Textkit Logo

help with Greek scholia

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.

help with Greek scholia

Postby helios523 » Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:36 am

Greetings! I'm trying to translate the following chunk of the Iliad scholia:

ἐμφρόνως καὶ συνετῶς διείλεκται πάντα ὁ Πάτροκλος. ἐνσέσεισται οὖν ἐκ τῆς Ὀδυσσείας ὁ στίχος· ἐκεῖ γὰρ τὰς ψυχὰς εἴδωλα σκιώδη φρονήσεως ἀμέτοχα ὑπέθετο. ἢ φρένας λέγει οὐ τὸ διανοητικόν, ἀλλὰ μέρος τι τῶν ἐντὸς σώματος, ὡς καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ „ἔν τε φρένες ἧπαρ ἔχουσι“ (ι 301) καὶ πάλιν „ἔνθ' ἄρα τε φρένες ἔρχαται“ (Π 481). ἔστιν οὖν ἀπὸ μέρους τὸ ὅλον σῶμα. οὕτως Ἀριστοφάνης ὁ γραμματικός | ἡ διπλῆ δέ, ὅτι τὰς τῶν ἀτάφων ψυχὰς Ὅμηρος ἔτι σωζούσας τὴν φρόνησιν ὑποτίθεται. (schol. A Il. 23.104a)

My primary question is how to translate the last part:

ἔστιν οὖν ἀπὸ μέρους τὸ ὅλον σῶμα: "It is therefore (possible that?) the whole body from the part"

"The diple is here because Homer establishes that the souls of the unburied preserve good sense" ? What does the "diple" refer to exactly in this case?

Many thanks for your help in untangling this mess for me!
helios523
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:49 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby Hylander » Sat Feb 24, 2018 4:02 am

The diple was a marginal symbol indicating a line that was deemed spurious. The scholiast seems to be saying that this line was imported from the Odyssey because it reflects the Odyssean view that souls were shadowy images not partaking in thought. You might take a look at Richardson's discussion of the scholia on this line in vol. 6 of the Cambridge Commentary. He writes: "The scholia . . . have a long discussion of 104, which is not easy to disentangle", and then goes on to try to make sense of the various scholia.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby mwh » Sat Feb 24, 2018 4:04 am

ἔστιν οὖν ἀπὸ μέρους τὸ ὅλον σῶμα “So it’s a case of ‘the whole body from a part’,” i.e. it’s a “whole and part” construction, whereby a part stands for the whole body.

A diple is a particular critical sign placed in the left margin of the text. It takes the form >, and it marks a place commented on by the Homeric scholar Aristarchus. The so-called “major” scholia on Homer excerpt the work of four of his followers in shortened form. They can be rather specialized, and are full of technical terms, and are probably best not approached cold. This one seems a bit of a mess. Dickie’s Ancient Greek Scholarship gives an introduction to them, and samples.

EDIT. Posted independently of Hylander.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby Timothée » Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:48 pm

Lest anyone be misguided, the name of the author of Ancient Greek Scholarship is Eleanor Dickey. She has featured (deservedly) quite a lot on Textkit, particularly on the occasion of her book on Greek composition. I see that she thanks some familiar names in the preface of her book.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby helios523 » Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:13 pm

Thank you for your help!

Perhaps I could ask for your collective thoughts on the same set of scholia on the soul, but in a different section:

τινὲς σῶμα· μέρος γὰρ σώματος αἱ φρένες. τοῦτο δὲ εἶπε, παρ' ὅσον ἐκταθεὶς οὐκ ἔλαβε. κάλλιον δέ, ὅτι φρένας οἱ τεθνεῶτες οὐκ ἔχουσιν· ἐμέμφετο γὰρ ὡς ἠμελημένος (cf. Ψ 69-74).

