Od. 5.426

Are you reading Homeric Greek? Whether you are a total beginner or an advanced Homerist, here you can meet kindred spirits. Besides Homer, use this board for all things early Greek poetry.
Post Reply
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Od. 5.426

Post by jeidsath » Wed Jan 06, 2016 2:48 pm

ενθα κ απο ρινουϲ τε δρυφθη ϲυν δ οϲτε αραχθη

Should this be:

ενθ απο ρινουϲ τε δρυφθη ϲυν δ οϲτε αραχθη
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by Hylander » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:05 pm

What edition are you reading from? τε is unmetrical and needs to be deleted even though it's in the mss. (and it has been deleted at least since Wolf circa 1795). But κ[ε] is necessary in Homeric Greek (it would be αν in Attic) because it's contrafactual.

An alternative emendation would be τ'εδρυφη or τε δρυφη, which would be an alternative aor. pass. But this form is unparalleled, and αποδρυφθεν occurs a few lines later in v. 435. The OCT, van Thiel and von der Mühll delete τε, which seems out of place here anyway, following Wolf.

The -ο of απο is lengthened before ρ. Actually, the ρ is doubled in the concatenation of απο + ρινουσ, pronounced απορρινουσ, and I think initial ρ following a vowel is sometimes spelled that way in the papyri. This is a common metrical feature of Homeric verse (not really an irregularity because it reflects the pronunciation).

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by jeidsath » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:39 pm

I was going by van Thiel. Removing the τε works just as you said:

ενθα κ απο ρινουϲ τε δρυφθη ϲυν δ οϲτε αραχθη
->
ενθα κ απο̱ ρῑνουϲ δρυφθη ϲυν δ οϲτε αραχθη

That was the only line in the Odyssey that didn't seem to scan as written. (Other than a couple of χαμαι– compounds that seem to scan as two words, but those are minor.)

EDIT: I should say that I was going by van Thiel's unmarked pdf. Looking at the bound text, I see that he brackets [τε]. Thank you.

Your alternative emendation is this?
ενθα κε ρῑνουϲ τε δρυφθη ϲυν δ οϲτε αραχθη
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by Hylander » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:55 pm

The alternative would be:

ενθα κ απο ρινουϲ τε δρυφη ϲυν δ οϲτε αραχθη

I think someone has proposed this. See the OCT.

But deleting the superfluous τε seems right to me.

Edit: or ενθα κ απο ρινουϲ τ'εδρυφη ϲυν δ οϲτε αραχθη
Last edited by Hylander on Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by jeidsath » Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:13 pm

Oh, I see. Removing the θ and scanning the δρ as a short.

ενθα κ απο̱ ρῑνουϲ τε δ͜ρυφη ϲυν δ οϲτε αραχθη

If that shows up badly, it's because some browsers don't handle the combining undertie very well. Should look like this:

Image
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by Hylander » Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:09 pm

If I'm not mistaken, it's rare for a voiced obstruent + liquid to be scanned as a single consonant in Homer. However, van Thiel's cite in his apparatus to Β 700, where -δρ- in ἀμφιδρυφής (derived from the same verbal root as *(ε)δρυφη) doesn't close the preceding syllable, leaving it short/light, suggests that this isn't necessarily a compelling objection to the alternative.

What are the χαμαι lines that are giving you problems?

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by jeidsath » Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:41 pm

δρ is scanned as a single consonant almost 0.8% of the time. Don't take that number as final, although it should be close. So a rare occurrence. It is possible that this rare short double could have caused the scribal mistake, but it would have been just as easy for the scribe to add τε.

***

In the Odyssey, there are two occurrences of χαμαιευναδεϲ, and in the Iliad an instance of χαμαιευναι. Π235, κ243, ξ15. While these are marked as a single compound verb, they all scan as χαμαι‿ευναι. I don't know of another instance of correption within a single word. Perhaps it is related to tmesis.

It's obvious enough, I suppose, that it's spoken χαμαι‿ευναι, and that's the important thing. The biggest question for me is how best to write it. I'm leaning towards separating it into two words.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by Hylander » Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:49 pm

It's probably not an instance of correption--the iota was probably scanned as a semivowel (i.e., a consonant). I think there are other instances where an iota between two adjacent vowels is scanned as a semivowel or an iota following a consonant is scanned as a consonant.

These are adjectives, not verbs, so they probably shouldn't be treated as two separate words.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by jeidsath » Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:08 pm

Perhaps I'm not clear on the terminology. Allen says that the term 'correptio epica' covers both cases of shortening a long vowel (perhaps becoming a short-vowel + semivowel pair) and also of the shortening of a diphthong (which involves the second element becoming a semivowel).

Regardless of the terminology though, are there other places in Homer where we see examples of word-internal diphthong shortening? I am only aware of it happening at word boundary.

EDIT:
These are adjectives, not verbs, so they probably shouldn't be treated as two separate words.
Thank you. I miss that sort of thing often. However, I was under the impression that they were the adjective forms of χαμαιευνάω.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by mwh » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:26 am

The jarringly unmetrical ενθα κ' απο ρινουϲ τε δρυφθη (or τ’ε-) of the manuscript tradition (v.l. τε δρυφη) puzzles me. If the unwanted τε is wrong, how on earth did it get into the text? (Something like that would never happen in the Iliad.) But surely it must be wrong, and τε δρύφη an attempt to mend the meter—unless the line (+ the next) is an inept interpolation (or rather rhapsodic expansion), which seems quite possible to me. Do commentators help?

ἀμφιδρυφής scans that way so as to fit in the hexameter. The behavior with δρ is exceptional for Homer but (self-evidently) falls within the limits of tolerance. It does nothing to justify τε δρυφη, which is hideous. ανδροτητα is still more exceptional but likewise metrically motivated, and linguistically explicable.

χαμαιευναι definitely qualifies as epic correption, χαμαι scanning as it would before a separate vowel-beginning word, or like και. (It’s definitely a compound, however, not two separate words: εῦναι could not stand by itself as an adjective or noun, and the –εῦναι compound, sing. –εύνης, is formed on ευνή, not on a verb.) You can imagine a glide at the boundary if you wish.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by jeidsath » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:13 am

If ενθα κ were somehow read as a single long, adding the τε could make sense. Maybe there was a manuscript version with ενθ κ floating around.

But as long as we are talking about puzzling lines:

ρ296 δη τοτε κειτ αποθεϲτοϲ αποιχομενου Οδυϲϲηοϲ

I would expect the first syllable of Οδυϲϲηοϲ to be long for this to work as synizesis. Should I scan it as Οδυϲηοϲ instead with missing correption?
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by Hylander » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:49 pm

I'm not sure why van Thiel prints this metrical abomination. At the very least, he could have dropped one sigma, which would give the form in which the genitive of Odysseus' name uniformly occurs at line end (but would still result in objectionable hiatus). Another possibility: αποιχομενοι' Οδυσηος

Van Thiel is a very conservative editor, extremely reluctant to depart from ms. authority. His position is based on his agnosticism about the history of the text of the Homeric poems (which to some extent I share) and the priniciple that the more difficult reading is preferable (on the theory that copyists typically change difficult readings into easier ones, not the other way around). But this principle only applies if the more difficult reading is possible. Here van Thiel's text isn't possible in the form in which he prints it.

But there's a better reading preserved in some mss. which works metrically and avoids the -ου genitive, and which other editors adopt: αποιχομενοιο ανακτος. As v. T.'s apparatus notes, this formula also occurs at ξ 8.

To me at least, as someone who shares his home with a canine companion, this reading also lends more pathos to Argos' recognition of his αναξ. It humanizes the relationship between the dog and Odysseus. Argos is integrated into the human social fabric of Odysseus' world: he's the loyal vassal, more than a mere animal, just as many people today regard their household animals as family members.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by mwh » Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:17 pm

Does van Thiel’s text really have Οδυϲϲηοϲ? If so, surely it’s just a misprint.
Gen.–ου was –οιο, but in elision I think it’s usually written –ου instead, creating hiatus.
I agree ανακτος is the preferable reading, and Οδυσηος is easily explained as an "identification" gloss which displaced it. It’s a well recognized phenomenon. There’s an instance at Eur.IT 369, where Ἀχιλλεὺς has (I believe) ousted ἐκεῖνος.

But back to the genuinely puzzling Od.5.426.

I've looked up the online scholia. The major scholia, if Dindorf’s ed. is to be trusted, which it probably isn’t (the editn to use is Pontani’s, very reliable), give ῥινούς and δρύφθη as lexeis, but shed no light on the τε.

The D-scholia, however, while also giving δρύφθη, give not ρινους but ρινον (whether as nom. or acc. isn't clear), which implies that that was a widespread reading in antiquity. (The D-scholia disconcertingly often preserve readings lost to the direct tradition, esp. in the thinly attested Odyssey.) My only thought, perhaps a wild one, is that a cursive ·ον·, written above the line as a v.l. for –ουϲ, was misread as τε. The only implausible thing about this is the misreading. But stranger things have happened, and I can think of scripts where they could look quite similar.

Anyone have a better solution? (I do hope so. This one is fairly desperate. jeidsath’s ενθκ is a non-starter I’m afraid.)

