οὐδέ τις εὐόρκου χάρις ἔσσεται οὐδὲ δικαίου
οὐδ’ ἀγαθοῦ, > μᾶλλον δὲ κακῶν ῥεκτῆρα καὶ ὕβριν
ἀνέρα τιμήσουσι· > δίκη δ’ ἐν χερσί· καὶ αἰδὼς
οὐκ ἔσται, βλάψει δ’ ὁ κακὸς τὸν ἀρείονα φῶτα
μύθοισι σκολιοῖς ἐνέπων, ἐπὶ δ’ ὅρκον ὀμεῖται.
. . . it is rather the doer of evil and > the outrage
man > that they will honour
Wonderful lines. Do they say what they seem to say? This is a striking juxtaposition.
Manuel Moschopulus:
«μᾶλλον δὲ κακῶν ῥεκτῆρα καὶ ὕβριν ἀνέρα τιμήσουσιν». ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τιθεὶς τὸ «καὶ ὕβριν», διακόψας τὸν ἐφεξῆς λόγον· τὸ γὰρ ἑξῆς, μᾶλλον δὲ ἄνδρα κακῶν ἐργάτην τιμήσουσιν, εἶτα, καὶ ὕβριν τιμήσουσι δηλονότι.
This is also how I read it at first, so at least I’m wrong in company.
However, another scholia gives the following:
Καὶ τό,
—κακῶν ῥεκτῆρα καὶ ὕβριν,
ἀντὶ τοῦ κακοῦργον καὶ ὑβριστὴν ἄνθρωπον.
Τοιοῦτον καὶ τὸ παρ’ Εὐριπίδῃ,
Ἔριν Θυέστῃ πόλεμον,
ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐριστικὸν πόλεμον. PROCLUS.
Ie., “ὕβριν” stands for “ὑβριστὴν”.
In the Loeb edition translated by Evelyn-White it reads “ἀνέρες τιμήσουσι”. In the footnotes, it shows “ἀνέρα τιμήσουσι” as an alternative from a 1537 edition by Trincavelli, if I’m reading the bibliography correctly. If I’m reading the preface correctly, Evelyn-White’s edition drew largely from WHD Rouse’s collations and the Rzach edition of 1902. In either case, it seems to work; in the former version ὕβριν would be a direct object of τιμήσουσι whereas in the latter I believe it would be an accusative of specification accompanying ἀνέρα. I’m certainly no expert, but I have the hard copy and thought I’d contribute.
Looking at the version on Internet Archive, the footnote in Evelyn-White has:
Tr. : ἀνέρα τιμήσουσι, MSS.
So ἀνέρες is from Trincavelli. Which would make sense, as Moschopulus and Proclus quoted above are from the 13th and 5th centuries.
The OCT doesn’t print ἀνέρες, and this LSJ note seems to make it unlikely:
Ep. Poets mostly use α_ in arsi, α^ in thesi; but in trisyll. forms with stem ἀνέρ- always α_; so also Trag. in lyr., S.Tr.1011, OT869. But in Trag. senarians α^ always.
I believe it’s the other way round, Joel. “ἀνέρα τιμήσουσι” is from the Trincavelli edition. “'ἀνέρες τιμήσουσι” from the 1936 revised edition of Evelyn-White’s work. On the Perseus site, it has “ἀνέρες αἰνήσουσι” from White’s 1914 (original) edition!
Edit: Sorry, it’s actually αἰνήσουσι in both White editions.
The reading of the MSS is ἀνέρα τιμήσουσι exclusively, and that’s what West (1978), Solmsen (OCT 3rd ed. 1990) and Most (Loeb 2006), as well as Rzach, all print. West’s note on this line shows that it’s not impossible and cites parallels. (Most is apparently coming out with a revised version of his Loeb next month.) If any of the MSS had a different reading, it’s safe to assume that West would have caught and recorded it.
ἀνέρα τιμήσουσι is also transmitted by the 5th c. or possibly somewhat later anthologist Stobaeus, in a manuscript tradition that has come down from late antiquity independently of the Hesiod manuscript tradition.
Somewhere I have Evelyn-White, but I haven’t dug it out. If you read ἀνέρες with him, you have to change τιμήσουσι to αινησουσι as he apparently did, according to West, who dismisses this and other proposals as “hardly convincing.” ἀνέρες τιμήσουσι is impossible because it’s unmetrical, and I doubt that’s what E-W printed in any of his old Loebs.
None of the modern editions (West, Solmsen, Most) mentions Trincavelli’s conjecture, or for that matter E-W’s proposal, in the critical apparatus.
Hylander: You are correct about αἰνήσουσι in E-W.
Aetos: My understanding is that footnote is in the standard format, and reads “ : , ”
–
EDIT, the first version of this post was incorrect. The new Most Loeb is not yet up online. It’s still DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.hesiod-works_days.2007
This is West’s note.
So West agrees with Proclus, though he doesn’t cite the passage from Orestes. (Nor does West discuss this interpretation in his Orestes.)
However, I don’t understand why Proclus and West don’t just take this as an accusative of respect. It would seem straightforward enough with a verb like τιμάω. ὕβριν = ὑβριστὴν just seems weird to me, even with all of the examples.
Well, here is where I really put my ignorance on display:
When simply “MSS” is shown as a source, which manuscripts are being referred to? In the case of “Works and Days”, there are 17 different source documents listed, grouped into 6 different families by Rzach.
It’s been nearly 40 years since I’ve written a paper, so I’m a little rusty!
I don’t understand why Proclus and West don’t just take this as an accusative of respect.
κακῶν ῥεκτῆρα καὶ ὕβριν ἀνέρα τιμήσουσι. ὕβριν is coordinate with κακῶν ῥεκτῆρα.
When simply “MSS” is shown as a source, which manuscripts are being referred to?
All that the editor considers worth taking into account, or all with specified exceptions.
West’s 1978 edition discusses the medieval MS tradition beginning at p. 78. He also cites his article in Classical Quarterly 24, 1974, 161-85, “The Medieval Manuscripts of the Works and Days”, which probably goes into greater depth on which MSS he considers worth taking into account in constructing his edition.
Thanks, Hylander! Now perhaps you could explain a little further as to why “ὕβριν” is not used as an accusative of specification (or respect)with “ἀνέρα”. I see you highlighted “καί”. Is ὕβριν connected with “ῥεκτῆρα” ?
EDIT: I guess we both typing at the same time! I just saw your other remarks and appreciate the clarification.
The point about καί goes over my head, I’m afraid. By accusative of respect, I thought that it would mean something like:
“And there will be no favor for a oathkeeper and not for a just man and not for a good man. But rather they will honor a worker of injuries and a man for his violence. Recompense will be in the hands…”
“honor a worker of injuries and a man for his violence”
The lack of parallelism of the complements of τιμαω – simple accusative + double accusative – would be jarring and I think more difficult to swallow than taking ὕβριν ἀνέρα as a unit. And ὕβριν can’t simply be taken as acc. of respect with both κακῶν ῥεκτῆρα and ἀνέρα because that would leave ἀνέρα unqualified, which would be strange here. Can you find any other examples of a double accusative with τιμαω in LSJ? It seems very odd. The accusative of respect isn’t simply a catch-all category that can be dropped in without a preposition or used to explain any naked accusative in any situation: it has specific uses, and usually it’s used with a verb denoting a state or an adjective. See Smyth 1600-1.
Thanks Hylander,
I did a TLG search, and looked at the first 800 or so occurrences of τιμάω in the corpus (that got me through Plato), but found nothing.
On double accusatives, here is Euripides fr. 667, which is a fine model for ὑβριστὴν ἀνέρα (but we already knew that would be fine): τίς ἄνδρα τιμᾷ ξεναπάτην; It’s just a normal predicate rather than accusative of respect.
Nor was I able to find ὕβρις being used as an accusative of respect with any other verbs.
Could it simply be read as a hendiadys?
I guess the whole discussion is really about whether or not it is hendiadys or not. In other words, if hybris and man are to be joined together, and if so, how.