Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

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.

Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι
9
45%
οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα
11
55%
 
Total votes: 20

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Hylander » Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:37 pm

What reading do you prefer in Iliad 1.5?

You can explain your reasons for your choice if you want in responses to this post, but don't feel obliged to do so.

You can also change your vote.

When this poll runs out of steam, we will continue to select variant readings one by one by poll, until we have a complete Iliad text. Then we move on to the Odyssey, and from there, Aeschylus' Agamemnon.
Last edited by Hylander on Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Markos » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:10 pm

γράφει Γαζῆς τὸ «καὶ τοῖς ὀρνέοις ἅπασι.»
οὐ μανθάνω γράφειν, ἀλλὰ γράφω τοῦ μαθεῖν.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3253
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by mwh » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:33 pm

A poll on who chose which would be just as much fun and no less instructive. I’m guessing Markos chose πασι because that’s the text that “Gaza” represents. Which is a worthless reason.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3185
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by jeidsath » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:39 pm

I have a gut feeling that the original was πᾶσι. But I voted for δαῖτα because it is better.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by seneca2008 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:27 pm

I am having difficulty in voting for both options at the same time.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3253
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by mwh » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:43 am

Only seneca would be capable of simultaneously preferring both, a logical impossibility. :)

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Hylander » Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:48 am

Only seneca would be capable of simultaneously preferring both, a logical impossibility.
I think Gregory Nagy would, too, wouldn't he?

Both readings are ancient. One showed up in the paradosis and all the manuscripts, including papyri and testimonia. The other may have been known to Aeschylus and apparently was found in Zenodotus' text, according to Athenaeus, who must have lived 400 or more years after Zenodotus (and how could he have had access to Zenodotus' text?).

Like Joel, I voted for δαῖτα because it's better. But an editor has to put something in the text, and I guess maybe it makes sense to print the reading of the paradosis and relegate δαῖτα to the apparatus. I don't think there's any irrefutable basis for concluding that one reading is "original" and the other is not, even assuming that "original" has some clear meaning in the case of the Homeric poems. And readers can make the choice for themselves, based on whatever criteria they want to apply.

cb
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by cb » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:16 am

my guess is zenodotus would vote: neither. he athetised the verse. sure, his text had δαῖτα. but it athetised the verse containing it. west argues that zenodotus took an ionian rhapsode's copy, full of variants already baked in, e.g. δαῖτα, and produced his edition basically by athetising verses (so that the textual variants aren't attributable to him, but to the rhapsode who produced the copy that he subsequently athetised) - see chapter 2 of west's text and transmission of iliad.

given that the most gruesome verses are athetised here, the only possible conclusion is that his great edition was a PG-rated version to be sung at kids' parties. versions containing δαῖτα etc. were only to be sung after 8:30pm and with a parent or guardian present.

cheers, chad

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Paul Derouda » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:03 pm

I vote for δαῖτα, for the worthless reason that I like it more. Whichever originally stood in Homer's autograph I'm not even trying to guess.

West in his Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad adduces Zenodotus' reading δηιοι for τ᾽ ἄλλοι at I 594 – likewise, according to West, "more colourful, but secondary".

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3253
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by mwh » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:25 pm

Previously I was certain, along with all the best critics, that δαιτα was original, but now I’ve changed my mind, and believe that it was a 6th/5th-century Athenian “improvement.” Perhaps it’s what was recited by rhapsodes at the Panathenaia. But it’s very strange it finds no representation either in the manuscript tradition or in the scholia, exceptionally full in Iliad 1. (So I think the testimony about Zenodotus in Athenaeus must be false.) It may be that not even Aeschylus had ever heard δαιτα in a Homeric performance (let alone read it in a text): was it his own imaginative reconfiguration, and never in Homer at all? It’s very appealing in itself, but if it’s not Homeric I don’t like to prefer it, so I feel obliged to join Markos in voting for πασι.

An editor doesn’t necessarily have to choose between them. He could have Joel produce a text that would present one or the other at random each time a user looked at it, our equivalent of Schrödinger’s cat.

