Σ ad A.430b (bT)

Greek Learning Greek
1

I have a question about a scholion on Iliad 1.430. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

After the exchange between Thetis and Achilles, Thetis departs and the narrative transitions back to the trip to Chryse (which started at 310ff):

A. 428-31

Ὣς ἄρα φωνήσασ᾿ ἀπεϐήσετο, τὸν δὲ λίπ᾿ αὐτοῦ
χωόμενον κατὰ θυμὸν ἐϋζώνοιο γυναικὸς
τήν ῥα βίῃ ἀέκοντος ἀπηύρων· αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς
ἐς Χρύσην ἵκανεν ἄγων ἱερὴν ἑκατόμϐην.

The arrival and sacrifices on Chryse (440ff.) separate Thetis’ departure and her arrival at Olympus (495ff.) after the gods return from the Ethiopians. A bT scholion (A.430b) addresses this transition:

αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεύς: ὅπως μὴ τῇ τῆς Θέτιδος ἀπαλλαγῇ
συνάψῃ τὴν ἐπάνοδον, διὰ μέσου βάλλει τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα,
μόνον οὐχὶ λόγῳ καταμετρήσας τὸν ἐπὶ Χρύσην πλοῦν. ἑκατέροις δὲ
μετρίως χρώμενος διαναπαύει τὸν ἀκροατήν, τῶν μὲν τὸν κόρον
περιαιρῶν, τῶν δὲ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀποπληρῶν.

It’s a fascinating note. My question concerns the interpretation of “μόνον οὐχὶ λόγῳ καταμετρήσας τὸν ἐπὶ Χρύσην πλοῦν.” I see two main possibilities. (1) Nünlist reads this as indicating the equivalence of narrative time and story time: “All but measuring out the journey to Chryse by his [i.e., the poet’s] account.” There would then perhaps be a tongue-in-cheek criticism of the length of the account of Odysseus’s trip. Or (2), “having all but measured out the trip to Chryse by speech,” i.e. the sailing to Chryse (cf. 310ff.) is covered, temporally, by the speeches between Thetis and Achilles. Thus, the narrator picks up with Odysseus and his crew arriving on Chryse. Note that the return journey is described in detail and praised in the bT scholia, perhaps going back to Aristotle (cf. Σ ad A.481a (bT), A.481b (bT)). There’s no subtle critique of the poet or the long narration of the activity on Chryse.

Alternatively, Jack Mitchell (in his excellent dissertation, “The Aural Iliad”) translates “though he does not measure out the sailing to Chryse in full,” not reading μόνον οὐχί as a unit.

What do you think?

2

I find it difficult not to take μόνον οὐχὶ, “all but”, as a unit.

I’m inclined towards (1) but not necessarily with an implication of tongue-in-cheek criticism. I’m not sure I understand the sentence that follows, but isn’t the scholiast actually praising the way the interposition of Odysseus at Chryse keeps the listener’s interest in the Thetis narrative going without causing satiety?

As for (2), I don’t think singular λόγῳ can mean “speech”. Plural λόγοις might have that meaning.

3

Thanks, Hylander.

I agree about μόνον οὐχί.

You’re right about λόγῳ, but I’m still a little uneasy about Nünlist’s reading here. (2) might work better by taking λόγῳ as “his account,” but, unlike (1), understanding λόγοϲ to refer to what precedes (i.e. the Thetis-Achilles narrative), not what follows (the trip to Chryse). Also, I’m not sure “the journey to Chryse” in Nünlist’s translation works, since he takes that to mean the whole embassy (sacrifice, singing, and all). The sailing to Chryse (τὸν ἐπὶ Χρύσην πλοῦν) is precisely what Homer leaves out of the narrative, and what’s “measured out” by the Thetis-Achilles narrative.

As for the last sentence, I read it the same way as you. “Avoiding too much of one [the Thetis-Achilles narrative], and fulfilling desire for the other [the trip to Chryse].” Mitchell has “taking away the sense of satiety from some and filling up others’ eagerness,” but I don’t think that makes sense.

4

Well now let’s see. The note says that Homer interposes Odysseus’ trip to Chryse between Thetis’ απαλλαγη, i.e. her departure from Achilles at 428, and her επανοδος, i.e. her ascent to Olympus at 496 (the terms could be understood as meaning her departure from the narrative and her return to it, but I don’t think that’s what’s meant, and anyway they’re effectively coterminous)—and that his reason for doing so is in order to maintain an interval between the two events (ὅπως μη συναψῃ). The Homeric narrative itself stipulates an interval of 11-12-days.
So I think the note clearly implies that the three events (Thetis’ departure, Odysseus’ Chryse trip, and Thetis to Olympus) are to be understood as consecutive.

This seems to me to exclude your 2nd interpretation, if I understand it correctly. Certainly it could be that the journey to Chryse was imagined as taking place during the Ach.-Thetis interchange (351-427; πεμπουσι 389, ἵκανεν 431)—indeed, I expect it was, and rightly so—but the note is concerned with what follows Thetis’ departure. The note represents the narration of Odysseus’ trip (from his arrival at the island) as Homer’s way of covering (or at least as taking place within) the period from when Thetis leaves Achilles to when she goes to make her appeal to Zeus. (So no-one has to cry “Give us back our eleven days!”) So I’m essentially in agreement with Nünlist, though I think he oversimplifies and is overly dependent on his Genette-derived terms. (It’s even worse with de Jong.)

As for μόνον οὐχὶ λόγῳ καταμετρήσας, the narration obviously wouldn’t take twelve days, and nor does the action described (a single overnight stay, is it?) so μονον ουχι is certainly a bit of an exaggeration but I think the gist is clear. I wouldn’t take it as any kind of criticism of the length of Homer’s account of the trip; the longer the better, if synchronization is what we’re after. Maybe that’s what underlies Mitchell’s construal, which I think must be ruled out. Surely μονονουχι means what it regularly does.

—This written and posted before seeing the other responses. I may revisit.

5

The sailing to Chryse (τὸν ἐπὶ Χρύσην πλοῦν) is precisely what Homer leaves out of the narrative, and what’s “measured out” by the Thetis-Achilles narrative.

Like mwh, I interpreted the scholion as referring to the interval between Thetis’ parting from Achilles, τῇ τῆς Θέτιδος ἀπαλλαγῇ, and her ascent (to Olympus), τὴν ἐπάνοδον (498: ἠερίη δ᾽ ἀνέβη μέγαν οὐρανὸν Οὔλυμπόν τε), between which the poet interposes, διὰ μέσου βάλλει, the segment about Odysseus, τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα. τὸν ἐπὶ Χρύσην πλοῦν, in my reading, doesn’t mean the actual time at sea (which, as you note, in fact takes place during the Thetis-Achilles scene), but rather the events of the voyage, the restoration of Chryseis, the sacrifice to Apollo, etc.

Again, I’m not quite sure exactly what the scholiast is saying in the following sentence, but I think it’s something positive, not criticism, about the way the narrative is constructed, with the bridge of the journey to Chryse relieving the tension of the Thetis-Achilles interchange and at the same time giving rise to suspense – a desire to learn more – in the listener. I’m puzzled by what ἑκατέροις and τῶν μὲν . . . τῶν δὲ refer to. Given his mention of singular τὸν ἀκροατήν, I don’t think, contra Mitchell, that the plurals can refer to two groups of listeners or reader.

Eagerly awaiting mwh’s further thoughts.

6

αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεύς: ὅπως μὴ τῇ τῆς Θέτιδος ἀπαλλαγῇ
συνάψῃ τὴν ἐπάνοδον, διὰ μέσου βάλλει τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα,
μόνον οὐχὶ λόγῳ καταμετρήσας τὸν ἐπὶ Χρύσην πλοῦν. ἑκατέροις δὲ
μετρίως χρώμενος διαναπαύει τὸν ἀκροατήν, τῶν μὲν τὸν κόρον
περιαιρῶν, τῶν δὲ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀποπληρῶν.

Here I’ll wade into waters that I probably shouldn’t:

“However Odysseus…”: In order that the departure of Thetis not be joined to her upwards journey, he sets the Odysseus matter in the middle, having fully measured out the voyage to Chryses almost only for this purpose. And utilizing both kinds of stories within measure he rests the listener, stripping the surfeit of the one kind, building up the desire of the other kind.

7

dikaiopolis, I’d probably best await your response to my post, but meanwhile I’ll add this in response to yours (with apologies for the earlier crossing). I see your point about τὸν ἐπὶ Χρύσην πλοῦν, but I think you’re reading that too strictly. The note expressly concerns what Homer puts inbetween Thetis’ departure (428) and her επανοδος (495)—described as the Odysseus stuff (ὅπως μὴ τῇ τῆς Θέτιδος ἀπαλλαγῇ συνάψῃ τὴν ἐπάνοδον, διὰ μέσου βάλλει τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα). That has to cover the whole of 430-487, there’s no other way to take it. If you’re not persuaded by that, we could posit that the other details of the trip have been cut in the course of transmission (τον επι Χρ. πλουν <και … και …>), but I really don’t see the need for that; “the voyage to Chryse” (or Chryses?) is just shorthand for the whole trip. That’s strongly suggested by the continuation too (τῶν δὲ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀποπληρῶν), which I understand as you do, provided that by “the trip to Chryse” you mean the entire trip, from arrival to return. (I must say you haven’t given much evidence of the excellence of Mitchell’s diss.)

Joel, συναψῃ is active, the subject is the poet. For the rest, read our discussion.

Edit. I’d missed Hylander’s last post. ἑκατέροις δὲ
μετρίως χρώμενος διαναπαύει τὸν ἀκροατήν, τῶν μὲν τὸν κόρον
περιαιρῶν, τῶν δὲ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀποπληρῶν. My understanding of this is (I think) the same as dikaiopolis’. ἑκάτερα (neut.) refer to the two storylines, Thetis-Ach. and Od’s Chryse trip, which Homer toggles between. By using each of them only μετριως he gives the listener a break, sparing him overload on the first and satisfying his desire to hear about the second. (He’d been told of the preparations for the trip earlier.) Homer calculates the audience’s response to his narrative and structures it accordingly—this is a hallmark of the bT-commentary.

8

Thanks for pointing out συναψῃ. I read it as an active verb with Homer as the subject, but that didn’t make the jump to English, I’m afraid.

I was having trouble making the various suggestions made here for “μόνον οὐχὶ… πλοῦν” coherent with the rest of the scholion. Contra-Nünlist, the scholiast’s interest is clearly not in the length of the voyage, in either narrative or real time. Nor is there any interest in explaining the missing 11 days. His interest is in how Homer is choosing content.

However, I now think the real answer is just one of emphasis:

“Almost with his account he has measured out every little step of the the voyage to Chryse.” Ie., the emphasis is on καταμετρήσας, not λόγῳ. μόνον οὐχὶ is adverbial, so that makes sense. In other words, the scholiast is simply saying that Homer has “drawn out” the Odysseus story. Now the scholion’s last statement about the listener follows.

9

This discussion is really helpful. To clarify, I think there are four scenes to keep in mind:

(a) Departure for Chryse (310-12)
(b) Thetis & Achilles; Thetis’ departure (ends 430)
(c) Odysseus’ arrival and activity on Chryse; return to camp (430-87)
(d) Thetis ascent and conversation with Zeus (493ff.)

All the suggested interpretations, in fact, take the scholion as primarily about the interval between Thetis’ departure and ascent with the intervening Odysseus story (ὅπως μὴ τῇ τῆς Θέτιδος ἀπαλλαγῇ συνάψῃ τὴν ἐπάνοδον, διὰ μέσου βάλλει τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα). That is unavoidable. The issue is whether the following participial clause (μόνον οὐχὶ λόγῳ καταμετρήσαϲ τὸν ἐπὶ Χρύσην πλοῦν) also refers to that interval.

In my 2nd option the clause is parenthetical, describing how Homer can jump to the “Odysseus story” (τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα) without narrating the voyage. Answer: because he has measured out the sailing time with the Thetis-Achilles scene. This would follow the logic of those scholia de Jong and Nünlist call “fill-in technique” (included in Nünlist’s same chapter on “Time”). E.g., the Diomedes-Glaucus interchange fills in the gap between Hector leaving the plain (Ζ.116-8) and reaching the gate (Z.237):

<Ἕκτωρ δ’ ὡς:> εὐκαίρως μεταβαίνει τὸ διάκενον τῆς πορείας Ἕκτορος ἀναπληρώσας τοῖς διὰ Γλαύκου καὶ Διομήδους. [Z.237a (bT)]

Or the long gap between Patroclus’ departure from Eurypylus in Ο and his presence with Achilles at the beginning of Π:

αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιοί: ἔδει τὸ ἑξῆς παραγαγεῖν ὅτι ὁ Πάτροκλος παρίστατο τῷ Ἀχιλλεῖ (cf. Π 2–101). ἀλλὰ τὸ διάστημα τῆς ὁδοῦ μέσην ἔχει τὴν μάχην.

The major difference with Nünlist’s interpretation is that he takes μόνον οὐχὶ λόγῳ καταμετρήσαϲ τὸν ἐπὶ Χρύσην πλοῦν as describing how Homer narrates the story of Odysseus on Chryse, viz., by making the narration take almost as long as the story:

“What this critic seems to be saying is that Homer’s in-depth description of the embassy comes close to equalling its actual duration, that in other words, story time and narrative time are virtually identical. This is an exaggeration, perhaps criticising the poet tongue in cheek for the detailed account, but it nevertheless adumbrates the notion of zeitdeckendes Erzählen (i.e. narrative time equates story time) in a remarkable way.” (Nünlist 78).

I may well be taking τὸν ἐπὶ Χρύσην πλοῦν too strictly—I’m not married to this interpretation, just entertaining it. It could be essentially identical to τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα, as you noted. But I remain a little skeptical of the weight Nünlist puts on this clause to support the idea of narrative time=story time.

I take the last sentence the same way you do, mwh—ἑκατέροιϲ refers to the Thetis scene (which the reader is starting to have too much of) and the whole Odysseus scene (which the reader is desiring). Homer carefully orchestrates the (attentive) reader’s emotional state.

10

My instinct is to read ἑκατέροις as referring to the two story lines, too. But why plural τῶν μὲν . . . τῶν δὲ? Maybe τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα is understood to be paralleled by something like τὰ κατὰ τὴν Θέτιδα.

11

Hylander, Yes, something like that. There are two sets of narrative sequences, τα μεν (Thetis-Ach.), τα δε (Od-Chryse). I don’t see a problem here.

Well, I think we’ve just about exhausted this. dikaiopolis, you take the participial phrase as referring to what happened prior to the stated time frame. I don’t (and nor does Nünlist, nor Hylander), and frankly I think it perverse to do so.

It’s worth noting in passing that while we think in terms of “the reader,” the commentator thinks in terms of the listener. The poet speaks.

On the subject of time manipulation, here in a 1st-cent.BCE papyrus commentary is a notable anticipation of Zielinski’s insight that concurrent events are sometimes represented as consecutive: ο δε ποιητης διηγηματικος ων ου⟨δε⟩ δυναμενος α⟨μα⟩ παντα ειπειν τα κατα τον ⟨αυτον⟩ χρονον πραχθεντα παρα μερος ειρηκεν. (“The poet, since he is in narrative mode and not able to recount simultaneous events all at the same time, has recounted them successively.” (POxy 1086.58-60, on Il.2.788)

12

dikaiopolis, you take the participial phrase as referring to what happened prior to the stated time frame.

In dikaiopolis’ defense (not that he needs me to speak for him), he doesn’t necessarily take the participial phrase as referring to what happened prior to the stated time frame: he’s merely pondering the possibility that this may be a possible reading. Personally, I agree with mwh that it would be a somewhat perverse reading, but I don’t think the possibility can be completely ruled out.

13

Alright, I think I’ve come back around to Nünlist’s reading (minus the possibility of a subtle criticism of the length of the account). What made me initially read this one differently is the close similarity to scholia like Z.236a (bT), mentioned above: εὐκαίρως μεταβαίνει τὸ διάκενον τῆς πορείας Ἕκτορος ἀναπληρώσας τοῖς διὰ Γλαύκου καὶ Διομήδους (cp. διὰ μέσου βάλλει τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα, μόνον οὐχὶ λόγῳ καταμετρήσας τὸν ἐπὶ Χρύσην πλοῦν). Nünlist is generally reliable in his translations, though I’ve noticed slips here and there—almost inevitable given how much material he incorporates. That’s more than enough on that clause.

14

dikaiopolis, Spurred by Hylander’s post, I apologize for misrepresenting your position in my last post. I should have written not “you take” but “you contemplate taking”. :smiley: