Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:45:56.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Text of Iliad 18.603–6 and the Presence of an ΑΟΙΔΟΣ on the Shield of Achilles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Martin Revermann
Martin Revermann
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This is the text of II. 18.603–6, the final scene on the Shield of Achilles, as presented unanimously by our manuscript tradition, five Vulgate papyri from the first to the sixth century A.D., our scholia, and in a quotation in Dionysius of Halicarnassus.1 As is well-known, a much discussed and contentious textual problem raised by Wolf2 is lurking behind it. It is prompted by a passage in Athenaeus providing an additional line after which mentions an and hisDiscussions of the controversial Iliad passage have concentrated on the authenticity of the information given by Athenaeus.3 This focus, I suggest, has been unduly narrow, and has led either to a neglect of other pieces of evidence or to a wrong assessment of their importance. I therefore propose to tackle the problem with a different strategy. Let us erase from our memories the very existence of Athenaeus' information for a while, and reconsider the passage in question accordingly.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , May 1998 , pp. 29 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See M. J. Apthorp, The Manuscript Evidence for Interpolation in Homer (Heidelberg, 1980), p. 160; cf. alsoGoogle ScholarApthorp, ‘New evidence from the Syriac Palimpsest on the Numerus Versuum of the Iliad’, ZPE 110 (1996), 103–14, esp. HOf. on another papyrus (sixth century A.D.) which probably had this text, too.Google Scholar

2 Wolf F. A., Prolegomena ad Homerum(Halle, 1795), ch. 49, n. 49.Google Scholar

3 To the discussions quoted by H. Erbse, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem vol. 4 (Berlin, 1975), p. 569 in the apparatus addGoogle ScholarZs. Ritook, ‘Anmerkungen zu Homer’, Acta Antiqua 19 (1971), 201–15, esp. 201–7;Google ScholarAndersen, O., ‘Some thoughts on the Shield of Achilles’, SO 51 (1976), 5–18, esp. 16;CrossRefGoogle ScholarTaplin, O., ‘The Shield of Achilles within the Iliad’, G&R 27 (1980), 1–21, esp. p. 9, n. 27 (aptly remarking: ‘The case for the line must stand or fall without Athenaeus’); Apthorp (n. 1), 160–5;Google Scholarvan Thiel, H.Iliaden und Ilias (Basel/Stuttgart, 1982), p. 472;Google Scholar M. W. Edward's note on 604–6 in the Iliad commentary (Cambridge, 1991); Stanley, K., The Shield of Homer. Narrative Structure in the Iliad (Princeton, 1993), pp. 4 and 13;Google ScholarBecker A. S., A Rhetoric and Poetics of Early Greek Ecphrasis. Theory, Philology and the Shield of Achilles (New York, 1995), p. 146.Google Scholar

4 de Jong I. J. F., ‘Silent characters in the Iliad;, in Bremer J. M. et al. (edd.), Homer Beyond Oral Poetry (Amsterdam, 1987), pp. 105–21.Google Scholar

5 II. 1.472–4, 24.719–75 (esp. 720–2); Od. 4.15–9 8.261–4 and 370–80 (esp. 379f), 23.143–7.

6 Wegner, M., Musik und Tanz. Archaeologia Homerica vol. 3 (Gőttingen, 1968; catalogue finished in 1966), ch. U. AlsoGoogle ScholarTelle R., Frhgriechische Reigentanze (Waldsassen, 1964), pp. 54–73, esp. pp. 62–5;Google ScholarR. Crowhurst, Representations of Performance of Choral Lyric on the Greek Monuments, 800–350 B.C. (Ph.D. thesis, London, 1963), pp. 1–86, 226–38;Google ScholarT. B. L. Webster, The Greek Chorus (London, 1970), pp. 1–11; K. Fittschen, Der Schild des Achilleus. Archaeologia Homerica vol. II (Gottingen, 1973), ch. N, part 1; M. Maas and J. M. Snyder, Stringed Instruments of Ancient Greece (New Haven/London, 1989), pp. 2f. and 1 If.; M. L. West, Ancient Greek Music (Oxford, 1992), pp. 328f.; S. H. Lonsdale, Ritual Play in Greek Religion (Baltimore, 1993);Google ScholarAnderson W. D., Music and Musicians in Ancient Greece (Ithaca, 1994), pp. 20–6.Google Scholar

7 At a time when the was not yet common (West [n. 6], pp. 81f.), dirges may have been mostly unaccompanied. Note that during the for Hector (II. 24.719–76) doiSoi are present, but there is no mention of instruments (cf. also Od. 24.60f.). Nevertheless, there are a couple of late seventh-century items which show ritual lament with accompaniment (West [n. 6], p. 23). In the fifth century, the absence of the festive lyre is a commonplace in tragedy (A. Ag. 990f., Eum. 330–3; S. O.C. 1221f.; E. IT. 145f, Ale. 447 (with Dale's note), Phoen. 1028, Hel. 185; cf. also Alexis fr. 167,6f. K.-A. [paratragic]). But expressions like or similar are ambiguous, implying either accompaniment or lack of any instrument, and Ar. Av. 209–14 strongly suggests that by now dirges were commonly accompanied by the .

8 The finest examples are Wegner no. 99 (pi. U VI a.b), 72 (Tolle [n. 6], pi. 18), 53 (pi. U VId) and, above all, no. 156, an attic-geometric jug from Tubingen (pi. U l b and Tolle pll. 1 and 2), as well as an attic-geometric amphora (Tolle no. 26 and pi. 8). On both, young men and women are dancing.

9 E.g. Lonsdale (n. 6), figg. 4 and 25.

10 Most recently by Crielaard, ‘Homer, history and archaeology’, in Crielaard J. P. (ed.), Homeric Questions (Amsterdam, 1995), pp. 217–24 andGoogle Scholar‘The date of the Iliad’, MH 52 (1995), 203–19, at 210.Google Scholar

11 Both objections are raised by E. Simon, ‘Der Schild des Achilleus’, in G. Boehm and H. Pfotenhauer (edd.), Beschreibungskunst-Kunstbeschreibung (Munich, 1995), pp. 129f.Google Scholar

12 Markoe G., Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean (Berkeley, 1985), esp. pp. 56–9 on iconography.Google Scholar

13 S. West, The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer (Koln, 1967), pp. 132–6 and pi. 4. See also the important contribution by M. Haslam, ‘Homeric papyri and transmission of the text’, inGoogle ScholarMorris, I. and Powell, B. (edd.), A New Companion to Homer (Leiden, 1997), pp. 55–100, esp. pp. 64–9 with n. 20.Google Scholar

14 S. West in the introduction to vol. 1 of the Odyssey commentary (Oxford, 1988), pp. 47f, Apthorp (n. 1), pp. xiii–xix. A more sceptical account: Haslam (n. 13), pp. 84f.

15 Cf. e.g. II. 3.54, West (n. 6), p. 50 and S. West (n. 13) on Od. 1.153

16 H. van Thiel, Homeri I Has (Hildesheim, 1996).Google Scholar

17 Ritook and Apthorp (n. 3).

18 It can, however, not wholly be excluded that, although Athenaeus quoted the doiSdy-line, it was later excised by someone who compared the quotation with his Vulgate text(s), and thus did not find its way into our manuscripts. Kaibel therefore supplements the

19 A point on which Wolf (n. 2) already insisted. On the possible authenticity of this line see Janko (n. 25), pp. 28f., Apthorp (n. 1), pp. 91–9, J. B. Hainsworth and J Griffin in their commentaries on Iliad 9 (Cambridge, 1993 and Oxford, 1995), ad loc., Haslam (n. 13), pp. 78f.Google Scholar

20 van Thiel (n. 16), pp. Xllf.; see also Boiling, G.M., The External Evidence for Interpolation in Homer (Oxford, 1925), pp. 47f.Google Scholar

21 Note the several invocations of the Muse(s) and the fact that the Muses deprive Thamyris of his doiSrj 2.594Q.

22 This hinges on the interpretation of 9.191: It is not clear whether this implies that Patroclus will take over after Achilles has finished singing.

23 On the differences between the poems in this respect see S. West (n. 14) on Od. 1.153–4.

24 See S. West's important review of Apthorp (n. 1) in CR 32 (1982), If.

25 The quest for Aristarchus' principles of textual criticism is a notorious Gnindfrage der Homerkritik. As regards athetesis, they are to some extent recoverable. See e.g. R. Janko, in the Iliad commentary vol. IV (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 27f. and R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship vol. 1 (Oxford, 1968), pp. 225–31. Nevertheless, each instance needs particular scrutiny, as is shown for two frequent types of athetesis byGoogle ScholarD. Luhrs, Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der Mas und zu ihrer Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien (Hildesheim, 1992), passim. Aristarchus' principles for deletion are the main problem. The view that he exclusively followed external evidence (= his manuscripts) seems to prevail nowadays (Apthorp, largely followed by Janko). Against this, however, S. West (n. 24) has raised fundamental and, it seems, irrefutable objections.Google Scholar

26 In the prefaces to his Odyssey edition (Hildesheim, 1991), pp. IX–XIII and Iliad edition (n. 16), pp. Vf., but above all in his article ‘Zenodot, Aristarch und andere’, ZPE90 (1992), 1–32. See also Haslam (n. 13), pp. 84f. Responses from specialists in the field are mixed; see most recently M. Schmidt's article and van Thiel's reply in ZPE115 (1997), 1–36.Google Scholar

27 2 10.13a andb; 11.798, 22.117b; Athen. V 180d and 181a; Strabo 1.1.7.

28 Thus G. Murray, The Rise of the Greek Epic, 4th edn (Oxford, 1934), pp. 287–9.

29 G. Nagy, Poetry as Performance. Homer and Beyond (Cambridge, 1996), esp. part II, and idem, Homeric Questions (Austin, 1996), esp. ch. 3. Reviews of the former: S. West, TLS 2.8 (1996), 27 and M. Heath, CR 47 (1997), 241f..Google Scholar

30 I wish to thank Annette Baertschi, Oliver Taplin, Stephanie West, and an anonymous referee for their critical comments.