“Some say it is the body”: for the phrens are a part of the body. But he says this, that to the degree that he lays dead, he does not possess it [i.e., intelligence]. Better still, the dead do not have it; for he [sc. Patroclus] blamed him for being neglected. (schol. bT Il. 23.104b)

Is κάλλιον δέ rightly translated as "better still"? in the sense of a fortiori?
helios523
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:49 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby mwh » Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:16 pm

κάλλιον is probably used synonymously with ἄμεινον, giving what in the compiler’s view is a “better” interpretation than the one reported first. “Better (to say it’s) because the dead don’t have phrenes.”

This is in opposition to the first interpretation, which was the standard one: “Some say that by phrenes (in 104) he means the body, for the phrenes are part of the body …”. This is the "whole from part" concept we had in the other scholium, drawn from a different source.

τοῦτο δὲ εἶπε, παρ' ὅσον ἐκταθεὶς οὐκ ἔλαβε will refer to Achilles’ attempt to physically grasp hold of Patroclus, “He (Ach.) said this inasmuch as when he stretched out (to embrace him) he didn’t get him (Pat.)”; that's to say, Ach’s statement (in 103-104) is his inference from Patroclus’ ghost-like impalpability. ἐκταθεὶς οὐκ ἔλαβε semi-paraphrases 99-100 (ωρεξατο … ουδ’ ελαβε).

Tricky things, scholia. But a window into exegetical practice in antiquity.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby helios523 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:16 am

Thank you mwh!

Do you have any idea how ἐροῦμεν ὡς might best be translated? It seems like another "standard" way to introduce a solution. Is "we say that..." appropriate here?

ἐροῦμεν ὡς ὅτι τὰ ἀπόρρητα τοῦ θεοῦ σαφῶς ἐπιστάμενος εἰκότως τὰ τῷ θεῷ φίλα θύει·
helios523
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:49 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby mwh » Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:37 pm

ερουμεν ως simply means “we shall say that …”, but we’d need a bit of context to see what ὅτι is doing. The note could mean (I’m not saying it does) “We’ll say that (it’s) because since he has clear knowledge of the god’s secrets it’s only reasonable for him to sacrifice what's dear to the god.” The “it” would be something previously specified or implied.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby helios523 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:09 pm

That makes sense to me!

FYI here is what precedes (schol. bT Il. 4.102): it concerns why Chryses knows to sacrifice bulls and goats to Apollo:

ἀρνῶν πρωτογόνων: καὶ πῶς ὁ Χρύσης „ταύρων ἠδ' αἰγῶν“ (Α 41) θυσίαν ὑπισχνεῖται

The comparandum is used to show that Pandaros, who vowed lambs, did not know what animals Apollo desires.
helios523
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:49 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby mwh » Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:33 pm

Yes that confirms the interpretation I suggested, since it’s in reply to the question πῶς … ὑπισχνεῖται; (meaning not “How does he promise …?” but “How come he promises…?”, as usual in such πῶς questions—almost the same as διὰ τί “Why?”). The ὅτι answers the πῶς.

Scholia often pose a question, sometimes a recognized “problem” or ζήτημα, for the sake of proffering a solution or λύσις. Aristotle mentions some in his Poetics, and he wrote several books of “Homeric Problems.” Subsequent commentators continued the tradition, much as modern ones do. This is a minor but typical example. Every detail of Homer’s narrative invited and received explication.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby helios523 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:50 pm

Thanks again, mwh. I have been reading Dickey and Nünlist for this, but there are so many idiosyncrasies in the scholia that whenever I approach a new passage I feel like I am seeing everything for the first time... Do you have any general suggestions for getting the "hang" of scholia? Just continue reading a ton of it?
helios523
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:49 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby mwh » Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:05 am

Dickey and Nünlist both should make scholia easier to navigate, and you’re lucky to have them to give you preliminary guidance. One of the difficulties with scholia, as you’ve seen, is their ellipticality. Another is that they’ve been drastically cut down in transmission (as fragments of papyrus commentaries show), sometimes to the point of incoherence. And they’re full of more or less specialized terms (Dickey's glossary should help there). And of course they presuppose intimate familiarity with the entirety of the Homeric text. But the more you struggle with them, the more you’ll get used to their characteristic features and the more readily you’ll find things falling into place. But at times it can certainly be a bit of a struggle to figure out just what they’re getting at.

For Homer the bT scholia, which take the text as given and aim to explain or explain away its perceived problems (they’re largely reacting against Aristarchus, but tacitly), may be more approachable and rewarding than the A-scholia, which represent the incestuous text-critical activities of the 3rd-century Alexandrian scholars and their successors. Traditionally it’s the text-critical scholia (the Viermännerkommentar) that have enjoyed the lion’s share of attention (mainly from German scholars), but the bT scholia are where most of what we would call literary criticism is to be found. At the other end of the scale the so-called D-scholia or scholia minora show what the Homeric words were ordinarily taken to mean.

Good luck! What I like about the scholia, and the commentaries and treatises that underlie them, is the light that they throw on how scholarly—and less scholarly—readers in antiquity approached their literary texts and what they made of them. (Of course, they’re no substitute for the literary texts themselves.) Exegesis of Latin texts, Vergil preeminently, followed suit, and Vergil himself was heavily influenced by them.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby helios523 » Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:54 am

I'm stuck again with another set of scholia!
I think I get the sense of the first part, but am really thrown off by the second half... any help would be appreciated!
This set of scholia comments on the scene in which Hermes comes to Priam as he heads off to see Achilles. The point here is about Hermes revealing himself to Priam as he departs...


ἀναγκαίως ἑαυτὸν ἐμφανίζει ἀπαλλαττόμενος, ἵνα εἰς τὸ ἑξῆς εὐθαρσέστερον αὐτὸν καταστήσῃ· τὸ γὰρ παρεῖναι τοῖς οἴκτοις καὶ ἐσθίουσιν αὐτοῖς τὸν θεὸν οὐκ εὐπρεπές. ἄλλως τε ὑπηνήτης ὢν ὑπόνοιαν ἐπιβουλῆς παρέσχεν ἂν Ἀχιλλεῖ. (schol. bT Il. 24.460-2)

“He necessarily reveals himself as he departs, so that he can render him [Priam?] more emboldened to whatever comes next. For it is not proper for the god to go passed unnoticed to those who are suffering in grief....?!”
helios523
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:49 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby dikaiopolis » Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:30 pm

What a fun thread! I wish I had time to add more. You’re on the right track. A few notes:

-εἰς τὸ ἑξῆς: what follows (in the text). τὸ/τὰ ἑξῆς usually refers to the following line(s).

-“For it is not proper for the god to go passed unnoticed”: Rather, it’s not proper for the god to be present among lamentations and diners. This refers to 464-5: νεμεσσητὸν δέ κεν εἴη/ἀθάνατον θεὸν ὧδε βροτοὺς ἀγαπαζέμεν ἄντην

-ἄλλως τε ὑπηνήτης ὢν ὑπόνοιαν ἐπιβουλῆς παρέσχεν ἂν Ἀχιλλεῖ: remember that Hermes came disguised with youthful stubble (ὑπηνήτης ὢν) earlier in the scene. [Erbse often marks such references, but not always.] The idea here, I think, is that if he hadn’t departed, his presence would have made Achilles suspect a plot. [Also remember that Hermes tells Priam he is Achilles' θεράπων, but Achilles doesn't know that...it would have created some awkwardness.]

-ἀναγκαίως ἑαυτὸν ἐμφανίζει ἀπαλλαττόμενος: This is connected with the idea that the gods leave tokens of their identity (τεκμήριον εις επιγνωσιν) as they depart, which has an interesting history in ancient scholarship. The scholia to the Iris (as Polites) scene in B (which you can read alongside a 1st c. BCE papyrus, Erbse’s Pap. II), and Poseidon’s departure near the beginning of N (excellently parodied in Heliodorus!) are some of the key Iliadic moments. Nünlist has a good section on this.
dikaiopolis
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby dikaiopolis » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:04 pm

helios523 wrote:ἐροῦμεν ὡς ὅτι τὰ ἀπόρρητα τοῦ θεοῦ σαφῶς ἐπιστάμενος εἰκότως τὰ τῷ θεῷ φίλα θύει·


helios523 wrote:The comparandum is used to show that Pandaros, who vowed lambs, did not know what animals Apollo desires.


