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.

5. Aristarchean Questions: Emerging Certainties about the Finality of Homer’s Text*

5§2 Janko criticizes me for claiming something that I know I did not claim in HS (or in PP): that Aristarchus and the two other major Alexandrian editors of Homer, Zenodotus and Aristophanes, never made emendations of the received text. What I do argue is that Aristarchus did not put his own emendations into the received text of Homer, confining them instead to his commentaries or hupomnēmata. Further, I have argued that the emendations of Aristarchus were generally based on variant manuscript traditions, not on his own conjectures.

5§4 Earlier in his review, Janko captures the essence of my argument when he says: “N. argues that the extent of rhapsodic variation in the text of Homer is so great that we cannot accept either an Aristarchean quest for the original reading, or Wolf’s distrust that Aristarchus could recover authentic readings in general.” But then he goes on to overstate my case, in order to create a foil for his own arguments, by paraphrasing me with these words: “all his [Aristarchus’] variants are authentic.” To back up this overstatement, Janko quotes me as saying: “there is no reason to doubt that any Homeric variant attributed to Aristarchus can be considered an authentic reading.” [7] The quotation is taken out of context. I repeat here my actual formulation: {111|112}

The emphatic an in the last part of my formulation was meant to contrast with the emphatic the in “the authentic reading.”

5§6 Here is the crux of my disagreement with Janko’s dictation model. In terms of my evolutionary model, the variant readings adduced for the Homeric text by the Alexandrians, most prominently by Aristarchus, can be viewed as reflexes of formulaic variation in an oral tradition. The {112|113} variants themselves may in theory date from a wide range of chronological points extending from the second millennium BCE all the way to the era of Aristarchus. In reality, though, we may expect most of the surviving variants to stem from the latest recoverable phases of the oral transmission, especially from the timeframe spanning the last 500 or 600 years before Aristarchus. Even within this timeframe of half a millennium or so, we may expect the degrees of variation to drop off drastically during the last few centuries, as the Homeric oral tradition becomes ever less flexible while various political controls over performance conventions become ever more rigid.

5§7 In terms of Janko’s dictation model, by contrast, the variant readings adduced by the likes of Aristarchus cannot really be products of an oral tradition, on the grounds that Homeric poetry had already become, by the eighth century BCE, a fixed text. At that point in time, we would still be well over 500 years away from Aristarchus. For over half a millennium before Aristarchus, according to Janko’s explanation, Homeric poetry would have survived primarily as a text, not as a performance tradition. This is why Janko is forced to dismiss as “conjectures” some of the most significant surviving variants adduced by Aristarchus. This is why Janko must disagree with Haslam’s analysis of such variants.

5§20 Milman Parry writes elsewhere about Ludwich’s editions of Homer: “for my purposes the traditional text is that of Ludwich.” [40] He is careful to add: “‘traditional text’ is of course a relative term.” [41] Parry’s understanding of this “traditional text” of Homer is germane to the methodology of Aristarchus:

This methodology is Parry’s incipient answer to the Homeric questions that he says the “scholars of our time” are unable to answer. He describes these scholars as neo-unitarians who have succeeded in refuting the analysts—but who fail to give satisfactory answers to his questions, which he formulates as follows:

5§22 To test this formulation, I return to Janko’s sample list of thirty-three {118|119} Aristarchean “conjectures,” minus the lead-off example that I have already questioned, Iliad XIII 423. [46] In each of the thirty-two cases I am about to study, I will argue either (1) that the given form adduced by Aristarchus can be considered an authentic reading or (2) that the given form was only mentioned but not actually proposed by Aristarchus:

2. Iliad IX 222 (IC p. 26): ἂψ ἐπάσαντο or αἶψ’ ἐπάσαντο vs. ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο. Here we see a case for arguing the second of the two alternatives, namely, that the given form was only mentioned but not actually proposed by Aristarchus. The scholia make it explicit that Aristarchus chose not to adopt in his base text such a different reading, ἂψ ἐπάσαντο (Didymus/A): ἄμεινον εἶχεν ἄν, φησιν ὁ Ἀρίσταρχος, [εἰ] ἐγέγραπτο “ἂψ 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” instead of “ἂψ ἐπάσαντο”]’. The wording assumes that some of the texts did indeed feature ἂψ ἐπάσαντο instead of ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο. [48] (We may compare the parallel morphology of ἂψ ἐγένοντο at Odyssey x 395; also the ἂψ vs. αἶψ’ variation at Odyssey x 405 and viii 92.) I infer that Aristarchus ‘changed nothing’ (οὐδὲν μετέθηκεν) even though he could have made a change on the basis of manuscript attestations of a variant reading. Moreover, he is quoted as considering the variant reading as a contrary-to-fact proposition. Accordingly, it seems unjustified to describe such readings as his own editorial conjectures. {119|120}

3. Iliad IX 394 (IC pp. 26–27): γε μάσσεται vs. γαμέσσεται. I am not sure whether Janko was counting this case as one of his thirty-three examples, or whether he counted as two examples the case of I 423–424. In any event, it is not justifiable to assume that Aristarchus adduced μάσσεται mainly to avoid a violation of “Hermann’s Bridge,” as Janko claims. (Hermann’s formulation dates back to 1805.) Also, the morphology of μάσσεται could have been generated by the formulaic system. Compare for example ἐπιμάσσεται at IV 190.

5. Iliad XV 197 (IC p. 248): βέλτερον vs. κέρδιον. Both are attested in manuscripts, but Janko claims that κέρδιον is “confirmed” on the grounds that he sees an “echo” at XV 226 (another κέρδιον, but in a different verse-position) and that this word is “formular in this phrase, unlike the scholars’ emendations.” Although I find no instances of βέλτερον εἴη elsewhere in the Homeric corpus, there are attestations of βέλτερόν ἐστι at Iliad XVIII 302, XXI 485, and Odyssey xvii 18 (all before the trochaic caesura, in a position that accommodates cognate phrases in verse-final position; all with infinitive constructions similar to the one at XV 197).

6. Iliad XVI 5 (IC p. 315): θάμβησε vs. ᾤκτιρε. Although θάμβησε in this verse is not attested in the manuscripts known to us, it is attested elsewhere, as at XXIV 483, where Achilles is looking with wonder at Priam just after the old man has kissed his hands at 478—and just before Priam begins to speak at verse 486, appealing to Achilles to pity him. The exegetical reasoning of Aristarchus, as reported in Didymus/T, is called by Janko a “misjudgment,” which “removes the central theme of pity from this central scene of the Iliad.” I see no such removal and no such misjudgment as I read the contexts {120|121} evoked by θάμβησε. The purported “misjudgment,” according to Janko, “confirms that Aristarchus could emend on improper grounds.” But we do not know his grounds, since we do not know of his manuscript evidence. Here and elsewhere, Janko has not been able to prove that Aristarchus would ever consider an emendation on the basis of content alone.

7. Iliad XVI 50 (IC p. 322): εἴ vs. ἥν. “Aristarchus altered ἥν to εἴ (in no ms).” I agree with Janko that ἥν as in ἥν τινα οἶδα can be justified on the basis of parallels as at Odyssey i 415 and ii 201; still, εἴ as in εἴ τινα οἶδα can also be justified on the basis of parallels as at Odyssey viii 145–146: πείρησαι ἀέθλων | εἴ τινά που δεδάηκας· ἔοικε δέ σ’ ἴδμεν ἀέθλους. Again, there are valid reasons to justify either reading at XVI 50 in terms of the formulaic system that generates Homeric diction.

8. Iliad XVI 638 (IC p. 392): Σαρπηδόνι δίῳ vs. Σαρπηδόνα δῖον. Janko assumes that Aristarchus emended from accusative to dative, without manuscript evidence. Again, an argument from silence. Also, compare συμφράδμονες plus dative at Iliad II 372; also συμφράζομαι plus dative at I 537, 540; IX 374; Odyssey iv 462.