Ahab
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 2:22 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Ahab » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:29 pm

Voted for πᾶσι also, but every time I read that verse οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα echoes somewhere in my brain.
Why, he's at worst your poet who sings how Greeks
That never were, in Troy which never was,
Did this or the other impossible great thing!
---Robert Browning

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Paul Derouda » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:30 pm

Ahab wrote:every time I read that verse οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα echoes somewhere in my brain.
Same for me, whatever stands in the text in front of me!

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Timothée » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:13 pm

I can't seem to get over the strong impression I have that δαῖτα is just much better (whether it's original or not). "Spoils for dogs and dinner for birds" vs. "spoils for dogs and all kinds of birds". One wants δαῖτα to be the original. I felt compelled to vote for δαῖτα. It could be original, dropped out from the tradition in the 6th century (but what could have effected the change δαῖτα > πᾶσι? misspelling ΔΑΙΤΑ ~ ΠΑΣΙ/ΠΑΝΤΣΙ???), A's Suppl. recording an already half-forgotten reminiscence of it.

Ever since I have understood (in broad outline) West's view on the provenance of the Iliad I have thought it to be more or less correct (West's detailed reasoning/justification is still beyond my grasp). A faceless committee (or something to that extent) putting it together maybe in the 6th century is unsatisfactory. But I wonder whether δαῖτα could be taken as a nod towards Nagy, who, if I've understood it correctly, thinks something like committee.

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Markos » Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:33 pm

If dead people are allowed to vote in Texas, I don't see why Neophytus Doukas should not get a vote. But his paraphrase
Doukas wrote:τὰ δὲ σωμάτ' αὐτῶν κυσίτε καὶ ὄρνεσι βορὰ βουλῇ τοῦ Διὸς ἐγένετο πᾶσιν.
seems to me to combine both readings. (I'm thinking the βορά picks up on the idea of δαῖτα more than ἑλώρια.)

So, I voted on Doukas' behalf, one vote for each option.

http://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/php/pdf_pager.p ... 32&lang=en

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3253
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by mwh » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:30 pm

Sorry Markos, you’ve misunderstood. There's no evidence that Doukas even knew of δαιτα. βορα εγενετο represents ελωρια τευχε. His paraphrase goes “but their bodies (~ αυτους δε) became food (~ ελωρια τευχε) for both dogs and birds (κυνεσσιν οιωνοισι τε) ... all (~ πασι).” He wouldn’t have left ελωρια unrepresented, and he wouldn't have rendered both δαιτα and πασι.

But maybe this will impel you to cast another vote for δαιτα, this time on behalf of your misapprehension of Doukas. I know you enjoy being defiant. :)
Last edited by mwh on Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Paul Derouda » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:49 pm

Timothée wrote:It could be original, dropped out from the tradition in the 6th century (but what could have effected the change δαῖτα > πᾶσι? misspelling ΔΑΙΤΑ ~ ΠΑΣΙ/ΠΑΝΤΣΙ???), A's Suppl. recording an already half-forgotten reminiscence of it.
I don't think it could be due to a misspelling of any sort, whichever way the corruption took place. Most likely someone thought that δαῖτα was nicer that πᾶσι, in all likelihood a rhapsode who got a living from performing the poem. Probably this took place before the text took on the almost sacred status it later enjoyed. Maybe (and this is just a wild flight of fancy) it was Homer himself: He had already committed the first book of the Iliad into writing when it occurred to him that δαῖτα would be better; he didn't alter the text but from there on he would say δαῖτα in performance. His disciples/fellow poets, who would have heard him perform that particular passage quite often (as it was the most important in Homer's repertory), would also remember the passage with δαῖτα, not πᾶσι, and that version would have had some currency in oral performances for some time before dying out, but it might have crept into some written copies as well before eventually dying out without ever gaining much currency except maybe amongst some copies of the text that belonged to Ionian rhapsodes.

I admit that this frivolous theory is somewhat similar to what Nagy proposes, but here we are dealing with the beginning of the Iliad, which in all likelihood was performed more often than any other part, and which in all likelihood many people who did not possess a text would have known by heart. So perhaps it's not altogether irresponsible to suggest that there where "performance variants" that didn't make their into the tradition too well? I general, though, I don't think there's much evidence of fluidity of the tradition in Homeric texts.

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Markos » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:11 am

mwh wrote:Sorry Markos, you’ve misunderstood. There's no evidence that Doukas even knew of δαιτα. βορα εγενετο represents ελωρια τευχε. His paraphrase goes “but their bodies (~ αυτους δε) became food (~ ελωρια τευχε) for both dogs and birds (κυνεσσιν οιωνοισι τε) ... all (~ πασι).” He wouldn’t have left ελωρια unrepresented, and he wouldn't have rendered both δαιτα and πασι.

But maybe this will impel you to cast another vote for δαιτα, this time on behalf of your misapprehension of Doukas. I know you enjoy being defiant. :)
Michael,

Ι'm not sure what you mean by misunderstood and misapprehension. All I was suggesting is that Doukas' choice to render ἑλώρια with βορά might have been influenced by his awareness of δαῖτα. Or really, not even suggesting that, but just having a little fun with the fact that one could read it that way in light of the fun we were having with the poll.

cb
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by cb » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:25 am

hi all, quite interesting, i've always thought personally that πᾶσι reads better than δαῖτα (but i have no position on which is more likely historically to have been introduced first). πᾶσι for me rounds off the previous two quantity words μυρί' and πολλάς, binding in a rhetorical way the 3 consequences of the μῆνις οὐλομένη (pains, deaths, desecrations - each has a quantity word in there).

however, this personal impression is quite possibly because i've projected a pattern into it myself, rather that it being objectively likely or legitimate text-crit-wise. i can't remember if anyone else has said this, i assume they have though, these opening words have been closely studied by more than a few!

cheers, chad

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Hylander » Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:05 am

It's also possible that Athenaeus' (and maybe Xenodotus') δαῖτα was influenced by Aeschylus, rather than the other way around, isn't it?

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3185
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by jeidsath » Mon Jul 25, 2016 4:42 pm

Deipnosophists viii 347e:

…Αἰσχύλου, ὃς τὰς αὑτοῦ τραγῳδίας τεμάχη εἶναι ἔλεγε τῶν Ὁμήρου μεγάλων δείπνων.

The fish slabs that Athenaeus refers to -- the choice part of the feast -- are missing from Homeric fare. And no doubt he meant μεγάλων δαιτῶν.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Hylander » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:38 pm

δαῖτα is winning . . . and by a bigger margin than Brexit!
Last edited by Hylander on Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Paul Derouda » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:38 pm

cb put such a nice defence of πᾶσι that I changed my mind, at least for a while. Just to shake things up a bit :)

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Paul Derouda » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:40 pm

Funny you should have posted that at the exact same minute I actually changed the balance...

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Hylander » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:41 pm

Now πᾶσι is winning by a bigger margin than Brexit!

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Hylander » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:44 pm

I changed my vote, too, because I don't want to be a pathetic loser.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Paul Derouda » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:45 pm

What's happening? 67 % to 33 % for πᾶσι all of a sudden!

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Markos » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:25 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:What's happening? 67 % to 33 % for πᾶσι all of a sudden!
I have a couple of possible theories:

1. The Russians are hacking Textkit.
2. To paraphrase David Cameron, δαῖτα was the future, once.
3. Trump just tweeted in favor πᾶσι.

Another county heard from...

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Hylander » Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:04 pm

Paul changed his vote, tipping the balance, and then I changed mine so that I wouldn't be a loser.

Actually, although I like δαῖτα better, I think it would be irresponsible for an editor to print δαῖτα in the text--but it definitely should be in the critical notes. I think this is one case where the "weight" of authority matters: the only evidence in favor of δαῖτα is an unreliable statement in Athenaeus about a text in existence 300-400 years earlier and a possible echo in Aeschylus.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3253
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by mwh » Thu Jul 28, 2016 12:56 am

Well it’s possible to prefer δαιτα, but yes it would be the height of irresponsibility for an editor to print it, when there’s little or no evidence that it ever stood in any text of Homer. Zenodotus athetized lines 4-5, and I have little doubt that he had πασι in the athetized 5; and Aeschylus is not good evidence for Homer.

Another point, or point of view. πασι has been the Homeric text for millennia, from antiquity through today. (Dozens of papyri, and no counter-indication in the scholia.) None of Homer’s millions of readers has ever read δαιτα. That’s something that’s discounted in the obsessive quest for the original text of Homer.

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Timothée » Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:44 am

But aren't we still trying as hard as we can to reconstruct the original text? If something went wrong early in the tradition, those millions would have got accustomed to non-original words. It's a little more difficult in case of Homer than e.g. Herodotus, but still. Even though someone, maybe N. G. Wilson (or possibly someone here), said that if an editor got hold of (say) Herodotus's autograph he still wouldn't believe the text.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread and Paul kind of answered it (I'm not disrespecting that), but if we for the sake of argument assume that δαῖτα is original, where did πᾶσι suddenly appear from? No-one would "better" δαῖτα to πᾶσι, as the latter is clearly worse. The only way to explain the change δαῖτα > πᾶσι is textual corruption (which would seem quite unlikely).

Why do you think Zenodotus didn't have δαῖτα? Do you suggest Athenaeus got it wrong (West's apparatus criticus states simply "Zenodotus apud Athenaeum") citing Z?

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Hylander » Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:46 pm

if we for the sake of argument assume that δαῖτα is original, where did πᾶσι suddenly appear from?
The point is that there's hardly any basis for assuming that δαῖτα was ever in any text of the Iliad--just a statement by Athenaeus about 400 years after Zenodotus that Zenodotus text read δαῖτα . . . but Zenodotus is reported to have athetized 4-5, so that seems implausible.

"if an editor got hold of (say) Herodotus's autograph he still wouldn't believe the text."

That calls into question the whole editorial process, so should we just give up?

In the case of the Iliad, we have very little information about how it was transmitted from the era of its original composition to the Alexandrian or post-Alexandrian period, when the "vulgate" that is preserved more or less consistently in the medieval manuscripts is thought to have emerged. If we think that the vulgate faithfully preserves the "original" Iliad, we are taking that on faith, and the earliest, pre-vulgate papyri don't seem to give us much reason to be confident of that hypothesis.

We do know that the Alexandrian scholars, particularly Aristarchus edited the text, and we have a fair amount of information in the scholia about their conclusions, but many if not most of their recommendations don't seem to have made their way into the vulgate, and there are endless and inconclusive arguments, on hardly any evidence, about whether we should consider their methods and criteria sound from a modern perspective, or merely capricious.

So the idea that we can recover the "original" Iliad is fraught with underlying theoretical problems, even in situations where there is substantial evidence for the text. But here there's simply no substantial evidence supporting δαῖτα.

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Timothée » Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:26 pm

Thank you so much again, Hylander, for patiently bearing with me. I have still so much to learn about Homeric transmission.

Supposing δαῖτα as original was just a thought experiment: by doing that I got into difficulties explaining how πᾶσι appeared. Which may suggest that δαῖτα isn't original.

It was Lloyd-Jones & Wilson 1997 who said that about autograph. I didn't quite remember it correctly, however. Apologies for misleading, here's the quote ad uerbum expressus:

"The manuscripts contain a great deal of corruption, as even conservative critics can hardly refuse to admit, and the difficulties of the language are such that even if we possessed a text corrected by the author no living scholar could be confident that he could translate it without error." I don't know whether they refer here specifically to Sophocles, but I read it as a general remark (and probably haven't yet quite understood what "translate" means here [from Greek into English? or from the autograph into an edition?]).
Last edited by Timothée on Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Hylander » Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:38 pm

That's certainly true of Sophocles, but in the case of Sophocles, we are reasonably certain that a written text originally came from the hand of the poet. The circumstances surrounding the creation of the "original" Iliad and its centuries-long transmission down to the era when the vulgate emerged are shrouded in mystery. Paul has different views on this than I do--he thinks, with West, that the vulgate is reasonably representative of an original Iliad text, and we've already argued about that ad nauseam. But even accepting that hypothesis, there's no substantial evidence that δαῖτα ever appeared in any text of the Iliad.

Ahab
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 2:22 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Ahab » Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:04 pm

mwh wrote:Well it’s possible to prefer δαιτα, but yes it would be the height of irresponsibility for an editor to print it, when there’s little or no evidence that it ever stood in any text of Homer. Zenodotus athetized lines 4-5, and I have little doubt that he had πασι in the athetized 5; and Aeschylus is not good evidence for Homer.

Another point, or point of view. πασι has been the Homeric text for millennia, from antiquity through today. (Dozens of papyri, and no counter-indication in the scholia.) None of Homer’s millions of readers has ever read δαιτα. That’s something that’s discounted in the obsessive quest for the original text of Homer.
Excellent points. Now I wish I could vote for πασι again. :)
Why, he's at worst your poet who sings how Greeks
That never were, in Troy which never was,
Did this or the other impossible great thing!
---Robert Browning

User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
Posts: 3822
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California
Contact:

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by bedwere » Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:18 pm

δαῖτα seems better poetry. A banquet is supposed to be a festive and joyous event. Here it is a gruesome affair of beasts feasting on human flesh. Oh, the humanity! I understand that Homer didn't write it, but quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3253
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by mwh » Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:10 pm

But aren't we still trying as hard as we can to reconstruct the original text? If something went wrong early in the tradition, those millions would have got accustomed to non-original words.
Yes, but apart from the problem of defining what we even mean by “the original text” in the case of Homer, is it right to disregard what for those millions has been the text of Homer? Doesn’t the Homer that has been Homer for two and a half thousand years deserve some regard? Sure it would be nice if we could access the original text (if ever there was such a thing), but even if we could (which we can’t), that would make no difference to the experience of audiences and readers through the centuries.

It’s similar with the meaning of Homeric words. (Not quite the same, but comparable.) We can try to reconstruct the original meaning, but what the words actually meant, for readers of the poems, was often something quite different. So I have little patience with people who tell me what a given word “really” means, when what it really means is what it was understood to mean.
I mentioned this earlier in the thread and Paul kind of answered it (I'm not disrespecting that), but if we for the sake of argument assume that δαῖτα is original, where did πᾶσι suddenly appear from? No-one would "better" δαῖτα to πᾶσι, as the latter is clearly worse. The only way to explain the change δαῖτα > πᾶσι is textual corruption (which would seem quite unlikely).
That’s what textual critics call the “utrum in alterum (abiturum est)?” question—Which would have given rise to the other? As you suggest, the ousting of an original δαιτα by πασι would be harder to explain that the converse. But not quite impossible: a banalizing rhapsode might have unconsciously substituted the more mundane πασι. (It would have to have been a rhapsode, early in the transmissional process, to stand any chance of driving out δαιτα entirely. The Athenian Panathenaia would seem the likeliest point of origin, as conversely for Aeschylus' δειπνον<δαιτα perhaps). But that has little plausibility, to my mind. Rhapsodic substitutions—they are very numerous—rarely if ever establish themselves in the text. The conclusion is that πασι is original.
Why do you think Zenodotus didn't have δαῖτα? Do you suggest Athenaeus got it wrong (West's apparatus criticus states simply "Zenodotus apud Athenaeum") citing Z?
The only mention of Zenodotus here in the scholia is the report (on good authority) that he athetized the two lines. If he had δαιτα the scholia would tell us; at this point in the poem any Zenodotean reading would certainly have been reported.
The report in Athenaeus (1.21) is untrustworthy. It will be taken from an earlier (probably much earlier) source, accusing Zenodotus “in his edition” (ἐν τῇ κατ’ αὐτὸν ἐκδόσει) of writing δαιτα in ignorance of the fact that Homer never applies the word to beasts, only to people. (Which is actually a pretty good objection.) In light of the fact that the Homeric scholia make no mention of δαιτα here, but only of Zenod’s athetesis of 4-5, I believe the report must be false. It could be entirely fictive (plenty of precedent for that), or “Zenodotus” could be corrupt (names often get corrupted), or the Zenodotus in question could be the other Zenodotus, Z. of Mallos, an Attalid Homeric scholar associated with Crates of Pergamum. I’ve only just thought of this, but I think it may be the answer (in which case the report is not false, just misleading.) Pergamene scholarship as distinct from Alexandrian is badly underrepresented in the Homeric scholia, and “Zenodotus” in the Homer scholia does sometimes refer to him. If that’s right, it would take δαιτα back to the 2nd/1st century; but if it were really Homeric the Alexandrians would have known of it.

As to δαιτα being “better poetry,” who are we to impose our aesthetics on Homer?

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Paul Derouda » Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:59 pm

mwh wrote:As to δαιτα being “better poetry,” who are we to impose our aesthetics on Homer?
Who's gonna do it if we don't, then?

As to an another argument of yours, there have been several generations of Homerists who have learnt their Homeric Greek from Pharr, myself included – and I don't think I'm the only one among those participating in this thread. We all have δαῖτα hardwired to our brains!

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3253
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by mwh » Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:22 pm

Not quite sure what you mean by your question Paul. No-one, I’d hope, though it’s clear from this thread that people do. I knew I’d regret adding that last disconnected sentence.

If you have δαιτα hardwired to your brain because of Pharr, I reckon that’s yet another strike against him. (I can’t think of a worse approach to learning to read Homer than Pharr’s, but clearly you survived it, and so perhaps have others.) But fortunately, hardwired-δαιτα people must be, what?, no more than 0.0000001% of readers of Homer?

—But I see that δαιτα is back in the lead. If I persist in demonstrating its implausibility, perhaps everyone will vote for it.

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Timothée » Fri Jul 29, 2016 11:36 am

Thank you, mwh, for your scholarly analysis once again. I suspect what took place must be close to your reconstruction above. We may or may not still want somehow to conjoin this Zenodotus of Mallus to the 6th century Panathenaea and Aeschylus, but you suggest they possibly have no connexion, which could be true. Or perchance Z/M wrongly connected Aeschylus with Homer—had them both simultaneously on his desk and reckoned 1+1?—and thus created δαῖτα.

I'm now reading West's praefatio for his edition with great interest; it has surprisingly profusely information in only 33 pages.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Poll: Iliad 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε δαῖτα or οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι?

Post by Paul Derouda » Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:08 pm

mwh wrote:Not quite sure what you mean by your question Paul. No-one, I’d hope, though it’s clear from this thread that people do. I knew I’d regret adding that last disconnected sentence.

If you have δαιτα hardwired to your brain because of Pharr, I reckon that’s yet another strike against him. (I can’t think of a worse approach to learning to read Homer than Pharr’s, but clearly you survived it, and so perhaps have others.) But fortunately, hardwired-δαιτα people must be, what?, no more than 0.0000001% of readers of Homer?

—But I see that δαιτα is back in the lead. If I persist in demonstrating its implausibility, perhaps everyone will vote for it.
Relax! I was just teasing you... ;) I've read everything written here on the possible origins of these variants with great interest. I found the suggestion that the we might be dealing with another Zenodotus especially stimulating. And I still think, as I already thought before, but now with greater conviction, that πᾶσι is likelier to be the original, though in the end I remain agnostic on the question.

The subject of this poll was "What reading do you prefer in Iliad 1.5?", and that entails, I think, a question of personal aesthetic judgment, not a quest for the ultimate text-critical truth (except if one chooses to equate the two). Both variants are actually nice, and I've switched sides two times already according to my whim. Now I'll switch a third time, if not for any good other reason, then at least to console you... :)

For fun, I looked all the copies of the Iliad I could find in a 1 meter radius, and found δαῖτα in Pharr and Ameis-Hentze-Cauer, and πᾶσι in all the others. Those two are perhaps not the most serious editions of the epic, but as popular beginners' texts, they must have been used as their first (and often last) text by a very significant fraction of the students who have started studying Homer in the last 100 years or so. So although your point that for two and half millennia everyone knew only knew one variant is completely valid, it doesn't obviate the fact that quite a few people alive now know the text with δαῖτα. And while I don't object to Pharr having its weaknesses, I'm not aware of many alternatives at least for those of us who haven't had the chance to learn Greek in the best schools with the best teachers.

Post Reply