However τε is accounted for, it’s most remarkable that the blatantly unmetrical verse should have been accepted into the tradition. I can’t think of anything comparable anywhere in Homer.
Last edited by mwh on Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by jeidsath » Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:45 pm

van Thiel's edition of both the Iliad and Odyssey D-scholia is available on his website. Here is what he has for 5.426 (posted as an image to preserve the Manuscript superscripts):

Image
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by mwh » Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:01 pm

Yes that's what I was using. The Odyssey D-scholia were in fact edited by one of his doctoral students, Nicola Ernst.
I posted the links last year in the “Resources Suggestions” thread that heads the Learning Greek forum, where I wrote
http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/5586/
http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/1831/
Free
Ancient Greek running glossaries to Iliad and Odyssey. (Known as the D-scholia.) Provide standard-Greek equivalents for Homeric words in the order in which they occur in each book in each poem. Used by the ancient Greeks in the early stages of reading Homer.
Good for learning how ancient Greeks themselves understood Homeric vocabulary, and for expanding koine vocabulary.
Also good for providing variant readings, but I didn’t mention that.

Dindorf's ed. of the Odyssey "major" scholia can be viewed at https://archive.org/details/scholiagrcainho01homegoog. Pontani’s ed. is in progress. His ed. the scholia to bks.5-6 is now I think out, but not online so far as I’m aware.

—But this (as I'm too fond of saying) is a distraction. Can anyone give a better explanation of how the unmetrical 5.426 got into the tradition and permeated it?

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by jeidsath » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:20 pm

Porson accepts the remove κε suggestion from above.
https://archive.org/stream/odysseacumsc ... 8/mode/2up

Image

I assume that "W." is Wolf. Who is H.? And what does "a m. pr. sed ἔνθ’ ἀπὸ ex rasura" mean? Something about shaving off the κε, I take it?
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2151
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by Paul Derouda » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:28 pm

I actually found Ludwich's edition in my bookshelf. Hmm... How many years have I been keeping this library book...?

Ludwich prints: ἔνθά κ' ἀπὸ ῥινοὺς δρύφθη, σὺν δ' ὀστέ' ἀράχθη
His apparatus: ἔνθ' ἀπὸ K, pc. H2 . – ῥινούς δρύφθη w b; ῥινούς τε δρύφθη P H X D; ῥινούς τ' ἐδρύφθη F G T (-φη T) U K, pc. P2 H2; ῥῖνός τ' ἐδρύφθη W; ῥινός τε δρύφθη s v; ῥινούς τε δρύφη W. C. Kayser.
[2 in H2, P2, H2 should be in superscript – apparently it means a second hand in the manuscript – pc. = post correcturam. Small letters represent older editions, w being Wolf's, the first one to omit τε.]

At least K and the second hand in H2 give a metrical reading, omitting κε (=ἔνθ' ἀπὸ ῥινούς τ' ἐδρύφθη, σὺν δ' ὀστέ' ἀράχθη); likewise T is metrical with δρύφη.

Perhaps this can help. I have no idea how the τε could have gotten there, except one modest suggestion: some manuscripts give σὺν δ', other σὺν τ': perhaps a manuscript that had δ᾽ had τε written above or in the marginal as a correction, which was added to the wrong place?

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2151
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by Paul Derouda » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:32 pm

jeidsath wrote:And what does "a m. pr. sed ἔνθ’ ἀπὸ ex rasura" mean? Something about shaving off the κε, I take it?
I suppose this is the same H as above in Ludwich, and H2 the same manuscript after correction by (another?) hand. The manuscript is referred to as "Londin. Harleian. mus. Brit. 5674" by Ludwich.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2151
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by Paul Derouda » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:39 pm

jeidsath wrote:Porson accepts the remove κε suggestion from above.
As did already Henri Estienne, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id ... =GBS.PT378.

But I agree it's not proper Homeric usage, as already was said above. It has some manuscript support though, see my post above on Ludwich.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by mwh » Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:43 am

Thanks. I see von der Mühll records σύν τ’ in his app.crit., without further detail, but he prints δ’ in the text. That’s the only app.crit. I have to hand. (It’s selective but judicious.) He also reports proposed deletion of 426-7, a possible but far from compelling solution as I suggested above. To delete κ’ and to double the τ(ε)s, as in the 1800 text linked by jeidsath, results in multiple anomalies, and I’m not surprised all modern editors have abandoned it. Given σύν τ’, I think your suggestion (marginal or supralinear τε intended as correction [or v.l., more likely] for δ(ε) but misinterpreted and inserted in the wrong place) may be no worse than mine (intrusive v.l. (ριν)ον misread as τε), though no more cogent. It remains a puzzle.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Od. 5.426

Post by Hylander » Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:36 am

Incidentally, it 's worth noting that, in addition to making ungrammatical gibberish, there's another reason why any solution that proposes to delete κ' is almost certainly wrong. If you do a search, I think you'll find that

ενθα κ'/κε/κεν . . .
ει μη . . .

is a recurring template in the Homeric poems for "then X would have happened . . . if Y had not happened" or X almost happened, but Y happened, preventing X." If I'm not mistaken, this frequently involves a rescue of a hero by a divinity, as it does here.

Post Reply