5§23 Janko’s secondary list begins here:

11. Iliad XIII 384 (IC p. 96): ἦλθ’ ἐπαμύντωρ (also XV 540) vs. ἦλθεν {121|122} ἀμύντωρ. Despite the parallel attestation in Odyssey xvi 263, Janko thinks that Aristarchus’ reading “should be rejected,” in view of ἦεν ἀμύντωρ at XV 610. But compare the verse-final placement of the verb ἐπαμύνω as at Iliad VI 361 and XII 369. I suggest that neither reading should be “rejected.” Both forms could have been generated from the formulaic system of Homeric diction.

12. Iliad XIII 449 (IC p. 104): ἴδῃ vs. ἴδῃς. Aristarchus’ adducing of the variant ἴδῃ alongside ἴδῃς here and elsewhere does not necessarily mean that he is “standardizing.” Janko claims: “The Alexandrians wrongly standardize one way or the other.” Rather, it may simply be a matter of consistently reporting such variants. Compare my remarks on “normalization” at Iliad XIII 28. Again, both forms could have been generated from the formulaic system of Homeric diction.

13. Iliad XIII 584 (IC p. 118): ὁμαρτήδην vs. ὁμαρτήτην. Janko claims that “this is a conjecture to avoid having two main verbs.” But compare the interaction of adverbial -δην with other verbs, as in the case of such forms as κλήδην, ἐξονομακλήδην, ἐκ δ’ ὀνομακλήδην at Iliad IX 11, XII 415 and Odyssey iv 278, xii 250.

14. Iliad XIII 599 (IC p. 120): ἐυστρεφεῖ vs. ἐυστρόφῳ. Given that the two forms are both morphologically predictable in Homeric diction, as Janko points out, I prefer to treat them as two interchangeable variants in the formulaic system. I disagree with Janko’s description of the variant adduced by Aristarchus: “He is conjecturing to impose homogeneity.” See also my remarks on XIII 28 and XIII 449.

16. Iliad XIV 72 (IC p. 158): ὅτε vs. ὅτι: “this needless conjecture has weak ms support.” Janko argues that ὅτε “tidies up the syntax without altering the sense.” Why assume, though, that it is the editor who tidies up? The formulaic system can generate either ὅτε or ὅτι in this context, and one of these alternatives happens to be more tidy than the other from Aristarchus’ point of view. The adducing of the form by Aristarchus could simply be added to the manuscript evidence, however weak in this case, which points toward the existence of two variants in this context. Janko cannot prove that ὅτε is not an authentic variant. Giving Aristarchus the benefit of the doubt, I prefer to argue that he had access to two variants ὅτε vs. ὅτι, not that he conjectured ὅτε in order to oust a supposedly exclusive ὅτι that he found in the manuscripts. Aristarchus would then proceed to choose one variant {122|123} over the other, on the basis of the internal evidence. Janko’s preference for the other variant, by contrast, is based on external considerations prompted by his theory of an eighth-century archetype that was dictated by Homer. In terms of such a posited archetype, ὅτι seems the plausible choice for Janko, since it seems to him the lectio difficilior; but you need to make a choice between the variants precisely because you are positing such an archetype. From an evolutionary point of view, by contrast, you do not need to choose one or the other variant as the true form. Rather, the choice is relative—depending on the given time and place in the history of the paradosis. In the case of Aristarchus, to repeat, his own need to make a choice in such cases is based on his theory of an archetype written by Homer.

17. Iliad XIV 173 (IC p. 176): κατά vs. ποτί: “but Aristarchus’ alteration is unjustified, since we are dealing with a misused formula.” Rather, I argue that it is unjustified to claim an “alteration.” Further, it is unjustified to claim that the expression ποτὶ χαλκοβατὲς δῶ is “misused” in this context, vs. the other contexts at Iliad I 426 and 438, XXII 505, Odyssey viii 321 and xiii 4 (in the last case, the δῶ is that of Alkinoos, not of Zeus). The reading ποτὶ χαλκοβατὲς δῶ may be less “tidy” (to invoke Janko’s criteria as applied to the previous case) than the reading adduced by Aristarchus, κατὰ χαλκοβατὲς δῶ, but it is still justifiable in terms of the formulaic system that generates Homeric diction. More important, expressions involving ποτὶ δῶμα (verse-final at Odyssey iii 488 and xv 186) and ποτὶ δώματ’ (Odyssey vi 297) are parallel to those involving κατὰ δῶμα (verse-final at Iliad XXII 442 and 478) and κατὰ δώματ’ (Iliad XXIV 512, Odyssey xxi 372) in the formulaic system—both in terms of positioning within the hexameter and in terms of traditional themes at work in the given contexts. Finally, the thematic contexts of κατὰ δῶμα / δώματ(α) in verses like Iliad XIV 257 and Odyssey iv 44 (cf. 72) are evidently cognate with the thematic context of Iliad XIV 173 (about the wonders of the palace of Zeus).

18. Iliad XIV 235 (IC p. 188): τοι χάριν εἰδέω vs. τοι ἰδέω χάριν (scanned – ) in papyri and some codices; also vs. τοι εἰδέω χάριν in the dēmōdeis (δημώδεις) ‘popular’ texts (Didymus/A) and in our “vulgate.” Janko says that Aristarchus’ reading “removes the hiatus [between τοι and ἰδέω] and synizesis [the εω in ἰδέω],” citing Odyssey xvi 236. Actually, the prevalent manuscript reading there is ὄφρ’ εἰδέω ὅσσοι τε …, which scans as – – – – – . The synizesis there [the εω in εἰδέω] suggests to me that Aristarchus’ reading could also feature synizesis: that is, τοι χάριν εἰδέω could scan as – – – as well as – (with non-synizesis of εω but with correption of ω before the following vowel). The placement of χάριν εἰδέω before the bucolic diaeresis may be compared with the analogous placement {123|124} of χάριν ἴδε (scanned as ) at Iliad XI 243. Note too the placement of εἰδώς before the bucolic diaeresis at Odyssey iv 818 and v 250.

19. Iliad XIV 485 (IC p. 220): Ἄρεω ἀλκτῆρα vs. ἄρεως ἀλκτῆρα. The latter “vulgate” reading, with synizesis of εω, is parallel to ἄρεως ἀλκτῆρες at Iliad XVIII 213, again with synizesis; but ἄρης ἀλκτῆρα at XVIII 100. Janko notes: “Aristarchus read Ἄρεω in all three places, but this too [like Zenodotus’ reading ἄρης] is conjectural.” How can Janko be sure? He explains thus about Ἄρεω: “this Ionic form, absent from the mss, first occurs in Archilochus [F 18].” But how can he be sure that such an Ionic form is excluded from Homeric diction? Janko continues: “The truth is surely as follows.” He proceeds to argue that ἄρη (short α, as distinct from the long α of ἀρή ‘curse’) became “confused” with Ἄρης. “The poet let the barely intelligible formula [ἄρης ἀλκτῆρα] stand at [XVIII] 100, but here [XIV 485] and at [XVIII] 213 he substituted Ἄρεος, a normal epic genitive of Ares, found in a few mss; because of the substitution, it has to be scanned (uniquely) with synizesis.” Finally, “Ἄρεως will then be a superficial Atticism, also found as a variant at [Iliad XIX] 47.” From an evolutionary point of view, by contrast, the formulation could be simplified: ἄρης ἀλκτῆρ- can coexist with an Ionicized variant Ἄρεω ἀλκτῆρ- as well as an Atticized variant Ἄρεως ἀλκτῆρ-.

21. Iliad XV 114 (IC p. 241): δ’ ἔπος ηὔδα vs. δὲ προσηύδα in most manuscripts. Similarly at Iliad XV 398 and Odyssey xiii 199. According to Janko, the Alexandrians “surely abandoned our vulgate δὲ προσηύδα (with its papyrus support) on the ground that it lacks an addressee in the acc., but this can be supplied from the context (cf. e.g. [V] 871).” I can understand how the Alexandrians could have used this kind of reasoning, but it does not follow that they should have conjectured δ’ ἔπος ηὔδα. I maintain that they would have “abandoned” δὲ προσηύδα only if they had δ’ ἔπος ηὔδα available as a textual variant. I am not persuaded by Janko’s argument that verse-final ἔπος ηὔδα, as attested at Iliad XII 163, could have been a source for conjecturing δ’ ἔπος ηὔδα as an alternative to δὲ προσηύδα. Rather, I view this attestation of ἔπος ηὔδα as a formulaic cognate of δ’ ἔπος ηὔδα. Janko adds that ἔπος ηὔδα “occurs 12x elsewhere, but its ϝ- is never ‘neglected’.” But the “neglect” of ϝ- in δ’ ἔπος ηὔδα does not make this sequence any less formulaic than ἔπος ηὔδα. We may compare the notorious “neglect” of ϝ- whenever a female speaker speaks ‘winged words’: feminine φωνήσασ’ ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα vs. masculine φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα. [57]

