Peisistratos and Homer
Ned Latham
are:
1. When was it first committed to writing? What confidence is there
in the estimate(s) available?
2. What substance is there to the allegation that the version we
have was corrupted under the supervision of Peisistratos?
3. Why do we have no other version(s)?
Can anyone help, please?
--
Ned ++++++ Democracy means "the people rule".
Forget the republic: fight for the power of assent.
To reply, cut out my nose and make the met a net.
Dmitry Sheinin
news:slrn8th8n1....@messy.apex.net.au...
> I have some questions about the Iliad, the most important of which
> are:
>
> 1. When was it first committed to writing? What confidence is there
> in the estimate(s) available?
The tradition holds that it was done once under Peisistratus and that
that job (which included comparison of versions and selection) is
the ultimate written source for what we know as Homeric epos.
The question of confidence has to be left to particular scholars'
speculation; I see no reason to question the basic truthfulness of
the account.
> 2. What substance is there to the allegation that the version we
> have was corrupted under the supervision of Peisistratos?
Apart from the obvious observation that quite a few forcible
decisions must have had to be made during the process of
codification, there is little substance. The most famous piece
of evidence as to "corruption" is probably the alleged insertion
of Il. 2, 558 by Solon, with the purpose of supporting the
Athenian claim on Salamis. There are some other places,
suspicious for their inadequately enhanced (??) role of the
Athenian heroes (but even though the suspicions are not
groundless, the resulting degree of Athenian involvement
is too low to complain).
However, some kinds of literary analysis, including (but
not limited to) that of the celebrated "Homeric problems",
may prompt not unreasonable speculations about
interpolations/excisions of various scale and degree,
though it is plausible to refer most of them to the period
of oral tradition.
> 3. Why do we have no other version(s)?
Looks like this question is too good to receive a reasonable
answer.
Regards,
Dmitry
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > I have some questions about the Iliad, the most important of which
> > are:
> >
> > 1. When was it first committed to writing? What confidence is there
> > in the estimate(s) available?
>
> The tradition holds that it was done once under Peisistratus and that
> that job (which included comparison of versions and selection) is
> the ultimate written source for what we know as Homeric epos.
> The question of confidence has to be left to particular scholars'
> speculation; I see no reason to question the basic truthfulness of
> the account.
I've been told that it was first committed to writing in the
8th century BCE. Do you know of anything that could justify
that opinion?
> > 2. What substance is there to the allegation that the version we
> > have was corrupted under the supervision of Peisistratos?
>
> Apart from the obvious observation that quite a few forcible
> decisions must have had to be made during the process of
> codification, there is little substance. The most famous piece
> of evidence as to "corruption" is probably the alleged insertion
> of Il. 2, 558 by Solon, with the purpose of supporting the
> Athenian claim on Salamis.
Solon? You mean Peisistratos, surely?
> There are some other places,
> suspicious for their inadequately enhanced (??) role of the
> Athenian heroes (but even though the suspicions are not
> groundless, the resulting degree of Athenian involvement
> is too low to complain).
I've looked pretty closely at the W H D Rouse translation:
Apart from the entry in Catalogue of Ships (which I consider
could have been inserted as a single block), there are only
five references to Athens in the whole epic, and "Athenai"
scans the same as "Mykenai". Again, Menestheus is mentioned
only five times outside the Catalogue (mostly with those
mentions of Athens), and there are plenty of names that would
scan the same as his. The level of Athenian involvement, if
those references are accepted, is very low. The question is
whether or not they *should* be accepted. And if not, what
of Athens as a participant in the Trojan War?
On this theme, I have noted too that the Iliad connects Athena
to Troy and to Boeotia, but not to Athens (again, except for
that entry in the Catalogue of Ships).
> However, some kinds of literary analysis, including (but
> not limited to) that of the celebrated "Homeric problems",
> may prompt not unreasonable speculations about
> interpolations/excisions of various scale and degree,
> though it is plausible to refer most of them to the period
> of oral tradition.
I have a theory that depends somewhat on this (you will be able
to guess it in part from the above), so I would like very much
to nail it down if at all possible. Do you know of any serious
web resources I could consult? So far, all I've got from my
searches is wacko stuff and university curricula.
> > 3. Why do we have no other version(s)?
>
> Looks like this question is too good to receive a reasonable
> answer.
Another poster (in another NG) says that what the earliest written
copies we have are dated to about 1000 CE, and are ultimately traceable
to the Alexandrian librarians Aristarkhos, c. 160 BCE, and Zenodotos,
c. 280 BCE.
Thanks for your trouble, Dmitry. Much appreciated.
Dmitry Sheinin
Ned Latham <nen...@apex.met.au> wrote in message news:slrn8tmcue....@messy.apex.net.au...
> Dmitry Sheinin wrote in <8raon3$h...@news-central.tiac.net>:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > I have some questions about the Iliad, the most important of which
> > > are:
> > >
> > > 1. When was it first committed to writing? What confidence is there
> > > in the estimate(s) available?
> >
> > The tradition holds that it was done once under Peisistratus and that
> > that job (which included comparison of versions and selection) is
> > the ultimate written source for what we know as Homeric epos.
> > The question of confidence has to be left to particular scholars'
> > speculation; I see no reason to question the basic truthfulness of
> > the account.
>
> I've been told that it was first committed to writing in the
> 8th century BCE. Do you know of anything that could justify
> that opinion?
No I don't. And I'm afraid this cannot have any reasonable grounds.
8th century is about the time the epos was created. (Which dating
is of course by no means reliable). More importantly, there are,
practically, no sources for that time. Even Peisistratus' codification
is semi-legendary (though only a few radical skeptics may doubt it).
At the same time, it's only reasonable to assume that various partial
or full written versions existed very early. The job of codification
was to carry out a critical review of them and create a master
version on their basis.
> > > 2. What substance is there to the allegation that the version we
> > > have was corrupted under the supervision of Peisistratos?
> >
> > Apart from the obvious observation that quite a few forcible
> > decisions must have had to be made during the process of
> > codification, there is little substance. The most famous piece
> > of evidence as to "corruption" is probably the alleged insertion
> > of Il. 2, 558 by Solon, with the purpose of supporting the
> > Athenian claim on Salamis.
>
> Solon? You mean Peisistratos, surely?
I surely mean Solon.
> > There are some other places,
> > suspicious for their inadequately enhanced (??) role of the
> > Athenian heroes (but even though the suspicions are not
> > groundless, the resulting degree of Athenian involvement
> > is too low to complain).
>
> I've looked pretty closely at the W H D Rouse translation:
> Apart from the entry in Catalogue of Ships (which I consider
> could have been inserted as a single block), there are only
> five references to Athens in the whole epic, and "Athenai"
> scans the same as "Mykenai". Again, Menestheus is mentioned
> only five times outside the Catalogue (mostly with those
> mentions of Athens), and there are plenty of names that would
> scan the same as his. The level of Athenian involvement, if
> those references are accepted, is very low. The question is
> whether or not they *should* be accepted. And if not, what
> of Athens as a participant in the Trojan War?
I don't know if they should but it seems that they have to.
(On "should", I can only observe that 2,557 without 558
sounds abrupt; as it is paired with 558, it goes smoother.)
About their participation, it's all most obscure.
> On this theme, I have noted too that the Iliad connects Athena
> to Troy and to Boeotia, but not to Athens (again, except for
> that entry in the Catalogue of Ships).
>
> > However, some kinds of literary analysis, including (but
> > not limited to) that of the celebrated "Homeric problems",
> > may prompt not unreasonable speculations about
> > interpolations/excisions of various scale and degree,
> > though it is plausible to refer most of them to the period
> > of oral tradition.
>
> I have a theory that depends somewhat on this (you will be able
> to guess it in part from the above), so I would like very much
> to nail it down if at all possible. Do you know of any serious
> web resources I could consult? So far, all I've got from my
> searches is wacko stuff and university curricula.
No I'm afraid I don't, but I'm not much of a web surfer. (For
which term I don't imply any negative connotations :-)).
> > > 3. Why do we have no other version(s)?
> >
> > Looks like this question is too good to receive a reasonable
> > answer.
>
> Another poster (in another NG) says that what the earliest written
> copies we have are dated to about 1000 CE, and are ultimately traceable
> to the Alexandrian librarians Aristarkhos, c. 160 BCE, and Zenodotos,
> c. 280 BCE.
There are much earlier (than 1000 c.e.) papyrus fragments
but I don't think I can give you references. The traditional
ultimate source for all the manuscripts is Peisistratus'
codification. But you're right, this cannot be traced beyond
the grammarians.
Best,
Dmitry
frank
> I have a theory that depends somewhat on this (you will be able
> to guess it in part from the above), so I would like very much
> to nail it down if at all possible. Do you know of any serious
> web resources I could consult?
For a set of links and potted versions of theories, try
http://ancienthistory.about.com/homework/ancienthistory/library/weekly/aa090
198.htm
Hope this may be useful.
cheers
frank
eme...@orion.it.luc.edu
years ago which argues that alphabetic writing was invented precisely in
order write down Homer. To be accurate I should say that Phoenician
script was adapted to a full alphabet. The earliest traces are indeed
around 800 B.C., a line or two of verse (not Homer) on a vase.
Still, Homeric song had to be written down at some point, and the usually
agreed on point is 750-700 B.C. If there was a Pistratean recension, it
was just that, an edition made by comparison of a number of existing
texts.
That doesn't mean it's the text we have. What we have can be reasonably
securely traced to Alexandria. Anything earlier is a matter of
controversy.
And while it's true that the earliest complete manuscripts are only about
a thousand years old, there are far older fragments on papyrus from Egypt
and many quotations in even older authors, like Plato. A couple of the
manuscripts come with marginal notes (scholia), many of which quote
earlier commentators.
Ed Menes
Dmitry Sheinin
news:8rh7td$726$1...@calchas.it.luc.edu...
> The earliest traces are indeed
> around 800 B.C., a line or two of verse (not Homer) on a vase.
The oldest we have in Greek is the three verses on "Nestor's cup"
(not to be confused with "Nestor's cup" found by Schlieman in
Mycenae, of 2nd millennium b.c.e.), of which, indeed, the last two
are hexameters of Homeric type:
Nestoros eimi eupoton pote:rion
hos d' an toude pie:si pote:riou, autika keinon
himeros haire:sei kallistephanou Aphrodite:s
(at least, it was considered the oldest 10-15 years ago).
It is evident from the verses that Homeric tradition was is
full sway by the time (otherwise they would hardly have
been inscribed on someone's private drinking vessel).
(We're back there, Frank and Translation threaders - at
the very start of it it was drinking and what Silenus said
should follow...:-)).
I don't have sources at hand that would establish the date.
My somewhat vague recollection was that it was 7th
century b.c.e. but a web search yielded
http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/cciv243/cciv243.NestCup.html
(among others), whis says it's "last quarter 8th century bce".
There is also a picture there.
And this is what on-line EB says:
"The earliest datable inscriptions, both from
approximately 725 BC, come from Athens
(the Dipylon vase) and the colony of Ischia in
the Tyrrhenian Sea (the so-called Nestor's cup)."
p...@tud.at
Dmitry Sheinin wrote:
>
> <eme...@orion.it.luc.edu> wrote in message
> news:8rh7td$726$1...@calchas.it.luc.edu...
>
> > The earliest traces are indeed
> > around 800 B.C., a line or two of verse (not Homer) on a vase.
>
> The oldest we have in Greek is the three verses on "Nestor's cup"
> (not to be confused with "Nestor's cup" found by Schlieman in
> Mycenae, of 2nd millennium b.c.e.), of which, indeed, the last two
> are hexameters of Homeric type:
>
> Nestoros eimi eupoton pote:rion
> hos d' an toude pie:si pote:riou, autika keinon
> himeros haire:sei kallistephanou Aphrodite:s
>
> (at least, it was considered the oldest 10-15 years ago).
