in its margins; these variants would be found not in the base text of the “standard version” but in the discussion provided by Aristarchus in his hupomnēmata.

4§56 With this observation in place, I proceed to one other passage cited by West as evidence to support his theories centering on Didymus. West draws attention to scholia A at Iliad III 406a, where Didymus comments on the lēmma θεῶν δ’ ἀπόειπε κελεύθους at Iliad III 406. [121] West speaks about this lēmma as the wording that Didymus had read in “his own text” of Homer. Here is the passage in its entirety:

Scholia A at Iliad III 406a. θεῶν δ’ ἀπόειπε κελεύθους: Ἀρίσταρχος “ἀπόεικε” διὰ τοῦ κ, καὶ χωρὶς τοῦ σ “κελεύθου.” θαυμάσειε δ’ ἄν τις, ἡ ἑτέρα διὰ τοῦ π πόθεν παρέδυ· οὔτε γὰρ ἐν ταῖς Ἀρισταρχείοις οὔτε ἐν ἑτέρᾳ τῶν γοῦν μετρίων ἐμφερόμενον πέφυκεν, καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐν ταῖς ἐκδόσεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν ἁπαξάπαντες οὕτως ἐκτίθενται. προσθήσειν μοι δοκῶ καὶ τὴν Ἀριστάρχου λέξιν οὕτως ἔχουσαν· “†τί δὲ† εἰς τὰς θεοὺς ὁδοῦ εἶκε καὶ παραχώρει, μὴ βαδίζουσα εἰς αὐτούς.”

I interpret as follows: Didymus read ἀπόειπε in his received text, but he read ἀπόεικε in the two ekdoseis that he attributes to Aristarchus. Aristarchus referred to ἀπόεικε in his monographs, though he indicated somewhere else in his writings that he had manuscript evidence in favor of the reading ἀπόειπε. I infer that this indication was expressed in Aristarchus’ hupomnēmata, though even there he must have discussed the merits of choosing ἀπόεικε on the basis of the internal evidence of Homeric diction. Aristarchus paraphrases the given Homeric passage in terms of the variant ἀπόεικε. His paraphrase is quoted here directly by the scholia, which refer to the quotation as the lexis of Aristarchus.

4§57 As West reports, what Didymus “has”—ἀπόειπε—is also attested for us in “five papyri, a quotation by Aristonicus, a late papyrus commentary, and the whole medieval tradition.” [124] What, then, is exceptional about this reading? It is not that the lēmma itself is something out of the ordinary for Didymus. The reading that the lēmma gives, ἀπόειπε, is the received reading. Rather, what is exceptional in this case is simply that Didymus is not sure about the manuscript source of this received reading ἀπόειπε as given in the lēmma (θαυμάσειε δ’ ἄν τις, ἡ ἑτέρα διὰ τοῦ π πόθεν παρέδυ ‘one could wonder about where the other reading with the π came from’). Didymus is surprised because he had expected to find ἀπόειπε in the base text of at least one or the other of the two ekdoseis attributed to Aristarchus, or in one of Aristarchus’ surviving monographs. What is exceptional is that ἀπόειπε can be found ‘neither in the Aristarkheioi [= the Aristarchean ekdoseis] nor in any other of the moderate ones [ekdoseis] at any rate’ (οὔτε γὰρ ἐν ταῖς Ἀρισταρχείοις οὔτε ἐν ἑτέρᾳ τῶν γοῦν μετρίων ἐμφερόμενον πέφυκεν). [125] It seems that the surprise here for Didymus is simply that Aristarchus in this case, exceptionally, cannot be used as a source of information—either indirectly by way of the two ekdoseis or directly by way of his own writings—about the actual manuscript source of this received reading ἀπόειπε.

4§59 No doubt, Didymus regularly consulted the two Aristarchean ekdoseis as well as the monographs or sungrammata of Aristarchus—and most likely the ekdoseis of other scholars such as Callistratus. But I see no evidence here for a “consultation,” as theorized by West, of alternative Homeric manuscripts unknown to Aristarchus. Let us look at the wording again: καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐν ταῖς ἐκδόσεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν ἁπαξάπαντες οὕτως ἐκτίθενται ‘and not only in the ekdoseis but also in the monographs [sungrammata], all sources feature it this way [= ἀπόεικε in place of ἀπόειπε]’. The ekdoseis to which Didymus is referring here are I think primarily the two ekdoseis attributed to Aristarchus and, secondarily, to such ekdoseis as that of Callistratus. We may note that the emphasis in the Greek is on the monographs or sungrammata, in any case, and not on the ekdoseis.

4§60 Now let us look more closely at the wording that follows: προσθήσειν μοι δοκῶ καὶ τὴν Ἀριστάρχου λέξιν οὕτως ἔχουσαν· “†τί δὲ† εἰς τὰς θεοὺς ὁδοῦ εἶκε καὶ παραχώρει, μὴ βαδίζουσα εἰς αὐτούς.” I translate this way: ‘I [= Didymus] think the lexis of Aristarchus will also add [to the evidence], which has it this way’. Then, Didymus quotes Aristarchus’ paraphrase of the Homeric wording. [127] I infer that Aristarchus was showing the merits of the variant reading ἀπόεικε on the basis of contextual evidence—hence his paraphrase of the relevant Homeric passage—while allowing for ἀπόειπε on the basis of the manuscript evidence. What was out of the ordinary in this case, and what surprised Didymus here, is that the manuscript source of the reading ἀπόειπε, which I think was being implicitly supported by Aristarchus in his hupomnēmata, was left unspecified in the two Aristarchean ekdoseis. I further infer that Aristarchus—that is, Aristarchus as represented by the two post-Aristarchean ekdoseis used by Didymus—in this case exceptionally failed to provide something that Didymus ordinarily expected him to be providing. [128] In this exceptional case, Didymus could not rely on the authority of Aristarchus concerning the manuscript sources for the reading ἀπόειπε; all he could report was the master’s opinion that ἀπόεικε was preferable to the reading ἀπόειπε, at least in terms of the internal evidence provided by Homeric diction. [129]

4§64 There is a comparable contrast made by Didymus in the scholia A at Iliad II 53a, where the category αἱ πλείους καὶ χαριέστεραι ‘the majority that are khariesterai’, in combination with ἡ Ἀριστοφάνους ‘the text of Aristophanes’ is being contrasted with the category αἱ κοιναὶ καὶ ἡ Ζηνοδότειος ‘the koinai and the text of Zenodotus’.

4§65 Here is yet another comparable contrast, where once again we see Didymus highlighting a parallelism involving the khariesterai and the Aristophaneios as a point of contrast with less privileged Homer manuscripts:

Scholia A at Iliad II 192b. οἷος νόος Ἀτρείδαο· “οἷος νόος Ἀτρείωνος” κἀν ταῖς διορθώσεσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν οὕτως ἐγέγραπτο “Ἀτρείωνος.” καὶ αἱ πλείους δὲ τῶν χαριεστάτων οὕτως εἶχον, καὶ ἡ Ἀριστοφάνειος. καὶ ὁ Σιδώνιος δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰξίων οὕτως γράφουσιν.

Scholia A at Iliad II 192b. οἷος νόος Ἀτρείδαο· This reading, “οἷος νόος Ἀτρείωνος,” even in the diorthōseis and in the hupomnēmata, is written this way, with “Ἀτρείωνος.” And the majority of the most elegant texts [khariestatai / χαριέσταται] had it this way [= Ἀτρείωνος in place of Ἀτρείδαο], as also the text of Aristophanes [Aristophaneios / Ἀριστοφάνειος]. Also, [Dionysius] Sidonius and [Demetrius] Ixion write it this way.

We can see from the wording here that the actual combining of manuscript evidence from the khariestatai (χαριέσταται) ‘most elegant texts’ with manuscript evidence from the Aristophaneios (Ἀριστοφάνειος) ‘text of Aristophanes’ is not the work of Didymus himself. The wording that I have highlighted makes it explicit, I think, that the information provided by the khariestatai and by the Aristophaneios has been mediated for Didymus by the authority of Aristarchus himself. Didymus is saying primarily that the relevant manuscript information is to be found in the Aristarchean editions (diorthōseis must refer to the two editions that Didymus attributes to Aristarchus) and in the commentaries (hupomnēmata). In saying this, Didymus focuses on the actual reading that Aristarchus preferred: κἀν ταῖς διορθώσεσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν ‘both in the diorthōseis and in the hupomnēmata’. For Didymus, it is of first priority that Aristarchus himself preferred the variant readings found in the khariestatai and the Aristophaneios. For Didymus, Aristarchus’ specific choice of a reading is of first priority, while its corresponding source is only secondary. Accordingly, Didymus gives as his first category of evidence the actual judgment of Aristarchus as reflected in his preferred reading. Only after that does Didymus give, as his second category of evidence, the testimony of the choice manuscripts: καὶ αἱ πλείους δὲ τῶν χαριεστάτων οὕτως εἶχον, καὶ ἡ Ἀριστοφάνειος ‘the majority of the most elegant texts [khariestatai] had it {106|107} this way, as also the Aristophaneios’. And only after that does Didymus add, as his third category of evidence, the supplementary testimony from (in this case) Dionysius Sidonius and Demetrius Ixion: καὶ ὁ Σιδώνιος δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰξίων οὕτως γράφουσιν ‘also, [Dionysius] Sidonius and [Demetrius] Ixion write it this way’.

4§66 This third category is analogous to what we have already seen in scholia A at Iliad I 423–424: Καλλίστρατος δὲ ἐν τῷ Πρὸς τὰς ἀθετήσεις ὁμοίως, καὶ ὁ Σιδώνιος καὶ ὁ Ἰξίων ἐν τῷ ἕκτῳ Πρὸς τὰς ἐξηγήσεις ‘Callistratus in his volume Πρὸς τὰς ἀθετήσεις has it in a similar way; also [Dionysius] Sidonius, and [Demetrius] Ixion in the sixth volume of Πρὸς τὰς ἐξηγήσεις’. Just as Didymus must have been the originator of the statement highlighting Callistratus, Dionysius Sidonius, and Demetrius Ixion, the same can be said about the statement in scholia A at Iliad II 192b highlighting, again, Dionysius of Sidon and Demetrius Ixion. Conversely, I argue that Aristarchus must have been the originator of the preceding statement in scholia A at Iliad II 192b: καὶ αἱ πλείους δὲ τῶν χαριεστάτων οὕτως εἶχον, καὶ ἡ Ἀριστοφάνειος ‘and the majority of the most elegant texts [khariestatai] had it this way, as also the Aristophaneios’. So also I ascribe to Aristarchus the correspondingly preceding statement in scholia A at Iliad I 423–424: οὕτως δὲ εὕρομεν καὶ ἐν τῇ Μασσαλιωτικῇ καὶ Σινωπικῇ καὶ Κυπρίᾳ καὶ Ἀντιμαχείῳ καὶ Ἀριστοφανείῳ ‘this is the way we found it in the Massaliōtikē and the Sinōpikē and the Kupria and the Antimakheios and the Aristophaneios’.

4§67 Working my way backwards in the scholia A at Iliad I 423–424, I now focus on the even earlier statement preceding the one I have just quoted about the Massaliōtikē, the Sinōpikē, the Kupria, the Antimakheios, and the Aristophaneios. In this earlier statement, which even West identifies as a direct quotation from Aristarchus, we see that the master adduces Sophocles (after having adduced “Homer” himself):

οὕτως γὰρ νῦν Ὅμηρος τέθεικεν. ἔνιοι δὲ ποιοῦσι “[quotations].” χρῶνται δὲ καὶ πλείονες ἄλλοι τῶν ποιητῶν τῇ “[quotation].” Σοφοκλῆς (F 812 N = 898 P = R): “[quotation from Sophocles].”

For this is the way [= κατὰ δαῖτα] that Homer’s usage has it in this passage. Some poets use “[quotations].” But several others of the poets use “[quotation].” Sophocles has “[quotation from Sophocles].”

The wording οὕτως ‘this is the way’ in this statement, which signals the adducing of Homer and Sophocles, is picked up by the wording οὕτως δὲ εὕρομεν ‘this is the way we found it’ in the next statement, which signals the adducing of the Massaliōtikē, the Sinōpikē, the Kupria, the Antimakheios, and the Aristophaneios. Elsewhere too in the Homeric scholia, the {107|108} adducing of evidence signaled by οὕτως εὕρομεν ‘this is the way we found it’ and related expressions conveys primarily the findings of Aristarchus, and only secondarily the findings of the Aristarchean speaker. Here are two telling examples where the speaker is the Aristarchean scholar Herodian, who flourished about 200 years after Didymus:

Scholia A at Iliad VI 239c. ἔτας {τε}: ὁ Ἀσκαλωνίτης (p. 47 B) ψιλοῖ, […] Ἀλεξίων (F 30 B) δὲ δασύνει. ὁ δὲ Ἀρίσταρχος οὐδὲν ἄντικρυς περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος ἀπεφήνατο. […] ἡμῖν δὲ δοκεῖ ἀφορμῇ ἐκείνῃ χρήσασθαι· εἰ ἄδηλόν ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα, τὰ δὲ τοιαῦτα πολλάκις ἐκ συναλιφῶν κρίνεται, εὑρέθη δὲ διὰ ψιλοῦ ἡ συναλιφή, οὐδέποτε δὲ διὰ δασέος, δῆλον ὅτι διὰ τοῦτο συγκαταθετέον τῷ Ἀσκαλωνίτῃ ψιλοῦντι. παρὰ γοῦν Αἰσχύλῳ (F 377 N = 530.28 M = 281a 28 R) οὕτως εὕρομεν · “[quotation from Aeschylus],” καὶ παρ’ Εὐριπίδῃ (F 1014 N) τὸ “[quotation from Euripides].”

Scholia A at Iliad XII 201d. ὑψιπέτης: Ἀρίσταρχος ἐβάρυνεν εὑρὼν τὸ “ὠκυπέτα, χρυσέῃσιν ἐθείρῃσιν” (Iliad VIII 42) οὕτως κεκλιμένον, ὡσεὶ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ παντοπώλης παντοπῶλα. πρόδηλον δὲ κἀκ τῶν διαλέκτων· “ὑψιπέτας” γὰρ εὑρέθη κατὰ τροπὴν τοῦ η εἰς τὸ α, … τινὲς μέντοι ἐτόλμησαν τὸ ὑψιπέτης περισπάσαι, ἐπεὶ ἐν ἑτέροις ἔφη “ὥστ’ αἰετὸς ὑψιπετήεις” (Iliad XXII 308). ὡς οὖν τὸ “τιμήεις ἔσομαι” (Odyssey xiii 129) ἐγένετο τιμῆς, “οὐκέθ’ ὁμῶς τιμῆς ἔσεαι” (Iliad IX 605), οὕτως ὑψιπετήεις ὑψιπετῆς. ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ τιμῆς εὕρομεν αἰτιατικήν, “καὶ χρυσὸν τιμῆντα” (Iliad XVIII 475), ἥτις ἐδίδασκε τὸ τῆς εὐθείας πάθος· ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ προκειμένου οὐδὲν εὕρομεν τοιοῦτο. ἔνθεν ἐπείσθημεν τῷ Ἀριστάρχῳ.


[ back ] * The original version of this essay is N 2003b, reviewing West 2001b. The present version is supplemented with references to the insights of Rengakos 2002, author of another review of West 2001b. Rengakos and I had read pre-published drafts of each other’s essays, and I acknowledge gratefully his advice, as also the advice of Michael Apthorp, who read a draft of my essay in July 2002.

[ back ] 1. West 2001b, supplementing West 1998b/2000c.

[ back ] 2. Other aspects of the book are (1) new information on Homeric papyri, pp. 86–138; (2) a reassessment of the interrelationships among the early medieval manuscripts, pp. 139–157; (3) “Notes on Individual Passages,” pp. 173–285. In the discussion that follows, I will comment selectively on these aspects as well. Mistakes in the book are rare (at p. 277 line 8, read “Achilles” not “Hector”).

[ back ] 3. West 2001b:158–159.

[ back ] 4. In another publication, West (2000c:630) assumes that Homeric poetry died after the Homeric poems become established as some kind of Urtext, which is imagined as a “corpse” (see p. 69 above).

[ back ] 5. Zumthor 1972. Cf. PP 7–38.

[ back ] 6. Cerquiglini 1989.

[ back ] 7. HQ 29–63.

[ back ] 8. PP 7–38.

[ back ] 9. Parry 1971; Lord 1960. See Ch.2 above.

[ back ] 10. Lord 1995:23. See Ch.2 above.

[ back ] 11. West 2001b, in his reply to N 2000a, mentions Parry and Lord—but only to say that their work is not relevant to his edition of the Iliad.

[ back ] 12. West 2001b:159n1, citing Finkelberg 2000. At p. 9 Finkelberg cites the model of multiformity as outlined by Lord 1960; not cited is Lord 1995. See again Ch.2 above.

[ back ] 13. The misreading by Finkelberg 2000 is analyzed in Ch.2, a rewritten version of N 2001a; see also Dué 2001.

[ back ] 14. For a discussion of the concept of “multitext,” see Ch.3 above, a rewritten version of N 2000a.

[ back ] 15. See again Ch.3.

[ back ] 16. West 2001b:159n2; also his p. 3.

[ back ] 17. Examples in West 1998 are cited in N 2000a, rewritten here as Ch.3.

[ back ] 18. For an example of a discussion where at least the derivation of Homeric poetry from oral poetry is conceded, see West 2001b:159n2.

[ back ] 19. For discussion and further references, see HQ 82–94.

[ back ] 20. The scare-quotes are West’s.

[ back ] 21. West 2001b:159n1. The italics are mine.

[ back ] 22. PR 10–17.

[ back ] 23. West 2001b:173–285.

[ back ] 24. West 2001b:175.

[ back ] 25. West 2001b:178; cf. also p. 221. His assumption of such a distinction here in the Catalogue of Iliad ΙΙ does not take into account the variable usages of inclusion and exclusion involving πληθύς (examples of inclusive contexts: Iliad II 278, IX 641, XV 305). One assumption leads to another: West p. 178 claims that Ibycus in the “ode” to Polycrates (S 151.23 and following) “seems already to have known” the Iliadic passage “in its interpolated form.”

[ back ] 26. West 2001b:179.

[ back ] 27. West 2001b:180.

[ back ] 28. West 2001b:185.

[ back ] 29. West 2001b:186.

[ back ] 30. West 2001b:189.

[ back ] 31. West 2001b:191.

[ back ] 32. West 2001b:192.

[ back ] 33. West 2001b:194. I would agree with his statement here if he had simply said “earlier” not “original.”

[ back ] 34. West 2001b:195.

[ back ] 35. West 2001b:198.

[ back ] 36. West 2001b:198.

[ back ] 37. West 2001b:200.

[ back ] 38. West 2001b:202.

[ back ] 39. West 2001b:207.

[ back ] 40. West 2001b:209.

[ back ] 41. West 2001b:214.

[ back ] 42. West 2001b:218. In terms of his reasoning, such a “fragment” is somehow more than an “interpolation.”

[ back ] 43. West 2001b:220.

[ back ] 44. West 2001b:221.

[ back ] 45. West 2001b:233.

[ back ] 46. West 2001b:245.

[ back ] 47. West 2001b:253. On the logic of ΧΙΧ 79–82, see PR 19–22.

[ back ] 48. See p. 97. My interpretation, as we will see, differs from that of West 2001b:275.

[ back ] 49. West 2001b:280.

[ back ] 50. West 2001b:231. The highlighting is mine.

[ back ] 51. West 2001b:231–232.

[ back ] 52. West 2001b:254.

[ back ] 53. West 2001b:256.

[ back ] 54. West 2001b:265. For more on his debate with Janko over Janko’s “dictation theory,” see West 2000b.

[ back ] 55. West 2001b:281.

[ back ] 56. See Part I section 5, West 2001b:139–157. In the medieval textual tradition, a most interesting pattern of variation is the distinctness of variants in manuscript Z from those of all other medieval manuscripts labeled by West pp. 143–144. (West p. 144 now speaks of Ω as a “notional entity”; his clarification at p. 144n5 concerning his use of Ω vs. * Ω in the apparatus criticus of his Iliad edition may be a response to my criticism in N 2000a.) An illuminating example is the variation at ΙΙΙ 212, as discussed by West p. 187, where Ζ shows ἔφαινον vs. ὕφαινον in Ω. The reading preferred by Callimachus was evidently ὕφαινον (Rengakos 1993:130). I suggest the possibility of reconstructing a variation φαῖνε / *ὕφαινε at Odyssey viii 499, but I postpone the discussion for another occasion.

[ back ] 57. West’s book offers no special section on this aspect of the Homeric paradosis. For an illustration of the importance of the evidence available in Homeric quotations by ancient authors, see Dué 2001.

[ back ] 58. See Part I section 4, West 2001b:86–138, which gives an inventory. An update is needed for West’s reference at p. 86 n. 4 to the online inventory of the founding editor of Homer and the Papyri, D. F. Sutton (his editorship extended from 1992 to 2001). The new online address of Homer and the Papyri is http://chs.harvard.edu/homer_papyri/index.htm; this website includes information about the current editorial board. Following the general procedures developed by the founding editor, the present editors of Homer and the Papyri are committed to online re-publications of the texts of new Homer papyri as soon as the relevant publications appear in print or in electronic form. The numbering of the papyri after Papyrus 704a will normally follow the order of the appearance of these publications. Any alternative numbers assigned to these papyri before their publication, such as those assigned by West 2001b, will be tracked by way of a comparatio numerorum (West had generously provided the editors with a preview copy of his list).

[ back ] 59. See Part I sections 2–3, West 2001b:33–85.

[ back ] 60. Ch.1, p. 22.

[ back ] 61. Montanari 1998:11–20. In N 2000a, reviewing West 1998b, I summarized the relevance of the observations made by Montanari. That summary was located at a point that corresponds to p. 48n31 in Ch.3, the rewritten version of that review. In what follows, I offer a rewritten version of that summary, relocated to this point in the overall argumentation.

[ back ] 62. Perhaps the first and the second phases of Aristarchus’ diorthōsis (= D1 and D2) may be correlated respectively with the first and the second sets of hupomnēmata (= H1 and H2). According to the schema of Montanari 1998, the sequence would be H1 D1 H2 D2. But I am not sure that we need to infer, as Montanari does (p. 19), that the contents of D2 were written into the same “copy” that contained the contents of D1.

[ back ] 63. West 2001b:61n44 gives a list of the references by Didymus to two distinct readings in these two ekdoseis of Aristarchus. As West p. 61 points out, in scholia A at Iliad XIX 386a Didymus indicates that one ekdosis of Aristarchus is earlier than the other, while in the scholia at Odyssey iv 727 he speaks of one ekdosis being ‘more elegant’ or khariestera (χαριεστέρα) than the other. More later on the category of khariesterai.

[ back ] 64. In West’s apparatus criticus (1998b / 2000a), “Ar ab” is the equivalent of αἱ Ἀριστάρχου ‘the editions [ekdoseis] of Aristarchus’, while “Ar a” or “Ar b” are equated with ἡ ἑτέρα τῶν Ἀριστάρχου ‘the other of the two editions [ekdoseis] of Aristarchus’—and it cannot be specified which one is which.

[ back ] 65. West 2001b:66 says that the two ekdoseis ‘editions’ of Aristarchus “were not claimed [by Didymus] to be the master’s autographs and accordingly could not be relied on absolutely.”

[ back ] 66. I agree with the observation of West p. 65: “Aristonicus … assumes a single Aristarchean text and nowhere distinguishes between two recensions.”

[ back ] 67. West 2001b:37. At p. 62 he makes this distinction between ekdosis and diorthōsis in the Homer scholia: “Aristarchus’ διόρθωσις was the sum of his critical activity on the text, while the ἐκδόσεις were the manuscripts that embodied it.” I agree with the first part of his formulation, but I think that the second part needs further qualification: see the previous footnote.

[ back ] 68. West 2001b:59–61.

[ back ] 69. West 2001b:37. He underrates not only Zenodotus but also the foremost work on Zenodotus, that of Nickau 1977. West p. 54 argues (1) that “most of what we know of Zenodotus’ text comes from Aristonicus”; also, (2) that Didymus did not have access to the edition of Zenodotus, but Aristarchus did. (I cannot see why West thinks that the second of these two arguments is controversial.) For further criticism of West’s position on Zenodotus, see Rengakos 2002, who argues against West’s theory that Zenodotus used “an Ionian rhapsodic text.”

[ back ] 70. West 1998b.viii.

[ back ] 71. As I pointed out in N 2000a; see Ch.3 above.

[ back ] 72. West 2001b:37n19.

[ back ] 73. West 2001b:37.

[ back ] 74. West 2001b:37.

[ back ] 75. West 2001b:52–54 on Antimachus; pp. 56–58 on Rhianus.

[ back ] 76. N 2000a on West 1998b.

[ back ] 77. In N 2000a, I collected other survivals of quotations of Aristarchus by Didymus, introduced by the tag “lexis of Aristarchus.” See Ch.3 above, p. 50n39.

[ back ] 78. See Ludwich 1884:194–196.

[ back ] 79. Erbse 1969–1988 I 119–120.

[ back ] 80. For νῦν in the sense of ‘in this passage’, compare the wording in the scholia at Iliad II 212b, XV 19; see also the scholia at Odyssey x 86 (hypothesis line 34).

[ back ] 81. N 2000a; see Ch.3 above.

[ back ] 82. Ludwich 1884:194–196.

[ back ] 83. N 2000a; see Ch.3 above.

[ back ] 84. Again, see Ch.3 above.

[ back ] 85. From reading West 2001b:54, one may ask whether Aristonicus was an intermediary for Didymus in any of the contexts signaled by the expression εὕρομεν. In any case, my point remains that the ultimate authority would be Aristarchus.

[ back ] 86. West 2001b:54, 70–72,

[ back ] 87. West 2001b:71.

[ back ] 88. On the two ekdoseis ‘editions’ of Homer attributed by Didymus to Aristarchus, see Ch.1, p. 20. Cf. West 2001b:63 on scholia A at Iliad V 808, which report that this Iliadic verse is not at all ‘found’ (εὑρεθῆναι) ‘in the editions of Aristarchus’ (ἐν ταῖς Ἀριστάρχου).

[ back ] 89. Reacting to what I say in this paragraph and in the paragraphs that follow, West 2004 says (referring to the page-numbers of the version I published as N 2003b): “Nagy uses up more than two pages of Gnomon (491–493, small type) in a vain attempt to transfer this Didymean idiom back to Aristarchus.” He gives no evidence to back up his claim that my attempt is in vain.

[ back ] 90. West 2001b:56 acknowledges this point.

[ back ] 91. Perhaps the actual lēmma νευρὴν δ’ ἐξέρρηξε νεόστροφον, ἣν ἐνέδησα | πρώϊον stems from Aristarchus himself. In that case, the length of the quotation is conditioned by the presence, within the quotation, of two cases of variant readings—not just one—chosen for discussion by Aristarchus.

[ back ] 92. West 2001b:70–72.

[ back ] 93. See the references assembled by West 2001b:71n9.

[ back ] 94. West 2001b:59.

[ back ] 95. West 2001b:59, referring to an earlier remark at his p. 54.

[ back ] 96. West 2001b:54.

[ back ] 97. West 2001b:60.

[ back ] 98. West 2001b:52–54.

[ back ] 99. West 2001b:53.

[ back ] 100. West 2001b:54. I am indebted to Michael Apthorp for helping me sharpen the point I am making here. I should add that I find unclear West’s formulation about “Antimachus’ interpretations of Homer as reflected in his own poetry.” The discussion of Pfeiffer 1968:94–95n8 is clearer, and on that basis I propose this reformulation of what West is saying: Antimachus actually used words in his poetry that match uncommon variants in his text of Homer.

[ back ] 101. West p. 54 remarks: “In order to argue that he [Didymus] derived their readings [that is, the readings of the five sources] from Aristarchus, we must postulate some Aristarchean source distinct from Aristonicus.” Such a postulation, however, depends on West’s more basic postulation that the οὕτως δὲ εὕρομεν passage of the scholia at Iliad I 423–424 is not a direct quotation from Aristarchus. If it is a direct quotation, then that “Aristarchean source” of Didymus is Aristarchus himself.

[ back ] 102. West 2001b:69; he gives the list at p. 69n78.

[ back ] 103. The relevant discussion is in West 2001b:72.

[ back ] 104. West 2001b:67–72.

[ back ] 105. West 2001b:71.

[ back ] 106. Erbse 1959:282.

[ back ] 107. West 2001b:71–72, with reference to his earlier discussion at pp. 59–61.

[ back ] 108. In this paragraph, I have benefited from the help of José González.

[ back ] 109. West 2001b:57.

[ back ] 110. West 2001b:57n33.

[ back ] 111. Montanari 1998:11–20.

[ back ] 112. Montanari 1998:11–20.

[ back ] 113. Pfeiffer 1968:174–175, 225.

[ back ] 114. West 2001b:59–61.

[ back ] 115. West 2001b:60. He shows two relevant passages: (1) scholia at Iliad XIX 327a, καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης προηθέτει τὸν στίχον, ὥς φησι Καλλίστρατος ‘and Aristophanes already athetized this verse before [= before Aristarchus athetized it], as Callistratus says’; (2) scholia at Iliad XXI 130–135a, Ἀρίσταρχος διὰ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων Ἀριστοφάνη φησὶ στίχους ἓξ ἠθετηκέναι ‘Aristarchus in his hupomn mata says that Aristophanes athetized the six verses’.

[ back ] 116. West 2001b:59.

[ back ] 117. West 2001b:59.

[ back ] 118. West 2001b:64 appreciates the value of such testimony as proof that Aristarchus really produced his own base text in editing Homer, pace Erbse. The fact, however, that both of the two ekdoseis of Aristarchus had ἐῳνοχόει according to Didymus in scholia A at Iliad IV 3a should be no surprise to West, since the base text of Aristarchus ordinarily defaulted to a “standard” version. See the next paragraph. I should stress that even the two ekdoseis of Aristarchus, the base texts of which contained post-Aristarchean extrapolations from his hupomnēmata, often defaulted to a “standard” version, as in this case.

[ back ] 119. West 2001b:56. His wording, “e.g. through Aristonicus,” implies that Didymus would be two steps removed from Zenodotus as direct source, if indeed Aristonicus himself is one step removed.

[ back ] 120. West 2001b:56.

[ back ] 121. West 2001b:51.

[ back ] 122. This translation follows in part the rendition offered by West 2001b:51–52.

[ back ] 123. Thanks to Michael Apthorp for his advice on interpreting this wording.

[ back ] 124. West 2001b:51.

[ back ] 125. See West 2001b:51–52.

[ back ] 126. This passage has the only attestation of ἐκτίθενται in the Iliad I scholia.

[ back ] 127. Thanks to Michael Apthorp for his advice on interpreting this whole passage.

[ back ] 128. I have changed the wording here from the wording I used in N 2003b.

[ back ] 129. Aristarchus may have been less scrupulous in discussing manuscript evidence in the case of verses that he considered un-Homeric. Such is the case with Iliad III 406, since Aristarchus in any case athetized all the verses of III 396–418.

[ back ] 130. For a possible reason, see the previous note. In a separate project, I will explore the question of the formatting of the two Aristarchean ekdoseis ‘editions’. I hope to produce evidence to support the argument that these ekdoseis stemmed from a post-Aristarchean era and featured abbreviated scholia extrapolated from the originally separate hupomnēmata of Aristarchus.

[ back ] 131. West 2001:51.

[ back ] 132. On scholia A vs. T at Iliad II 196c, see West 2001b:51.

[ back ] 133. West 2001b:51.

[ back ] 134. Ptolemy of Ascalon was a student of Aristarchus, and Herodian relies heavily on Ptolemy’s reportage concerning Aristarchus’ work on accentuation and related linguistic matters (see West 2001b:82). Questions of assigning smooth or rough breathing are an example of such related matters. Here and elsewhere, Herodian expresses his preference for Ptolemy’s reportage.

[ back ] 135. The first-person subject of ἔνθεν ἐπείσθημεν τῷ Ἀριστάρχῳ ‘on the basis of all this, we were persuaded by Aristarchus’ is different from the first-person subject in the preceding οὐδὲν εὕρομεν τοιοῦτο ‘we found no such thing’, which is the final part of a series of ‘findings’ by Aristarchus, starting with the beginning of this extract, Ἀρίσταρχος ἐβάρυνεν εὑρὼν … ‘Aristarchus gave non-oxytone accent, having found …’

[ back ] 136. West 2001b:54.

[ back ] 137. For further corroboration of my conclusion, see Rengakos 2002. He adduces a most telling example in the scholia at Iliad VI 4: here Aristonicus is specified as the authority for saying that Aristarchus found different readings of this verse in different antigrapha ‘copies’ at different stages in his investigations, and the word that Didymus (Iliad VI 4b) uses in this same context is heuriskein ‘find’—with specific reference to the ‘findings’ of Aristarchus. As Rengakos concludes, “This clearly refutes the theory that Aristarchus did not consult different manuscripts.” Rengakos goes on to discuss further pertinent evidence, especially the testimony of the scholia at Iliad IX 401 and at XIX 386 (a particularly telling example, not considered by West 2001b). West 2004 replies to Rengkaos about the scholia at Iliad VI 4: “Aristonicus (copied by Didymus) reports that, after assuming one reading in his Hypomnemata, Aristarchus came across a different one and approved it […]. This sounds like a casual discovery; at any rate it is not evidence of any systematic study of manuscripts.” Such a scenario of casual discoveries seems to me unpersuasive. Also, I question West’s claim that Aristonicus was “copied by Didymus.”