22. Iliad XV 252 (IC p. 253): ἵξεσθαι vs. ὄψεσθαι. Janko himself compares an interesting variation, attested in the manuscripts, between verse final ἵκηαι vs. ἴδηαι at Odyssey xvii 448. I contend that both pairs of variants, ἵξεσθαι vs. ὄψεσθαι and ἵκηαι vs. ἴδηαι, reflect a functional variation within the formulaic system of Homeric diction. Janko thinks that ὄψεσθαι “accords better with the stress on sight” in the present context. Well and good. But such an editorial preference for one variant over the other does not discredit {125|126} the other variant’s authenticity. From an evolutionary point of view, I contend that both variants are authentic. See also my comments at Iliad XIII 810 on “better” vs. “worse” manuscript readings.

23. Iliad XV 714 (IC p. 305): πέσον vs. πέσεν. Again, a case of neuter plural subject with a plural vs. singular verb. Janko refers back to his discussion of ἠγνοίησαν vs. ἠγνοίησεν at Iliad XV 28, and I in turn refer back to my comments on that case.

24. Iliad XVI 35 (IC p. 320): ὅτε vs. ὅτι: “a needless change lacking ms support.” See my comments on Iliad XIV 72.

25. Iliad XVI 53 (IC p. 322): ὁππότε τις vs. ὁππότε δή. In support of his claim that “Aristarchus altered δή to τις,” Janko says that there are twelve attestations of “ὅπποτέ (κεν) δή.” I find, however, only three other cases of plain ὁππότε δή: Odyssey xx 386, xxiii 345, xxiv 344. In each case, the verb is not in the subjunctive (two indicatives, one optative). In the present case, we see the subjunctive: ὁππότε τις [or δὴ] τὸν ὁμοῖον ἀνὴρ ἐθέλῃσιν ἀμέρσαι. I find two cases of verse-initial ὁππότε τις, and both feature the subjunctive: Iliad XIX 201 and XXI 112. The first of these two cases is strikingly parallel in syntax to the present case: ὁππότε τις μεταπαυσωλὴ πολέμοιο γένηται. The parallelism is in terms of “deep structure,” not “surface structure,” and it would be implausible, I think, to claim that Aristarchus was inspired by a verse like Iliad XIX 201 in preferring ὁππότε τις to ὁππότε δή at Iliad XVI 53. I infer instead that Aristarchus had manuscript evidence for the reading ὁππότε τις alongside the “vulgate” reading ὁππότε δή. From an evolutionary point of view, however, there is no need to justify Aristarchus’ preference, as opposed to Janko’s preference. There is only the need to justify the authenticity of Aristarchus’ reading, alongside the authenticity of the “vulgate” reading (as justified by Janko).

26. Iliad XVI 106 (IC p. 330): καὶ φάλαρ’ vs. καπ’ φάλαρ’ (all manuscripts and all papyri). Janko claims that the καί “is plainly a conjecture,” because it turns the phrase βάλλετο δ’ αἰεί at the end of the preceding line into a “parenthesis.” We may restate Janko’s claim this way: καί is an optional connector with the syntax of βάλλετο δ’ αἰεί, while καπ’ is an obligatory connector. But there are formulaic parallels to the “parenthetical” syntax of βάλλετο δ’ αἰεί (if followed by καί): within the same “Adonic clausula” of the hexameter, scanned – – –, I find such constructions as τείρετο δ’ αἰνῶς at Iliad V 352. Compare also ἵετο δ’ αἰεί at Iliad XIII 424, which is not followed by “necessary enjambment” in this context, as opposed to the context of Iliad V 434, where we do find “necessary enjambment.” Similarly with βάλλετο δ’ αἰεί, we find absence vs. presence of “necessary enjambment” when followed by καί vs. καπ’. As for καί vs. καπ’, compare the reverse situation in Odyssey {126|127} iv 72, where the manuscripts have καὶ δώματα ἠχηέντα vs. κατὰ δώματα ἠχηέντα in the scholia T at Iliad XXIV 323. Compare verse-initial καὶ κεφαλῆς at Odyssey xviii 355, where one of the manuscripts (Allen’s “R12”) reads κἀκε…, leading to the modern emendation κακ’ κεφαλῆς.

27. Iliad XVI 227 (IC p. 347): ὅτι μή vs. ὅτε μή. Janko says of ὅτι μή: “a common idiom in Herodotus and later, has no Homeric parallel.” But ὅτι μή at this verse is attested in some manuscripts, so that it cannot simply be assumed to be non-Homeric. The four cases of ὅτε μή at Iliad XIII 319, XIV 248, Odyssey xvi 197, xxi 185 do not disprove the potential presence of ὅτι μή in XVI 227. Those four cases of ὅτε μή (aside from XVI 227) introduce a verb in the optative, whereas we find no verb introduced by ὅτι μή / ὅτε μή at XVI 227. For Janko to say that the expected verb “is easily supplied” does not explain why the verb is missing only at XVI 227 but not elsewhere. The attested Ionic constructions introduced by ὅτι μή, which are regularly without a verb (compare Herodotus 1.18.3, 1.143.2, etc.), could supply an answer.

30. Iliad XVI 522 (IC p. 383): οὗ παιδὸς ἀμύνει vs. ᾧ παιδὶ ἀμύνει. Janko contends that “this effort to emend away a hiatus is in no good ms.” But why {127|128} assume that hiatus was Aristarchus’ main concern? I suggest that he was interested in the lectio difficilior of the genitive vs. the dative with ἀμύνω. Janko himself cites Iliad XIII 402–403, Ζεὺς κῆρας ἄμυνε | παιδὸς ἑοῦ (vs. dative constructions at Iliad XVI 265 and 512).

32. Iliad XVI 775 (IC p. 408): ὁ δ’ ἐν στροφάλιγγι κονίης vs. ὁ δὲ στροφάλιγγι κονίης. Janko describes the form adduced by Aristarchus as “a facile emendation.” But note the prepositional construction at Iliad XXI 503: μετὰ στροφάλιγγι κονίης. The “deep structure” of the syntax in this case helps explain the ἐν in the other case. Further, the “surface structure” of μετὰ στροφάλιγγι κονίης seems to me too opaque to motivate ἐν στροφάλιγγι κονίης by some sort of analogy.

5§24 We have reached the end of Janko’s list of his best-case arguments for doubting the testimony of Aristarchus. Having offered a counter-argument in each case, I conclude that Aristarchus deserves the benefit of the doubt.

5§26 I close by signaling my intention to pursue further the rehabilitation of (1) the concept of an Aristarchean edition of Homer and (2) the importance of variant readings adduced by Aristarchus and other Alexandrian editors of the Homeric textual transmission. {128|131}

[[Left blank are pp. 129–130, marking the transition from Part I to Part II = from Text to Language, so that Ch.6 starts at p. 131.]]


[ back ] * The original version of this essay is N 1998b.

[ back ] 1. Morris and Powell 1997.

[ back ] 2. Janko 1998a; Wace and Stubbing 1962. Since this review by Janko (1998a) was published in an electronic journal, I cannot assign page numbers wherever I quote him.

[ back ] 3. N 1997b = HR 4–7.

[ back ] 4. N 1997d = pp. 101–122 in Morris and Powell 1997 = Ch.1 in this volume.

[ back ] 5. HS 114.

[ back ] 6. Just to be double-sure, I ran a word-check on “emend” and “conjecture” in PP, and I found that there too as in HS I am consistently careful in maintaining a distinction between these two concepts.

[ back ] 7. HS 111.

[ back ] 8. HS 110–111; see p. 13 in the present book.

[ back ] 9. Haslam 1997.

[ back ] 10. To quote from Janko 1998a; see Haslam 1997:80–81.

[ back ] 11. HS 111 = p. 13 in the present book. See also Ch.2 above.

[ back ] 12. Haslam 1997:72.

[ back ] 13. IC 26.

[ back ] 14. IC 24–25. See van der Valk 1963/1964; Kirk 1985 I 43.

[ back ] 15. Janko lists this Iliadic passage first at IC 26n30 (XIII 28, XIII 191, and XIII 384 go into a secondary list), perhaps intending it as a premier case in point (cf. IC 37).

[ back ] 16. IC 99.

[ back ] 17. See also HR 67–68.

[ back ] 18. See Ch.1, p. 11.

[ back ] 19. PP 151.

[ back ] 20. IC 99–100 (also pp. 37–38).

[ back ] 21. IC 99–100.

[ back ] 22. Again, see also HR 67–68.

[ back ] 23. N 1997b.

[ back ] 24. Lord 1953.

[ back ] 25. Lord 1991:38–48.

[ back ] 26. Hereafter cited as MHV.

[ back ] 27. MHV 451.

[ back ] 28. MHV 451.

[ back ] 29. N 1997b.

[ back ] 30. MHV 452.

[ back ] 31. MHV 452.

[ back ] 32. MHV 452.

[ back ] 33. N 1996a = PP; Haslam 1997.

[ back ] 34. Pfeiffer 1968:215–218, with bibliography.

[ back ] 35. Apthorp 1980:xviii.

[ back ] 36. HS 115; see also above at p. 17; cf. PP 135n121.

[ back ] 37. See van Thiel 1996 and 1991 respectively.

[ back ] 38. But see now his retraction of that statement, published in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 98.6.17, = Janko 1998d. In fact, Wolf did indeed publish his own editions of the Iliad and Odyssey, in 1804 and 1807 respectively.

[ back ] 39. HS 114–115. See again Ch.1.

[ back ] 40. MHV 269n5. The editions of Ludwich are Homeri Odyssea I/II (Leipzig: Teubner 1889/1891) and Homeri Ilias I/II (Leipzig: Teubner 1902/1907). (As in the other instance that I have already noted, this reference to Ludwich is likewise omitted in Adam Parry’s index of MHV.)

[ back ] 41. MHV 268n5.

[ back ] 42. MHV 268.

[ back ] 43. MHV 268.

[ back ] 44. PP Ch.5.

[ back ] 45. HS 111. See again p. 13 above.

[ back ] 46. See again Janko’s list in IC 26.

[ back ] 47. I have in mind Janko 1998a.

[ back ] 48. See again my discussion in Ch.3 and Ch.4 of the scholia at Iliad Ι 222.

[ back ] 49. PP 117–118, 132–152; the summary is at p. 133.

[ back ] 50. Janko IC 122.

[ back ] 51. On the principle of lectio difficilior in the analysis of variants stemming from an oral tradition, see PP 129n99. In the same note, I also adduce data collected by Ludwich to argue that Aristarchus’ editorial priorities did not rank internal logic ahead of manuscript evidence.

[ back ] 52. PP 128–132.

[ back ] 53. See above p. 61; also PP 148–149.

[ back ] 54. With reference to an Attic phase, see also PP 134–136 on Zenodotean vs. Aristarchean editorial preferences concerning Iliad I.5.

[ back ] 55. Chantraine GH I 77.

[ back ] 56. Here and elsewhere, I use “Dichtersprache” as a shorthand way of referring to poetic language as a meta-language that evolves from the grammar of everyday language but develops a distinct grammar of its own.

[ back ] 57. Parry MHV 397.

[ back ] 58. Chantraine GH I 81.

[ back ] 59. Parry MHV 213–216.

[ back ] 60. At p. 121 above.

[ back ] 61. I am grateful to one of the two anonymous referees who alerted me to the necessity of addressing this theoretical possibility.