Hi Dmitry,
according to Joachim Latacz, in: Die griechische Literatur in Text und
Darstellung, Band 1: Archaische Periode. Stuttgart: Reclam 1991,
p.308f., we have one older inscription than the one on Nestor's cup
(which he dates 735-720 BC):
" (um 740, Athen. Preis-Auslobung auf dem Hals einer Tonkanne)
hos nun orchesto:n panto:n atalo:tata paizei,
to: tode kl|min (sic) vacat.
Wer also jetzt von den Tänzern hier allen am flottesten Ball spielt,
dem soll dies[e(r) u_] hier gehör'n [uu_uu_x] *
* Aus Platzmangel vom Schreiber nicht komplettiert. "
Cheers,
Péter
Dmitry Sheinin
<p...@tud.at> wrote in message news:39DF5CDB...@tud.at...
>
>
> Dmitry Sheinin wrote:
> >
> > <eme...@orion.it.luc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:8rh7td$726$1...@calchas.it.luc.edu...
> >
> > > around 800 B.C., a line or two of verse (not Homer) on a vase.
> >
> > (not to be confused with "Nestor's cup" found by Schlieman in
> > Mycenae, of 2nd millennium b.c.e.), of which, indeed, the last two
> > are hexameters of Homeric type:
> >
> > Nestoros eimi eupoton pote:rion
> > hos d' an toude pie:si pote:riou, autika keinon
> > himeros haire:sei kallistephanou Aphrodite:s
> >
> > (at least, it was considered the oldest 10-15 years ago).
>
> Hi Dmitry,
> according to Joachim Latacz, in: Die griechische Literatur in Text und
> Darstellung, Band 1: Archaische Periode. Stuttgart: Reclam 1991,
> p.308f., we have one older inscription than the one on Nestor's cup
> (which he dates 735-720 BC):
>
> " (um 740, Athen. Preis-Auslobung auf dem Hals einer Tonkanne)
>
> hos nun orchesto:n panto:n atalo:tata paizei,
> to: tode kl|min (sic) vacat.
>
> Wer also jetzt von den Tänzern hier allen am flottesten Ball spielt,
> dem soll dies[e(r) u_] hier gehör'n [uu_uu_x] *
>
> * Aus Platzmangel vom Schreiber nicht komplettiert. "
Thanks, Péter,
As I understand your reference, this inscription is not
identical with "the Dipylon vase" from Athens referred
to in Enc. Brit. as equally old with Nestor's cup and
is thus something third and older (a relatively recent
discovery?)
Best,
Dmitry
p...@tud.at
> > to: tode kl|min (sic) vacat.
>
> identical with "the Dipylon vase" from Athens referred
> to in Enc. Brit. as equally old with Nestor's cup and
> is thus something third and older (a relatively recent
> discovery?)
My book doesn't mention the origin of the vase, but I did a quick search
on Google and found this:
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~perlman/history/dipylon.html
The inscription on the first vase (from right to left) seems to be
identical with the text quoted above; one can clearly discern the words
"[...] nun orcheston panton ata[...]". So we are talking about the same
inscription.
Cheers,
Péter
Dmitry Sheinin
> My book doesn't mention the origin of the vase, but I did a quick search
> on Google and found this:
>
> http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~perlman/history/dipylon.html
>
> The inscription on the first vase (from right to left) seems to be
> identical with the text quoted above; one can clearly discern the words
> "[...] nun orcheston panton ata[...]". So we are talking about the same
> inscription.
Thanks for the clarification, Péter, and for the reference, which contains
marvelous images.
I also made some search (I'm afraid, a somewhat superficial one);
aside from the vase in question, with which everything seems to be
clear, it appears that it is not the only artifact known as "the Dipylon
vase". The reason why any of the others is graced with the definite
article is unclear to me.
Regards,
Dmitry
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Dmitry Sheinin wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have some questions about the Iliad, the most important
> > > > of which are:
> > > >
> > > > 1. When was it first committed to writing? What confidence
> > > > is there in the estimate(s) available?
----snip----
In summary then, Peisistratos is the best bet on that, though there
are some radical opinions that it might have been earlier or later.
Is that fair?
> > > > 2. What substance is there to the allegation that the version
> > > > we have was corrupted under the supervision of Peisistratos?
> > >
> > > Apart from the obvious observation that quite a few forcible
> > > decisions must have had to be made during the process of
> > > codification, there is little substance. The most famous piece
> > > of evidence as to "corruption" is probably the alleged insertion
> > > of Il. 2, 558 by Solon, with the purpose of supporting the
> > > Athenian claim on Salamis.
> >
> > Solon? You mean Peisistratos, surely?
>
> I surely mean Solon.
That sounds very definite, Dmitry: like you've got some info that
I'd very much like to have. Would you elaborate, please?
> > > There are some other places,
> > > suspicious for their inadequately enhanced (??) role of the
> > > Athenian heroes (but even though the suspicions are not
> > > groundless, the resulting degree of Athenian involvement
> > > is too low to complain).
> >
> > I've looked pretty closely at the W H D Rouse translation:
> > Apart from the entry in Catalogue of Ships (which I consider
> > could have been inserted as a single block), there are only
> > five references to Athens in the whole epic, and "Athenai"
> > scans the same as "Mykenai". Again, Menestheus is mentioned
> > only five times outside the Catalogue (mostly with those
> > mentions of Athens), and there are plenty of names that would
> > scan the same as his. The level of Athenian involvement, if
> > those references are accepted, is very low. The question is
> > whether or not they *should* be accepted. And if not, what
> > of Athens as a participant in the Trojan War?
>
> I don't know if they should but it seems that they have to.
> (On "should", I can only observe that 2,557 without 558
> sounds abrupt; as it is paired with 558, it goes smoother.)
The Rouse translation is purely prose: a good yarn well told,
but it doesn't include line numbers. I take it that 2:557 is
the last line of the Athenian entry in the Catalogue of Ships
and 2:558 is the first line (or even all) of the Salaminian
entry? If you confirm that, I have a couple of questions,
though they might be a bit difficult: are you adept with Greek?
Could you quote them please, and translate them as well?
On another tack, the Salaminian entry seems very terse: Aias is
a major player, but his is the shortest entry on the Argive side,
and nothing is said of his ancestry or his attributes. In contrast
to that, Menestheus is a very minor player, yet his background and
leadership are among the most elaborately expounded. This itself
seems suspicious to me.
I note that Aias has the same number of ships as Odysseus, but
apparently (ie, if he holds only Salamis) a very much smaller
holding. Oddyseus's holding includes some of the mainland
adjacent to his islands: might Aias have held some of Attica
or the isthmus? Eleusis, for example?
Have any Mykenaian remains ever been discovered on Salamis?
> About their participation, it's all most obscure.
>
> > On this theme, I have noted too that the Iliad connects Athena
> > to Troy and to Boeotia, but not to Athens (again, except for
> > that entry in the Catalogue of Ships).
----snip----
PS. My ISP's news server took a holiday and lost everything that was
posted over the weekend. If you posted something for me in that period
would you repost it please?
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > I have a theory that depends somewhat on this (you will be able
> > to guess it in part from the above), so I would like very much
> > to nail it down if at all possible. Do you know of any serious
> > web resources I could consult?
>
> For a set of links and potted versions of theories, try
>
> http://ancienthistory.about.com/homework/ancienthistory/library/weekly/aa090
> 198.htm
>
> Hope this may be useful.
Phew! There's a lot there. I haven't found anything useful yet, but
I'll keep ploughing through it.
Thanks, Frank.
Ned Latham
>
> There's a book by Barry Powell (title escapes me right now) eight or nine
> years ago which argues that alphabetic writing was invented precisely in
> order write down Homer.
----snip----
This is another topic that I'd like to investigate: can anyone point me
to discussions of the origin of the Greek alphabet(s).
I'm particularly interested to know ehether there are any clues as to
exactly where the Greeks acquired the Phoenician script. I can't get
Kadmos and Thebes out of my mind on that score, even though the dates
seem wildly out of court.
Ned Latham
> eme...@orion.it.luc.edu wrote:
> >
> > The earliest traces are indeed
> > around 800 B.C., a line or two of verse (not Homer) on a vase.
>
> (not to be confused with "Nestor's cup" found by Schlieman in
> Mycenae, of 2nd millennium b.c.e.), of which, indeed, the last two
> are hexameters of Homeric type:
>
> Nestoros eimi eupoton pote:rion
> hos d' an toude pie:si pote:riou, autika keinon
> himeros haire:sei kallistephanou Aphrodite:s
Hi, Dmitry. Can you translate that for me please? The best I
can do is guess that the first four words say something along
the lines of "I am Nestor's <???> cup", and "himeros haire:sei"
might mean something like "greet the evening". <???> being
something good.
And what's the significance of the colons? Do they indicate
long vowels? What's the apostrophe for?
> (at least, it was considered the oldest 10-15 years ago).
>
> It is evident from the verses that Homeric tradition was in
> full sway by the time (otherwise they would hardly have
> been inscribed on someone's private drinking vessel).
>
> (We're back there, Frank and Translation threaders - at
> the very start of it it was drinking and what Silenus said
> should follow...:-)).
Ah, yes. I see Aphrodite too, but I don't know what to make of
"kallistephanou". I did think of Kallisto, but ...
> I don't have sources at hand that would establish the date.
> My somewhat vague recollection was that it was 7th
> century b.c.e. but a web search yielded
> http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/cciv243/cciv243.NestCup.html
> (among others), whis says it's "last quarter 8th century bce".
> There is also a picture there.
>
> And this is what on-line EB says:
> "The earliest datable inscriptions, both from
> approximately 725 BC, come from Athens
> (the Dipylon vase) and the colony of Ischia in
> the Tyrrhenian Sea (the so-called Nestor's cup)."
--
mchenry
> > > > Apart from the obvious observation that quite a few forcible
> > > > decisions must have had to be made during the process of
> > > > codification, there is little substance. The most famous piece
> > > > of evidence as to "corruption" is probably the alleged insertion
> > > > of Il. 2, 558 by Solon, with the purpose of supporting the
> > > > Athenian claim on Salamis.
> > >
> > > Solon? You mean Peisistratos, surely?
> >
> > I surely mean Solon.
>
> That sounds very definite, Dmitry: like you've got some info that
> I'd very much like to have. Would you elaborate, please?
This was indeed Solon. There are, I'm sure, other sources for the claim,
but the one I have most readily available is Plutarch:
"Now most writers say that Solon on this occasion brought the weight of
Homer's authority to bear on his side, for he inserted into the passage in
The Iliad which contains the Catalogue of Ships the two verses:
Twelve warships Ajax brought from Salamis
And beached them close to the Athenian host
and read these out before the court."
Solon supposedly inserted these lines into the poem, and then recited them
before the Spartan arbitrators as evidence that Athens held a greater claim
to Salamis than did the Megarians.
-mchenry
Baron von Wankenstein
nen...@apex.met.au wrote:
> I have some questions about the Iliad, the most important of which
> are:
>
> 1. When was it first committed to writing? What confidence is there
> in the estimate(s) available?
Greek writing was adapted from the Phoenician at about the time of
Homer, 750/700 BC. It is probable that Homer could write. It is
possible that a version was written down at that time.
>
> 2. What substance is there to the allegation that the version we
> have was corrupted under the supervision of Peisistratos?
It is said that the Athenians are responsible for the division of the
work into 24 books, as we have it now.
>
> 3. Why do we have no other version(s)?
We have only 3 plays by Aristophanes and none by Menander, both of whom
were really funny. The stuff just got lost or destroyed during wars.
It was the Hellenistic Greeks--the Ptolemies of Egypt--who tried to
collect all the classical Greek stuff in the library of Alexandria.
Whoever destroyed this library was probably responsible for the loss of
other versions of Homer.
WB
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dmitry Sheinin
news:39e3162c$1...@oit.umass.edu...
> This was indeed Solon. There are, I'm sure, other sources for the claim,
> but the one I have most readily available is Plutarch:
>
> "Now most writers say that Solon on this occasion brought the weight of
> Homer's authority to bear on his side, for he inserted into the passage in
> The Iliad which contains the Catalogue of Ships the two verses:
> Twelve warships Ajax brought from Salamis
> And beached them close to the Athenian host
> and read these out before the court."
The phrase "two verses" is not there in the original. It says
| embalonta gar auton epos eis neo:n katalogon epi
| te:s dike:s anagno:nai*
[Il. 2, 557-558 follow:]
| Aias d' ek Salaminos agen dyokaideka ne:as,
| ste:se d' ago:n, hin' Athenaio:n histanto phalagges.
i.e.
"for he, having inserted an epic verse in the Catologue of
Ships, read before the court: [557-558]"
"An epic verse" is what "epos" without an article means in the
context. He therefore inserted (if he did) only one verse (558).
It would be unreasonable to assert that 557 was not originally
there, since it is the only place in the Catalogue where Ajax is
mentioned, and he must be mentioned in the Catalogue anyway.
(Also, the Ilias is not explicitly mentioned in the original, as
Plutarch's reader was supposed to know where the Catalogue
of Ships was from. The originally quoted English translation is
therefore grossly erroneous.)
Another source is Diogenes Laertius (1,46): "some people
say that he inserted in Homer's Catalog, after the verse
[557 follows],
<the verse>
[558 follows]."
Strabon (9, 1, 10 p.394) is one more, and it seems to be the
sole mentioning of the possibility of Peisistratus' authorship,
alongside the apparently more common version that it was
Solon's:
| kai phasin hoi men Peisistraton, hoi de Solona paregrapsanta
| en to:i neo:n katalogo:i meta to epos touto* [2, 557 follows]
| hexe:s kai touto* [2, 558 follows], martyri chre:sastai to:i
| poie:te:i tou te:n ne:son ex arche:s Athe:naio:n hyparxai.
("And some people say that it was Peisistratus, others that
it was Solon, who, having added [558] right after [557] in
the Catalogue of Ships, used the poet as a witness <to
the effect> that the island was originally the Athenians'
<property>.")
Regards,
Dmitry
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> We have only 3 plays by Aristophanes and none by Menander, both of whom
> were really funny.
Umm. I coult eleven by Aristophanes:
Acharnians, Knights, Wasps, Birds, Lysistrata, Clouds, Peace, Frogs,
Plutus, Ecclesiazusae, and Thesmophoriazusae.
And while Menander had been entirely lost, he isn't any more. We have
one almost entire, and many considerable sections of others. The
desert just keeps spitting out papyruses.
> It was the Hellenistic Greeks--the Ptolemies of Egypt--who tried to
> collect all the classical Greek stuff in the library of Alexandria.
> Whoever destroyed this library was probably responsible for the loss of
> other versions of Homer.
It's not really known whether it was destroyed or perished due to
accident.
Dmitry Sheinin
> can anyone point me
> to discussions of the origin of the Greek alphabet(s).
Britannica online gives in "Greek language":
"In the 8th century at the latest, but probably much earlier, the Greeks
borrowed their alphabet from the Phoenicians in the framework of their
commercial contacts. The Phoenician alphabet had separate signs for the
Semitic consonants, but the vowels were left unexpressed. The list of
Semitic consonants was adapted to the needs of Greek phonology, but the
major innovation was the use of five letters with the value of vowels-- (a),
(e), (i), (o), (u). The earliest datable inscriptions, both from
Dmitry Sheinin
> On another tack, the Salaminian entry seems very terse: Aias is
> a major player, but his is the shortest entry on the Argive side,
> and nothing is said of his ancestry or his attributes. In contrast
> to that, Menestheus is a very minor player, yet his background and
> leadership are among the most elaborately expounded. This itself
> seems suspicious to me.
Yes, this has long been a subject of the line of critique being
discussed.
Robert Stonehouse
>Baron von Wankenstein <wanke...@my-deja.com> writes:
...
>> It was the Hellenistic Greeks--the Ptolemies of Egypt--who tried to
>> collect all the classical Greek stuff in the library of Alexandria.
>> Whoever destroyed this library was probably responsible for the loss of
>> other versions of Homer.
>
>It's not really known whether it was destroyed or perished due to
>accident.
I don't recall seeing the point made in this thread that the
objective of the Alexandrians - Zenodotus, Aristophanes of
Byzantium, Aristarchus and their successors - was to produce a
definitive text of Homer. That involved getting rid of variants,
perhaps extended ones in some cases, and reconciling all the texts
they had collected from all over the Greek world.
When their version was made, it would naturally supplant all others,
at least for the general reader. The books that have come down to us
are, on the whole, those that were generally read and multiplied in
many copies. A single archive copy of a different version, kept in a
library, would not stand a chance.
So, in a sense, the other versions disappeared because the
Alexandrians deliberately abolished them.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Dmitry Sheinin wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Apart from the obvious observation that quite a few forcible
> > > > > decisions must have had to be made during the process of
> > > > > codification, there is little substance. The most famous piece
> > > > > of evidence as to "corruption" is probably the alleged insertion
> > > > > of Il. 2, 558 by Solon, with the purpose of supporting the
> > > > > Athenian claim on Salamis.
> > > >
> > > > Solon? You mean Peisistratos, surely?
> > >
> > > I surely mean Solon.
> >
> > That sounds very definite, Dmitry: like you've got some info that
> > I'd very much like to have. Would you elaborate, please?
>
> but the one I have most readily available is Plutarch:
>
> "Now most writers say that Solon on this occasion brought the weight of
> Homer's authority to bear on his side, for he inserted into the passage in
> The Iliad which contains the Catalogue of Ships the two verses:
>
> Twelve warships Ajax brought from Salamis
> And beached them close to the Athenian host
>
> and read these out before the court."
Found it. So that's 2:557 *and* 558. Thanks.
> Solon supposedly inserted these lines into the poem, and then recited them
> before the Spartan arbitrators as evidence that Athens held a greater claim
> to Salamis than did the Megarians.
--
Dmitry Sheinin
It was 2, 558 only (see the other post).
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > On another tack, the Salaminian entry seems very terse: Aias is
> > a major player, but his is the shortest entry on the Argive side,
> > and nothing is said of his ancestry or his attributes. In contrast
> > to that, Menestheus is a very minor player, yet his background and
> > leadership are among the most elaborately expounded. This itself
> > seems suspicious to me.
>
> Yes, this has long been a subject of the line of critique being
> discussed.
Aha. So there are professionals who wonder about it too. I suppose
there are at least two prevailing opinions. Would you summarise the
positions for me please? (Sorry about all these requests.)
Dmitry Sheinin
> Aha. So there are professionals who wonder about it too. I suppose
> there are at least two prevailing opinions. Would you summarise the
> positions for me please? (Sorry about all these requests.)
I don't know of such two positions. The summary on which most agree
is that there was Athenian codification and it should somehow affected
the tradition. However, there is no reason to think it was major
modifications.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > Aha. So there are professionals who wonder about it too. I suppose
> > there are at least two prevailing opinions. Would you summarise the
> > positions for me please? (Sorry about all these requests.)
>
> I don't know of such two positions. The summary on which most agree
> is that there was Athenian codification and it should somehow affected
> the tradition. However, there is no reason to think it was major
> modifications.
Um. You say "most agree": what disagreement is there on this point?
(May I presume that "should" doesn't belong in that sentence?)
You also say "no reason to think it was major": is there any reason
to think it was minor? And in this context, what would "major" and
"minor" mean?