And there's also the corollary question implicit in the scholia on both the Chryses (Α) and Pandarus (Δ) scenes: why does Apollo like sacrifices of goats and bulls in the first place? They provide material for his bows!

If you really get into the scholia, you'll realize how funny they often are, σπουδογέλως. A little bit like the Talmud, another great body of ancient scholarship.
dikaiopolis
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby mwh » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:52 pm

I actually had the Talmud in mind when I wrote “Every detail of Homer’s narrative invited and received explication.” A comparative treatment of the exegetical presuppositions and procedures would I think be very interesting. Many if not all of the Talmudic principles are found in Homeric hermeneutics too. The rule of explicating Homer from Homer, to take perhaps the most salient precept, applies equally to the Torah. Other Talmudic rules are less formalized on the Homeric side but no less recognizable there.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby dikaiopolis » Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:18 pm

It's a fascinating area. My knowledge of Talmudic scholarship is pretty limited, but I know the classics on rabbinics and Alexandrian philology are by David Daube and Saul Liebermann from the 50s. There's some more recent work in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, ed. by Maren Niehoff. (Azzan Yadin's book on Scripture on Logos is also really interesting, though not about Homeric scholarship).
dikaiopolis
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby mwh » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:04 am

Back on the Il.24.460 bT-scholium, ἀναγκαίως ἑαυτὸν ἐμφανίζει ἀπαλλαττόμενος, ἵνα εἰς τὸ ἑξῆς εὐθαρσέστερον αὐτὸν καταστήσῃ· τὸ γὰρ παρεῖναι τοῖς οἴκτοις καὶ ἐσθίουσιν αὐτοῖς τὸν θεὸν οὐκ εὐπρεπές. ἄλλως τε ὑπηνήτης ὢν ὑπόνοιαν ἐπιβουλῆς παρέσχεν ἂν Ἀχιλλεῖ.

τοῖς οἴκτοις και ἐσθίουσιν αὐτοῖς (“among lamentations and diners” dikaiopolis) puzzles me, and has me wondering if οἴκτοις should be οἰκτροῖς. Then και ἐσθίουσιν αὐτοῖς makes sense, meaning “even when they themselves are eating” (cf. 475f.).
Incidentally, it would be nice to know what the bT-commentary had to say about the second meal Achilles eats on this day, when he claims it’s the first (641). It's a "problem" that must have been seized on. But the multiple problems of this book are mostly skipped by the increasingly skimpy scholia. Copyists just like everyone else—like me—lose energy towards the end.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: help with Greek scholia

Postby dikaiopolis » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:01 am

Nice—I like οἰκτροῖϲ as an emendation. The bT mss are often sloppy. Erbse suggests many good emendations, sometimes not enough, but occasionally he departs from the mss too quickly.

As for Achilles’ dinner problem, I don’t think I’ve run into anything directly relevant in the scholia. As you note, the copyists (really more editors) of the bT mss tire during the later books, and are overly ambitious at the beginning (e.g., the prolegomena to Escorial 4). You do find, however, one of Eustathius’s παρῳδεῖν notes on this passage:

Τὸ δὲ "πάρος γε μὲν οὔ τι πεπάσμην" ἀλλαχοῦ παρῳδηθὲν ἐπὶ ἀκοῆς, ἐρρέθη "πάρος γε μὲν οὔ τι πεπύσμην", ἤγουν οὐδέν τι προέμαθον.

These are common in Eust., but quite rare in the scholia.
dikaiopolis
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:40 pm


Return to Learning Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests