Some doubts with Odyssey 6.99-114

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.
User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 1958
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Some doubts with Odyssey 6.99-114

Post by Paul Derouda » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:50 pm

Another parallel, perhaps far fetched, but from the Odyssey poet himself. Here again someone conspicuous is set against others who are shorter than he or she. It's the Cyclops:

Od. 9.190 ff.
καὶ γὰρ θαῦμ’ ἐτέτυκτο πελώριον, οὐδὲ ἐῴκει
ἀνδρί γε σιτοφάγῳ, ἀλλὰ ῥίῳ ὑλήεντι
ὑψηλῶν ὀρέων, ὅ τε φαίνεται οἶον ἀπ’ ἄλλων.

Victor
Textkit Fan
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: Some doubts with Odyssey 6.99-114

Post by Victor » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:07 pm

Qimmik wrote:But for me, the parallel to Il. 3.210 is very compelling, and I think that the idea in the Odyssey is that Artemis is taller than her companions, not that she holds her head higher. (The "holds her head higher" reading seems to me to trivialize the comparison.)
It's certainly tempting to see in supereminet an echo of ὑπερέχει, even if it was originally in tmesis.
I'm still siding with Stanford. The question whether anastrophe occurred after an intervening syllable is probably a tangle in the web of accentuation that we'll never resolve.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 1958
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Some doubts with Odyssey 6.99-114

Post by Paul Derouda » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:18 pm

Victor wrote:I'm still siding with Stanford.
Wait! What do mean "still"? Doesn't Stanford actually agree with us, i.e. that it is a case of tmesis. "She overtops them etc.", not "holds her head etc"?

Victor
Textkit Fan
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: Some doubts with Odyssey 6.99-114

Post by Victor » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:Wait! What do mean "still"? Doesn't Standord actually agree with us, i.e. that it is a case of tmesis. "She overtops them etc.", not "hold her head etc"?
The "still" is there expressly for you. Firstly because you had not unequivocally distanced yourself from your earlier remark:"I think you can really interprete this in two ways." Or if you did I missed it.
And secondly because you strongly suggested a certain antipathy to Stanford: "But actually of all Homer commentaries I've used, the only one I don't like much is Stanford."

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 1958
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Some doubts with Odyssey 6.99-114

Post by Paul Derouda » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:15 pm

Ok, I see your point now. I haven't been very clear myself. Like so often, both interpretations are possible, but I think the "overtops" interpretation is the more likely one. I suggested this very opaquely with "I guess I'm also more convinced by the parallel with Il. 3.210.".

As for my Stanford comment, it was just a digression, it has nothing to do with this passage in particular, I don't have Stanford now and I haven't touched it for a long time. I just remember getting fed up with it because there was something... naive or otherwise outdated about its general outlook, and also because I noticed other commentaries kept pointing out how it was wrong in many places, so I ended up thinking it wasn't reliable. It's possible that I don't remember correctly or that I was wrong in the first place.

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Some doubts with Odyssey 6.99-114

Post by Qimmik » Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:06 am

For the record, here's what West says in the preface to his Iliad, loosely translated (p. xix):
Concerning anastrophe, we read differing precepts and judgments of the grammarians in the scholia. Herodian's teaching carried more weight among those who followed him, but it shouldn't be accepted everywhere; for he established certain excessively artificial rules, such as that anastrophe doesn't occur if a particle or another word comes in between the noun and the postposition, or if the postposition is elided. These rules were unknown to Aristarchus, to Ptolemy [Ascalonites], and to Nicias. . . . Aristrarchus and his teacher Aristophanes [of Byzantium] were certainly closer to the living tradition of the rhapsodes, and moreover they had a better feeling for what the accents were, when their musical quality had not yet been converted into a stress quality.
In those passages in the Iliad listed by West in fn. 42, where he observes anastrophe despite an intervening word between the noun and the postposition, van Thiel does not, so van Thiel is following Herodian's rule, and his text of the Odyssey therefore doesn't reveal how he interprets Od. 6.107. Von der Muehll didn't publish an edition of the Iliad, and West hasn't published an edition of the Odyssey, so we can't tell.

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Some doubts with Odyssey 6.99-114

Post by Qimmik » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:18 pm

It might be worthwhile to summarize the results of this thread, since by this point huilen, the original contributor who asked the questions in the first place, has probably stopped following it in disgust at not getting a straight answer.

1.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ σίτου τάρφθεν δμῳαί τε καὶ αὐτή Why is the passive voice used here, instead of the middle?
Some aorists in -ην are intransitive or middle, not true passives.

2.
πασάων δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἥ γε κάρη ἔχει ἠδὲ μέτωπα, S&H says that κάρη and μέτωπα are accusatives of specification. Could not be just direct objects of ἔχει?
Yes, κάρη and μέτωπα could be direct objects of ἔχει, and some commentators, Garvie most recently, interpret them that way. However, this line seems parallel to Il. 3.210: στάντων μὲν Μενέλαος ὑπείρεχεν εὐρέας ὤμους, where εὐρέας ὤμους can only be interpreted as accusative of specification with the compound verb. (In addition, an echo of this passage in Book 1 of the Aeneid suggests that Vergil understood ὑπὲρ . . . ἔχει as the compound verb ὑπέρεχει in tmesis and thus κάρη and μέτωπα as accusatives of specification.)

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 1958
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Some doubts with Odyssey 6.99-114

Post by Paul Derouda » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:39 pm

That's a good summary and I suppose we all agree on that.

Thanks for translating that bit of Latin, I really appreciate that. My Latin is weak, so I had only vaguely gotten the idea.

huilen
Textkit Member
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:19 pm
Location: Argentina

Re: Some doubts with Odyssey 6.99-114

Post by huilen » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:09 pm

I was just trying to get myself some kind of summary from the thread, so thanks for that, Bill.

Post Reply