I’m wondering if anyone can give me a few pointers with this line.
Iliad 2.566 Μηκιστῆος υἱὸς Ταλαϊονίδαο ἄνακτος
Two questions: I’m scanning υἱὸς as long (diphthong) - short (vowel), Is that correct? Secondly, is there any resource where one can check natural vowel lengths for words where they’re uncertain? I know L & S gives long vowels (?always) but for Ταλαϊονίδης it’s not giving anything at all - not even a page!
I’m just starting Greek scansion and self-teaching and I’m obviously missing something here. Can anyone give me some hints, such as correption?, elision or contraction present in this line? I don’t need the details, just some hints so I can hopefully work it out myself!
I couldn’t figure out how to scan that (ηο would have to be read as a long vowel, is that something that happens?) but I see the following in van Thiel which is a lot easier:
Μηκιστέως υἱὸς Ταλαϊονίδαο ἄνακτος
The εω in Μηκιστέως would be read as a single long vowel. The first iota in Ταλαϊονίδαο is long, as well as the last alpha. Notice that the second syllable of υἱός is long by position.
Two questions: I’m scanning υἱὸς as long (diphthong) - short (vowel), Is that correct? Secondly, is there any resource where one can check natural vowel lengths for words where they’re uncertain? I know L & S gives long vowels (?always) but for Ταλαϊονίδης it’s not giving anything at all - not even a page!
υἱός here scans as an iamb—short + long (by position). An instance of “internal correption,” where a vowel is shortened before another vowel within a word. It’s rare in Homer. Can you work out the rest of the line now?
See this LSJ entry: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#context=lsj&eid=105117. For proper names, there is a useful appendix in the updated version of Cunliffe, the most useful dictionary for learning to read Homer. But the scansion of Ταλαϊονίδαο should be clear without looking anything up.
Ah, I see in Leaf that υἱός = ὑός with “the ι becoming semivocalic and then falling out”, and that the “synizesis of Πηλέως or Πηλέος is not Homeric.” He points to A489 and Ρ575 as two other places with ὑός. I could have sworn that I had seen εως with synizesis in other places, but maybe not.
there is a useful appendix in the updated version of Cunliffe
Cunliffe published them separately as Homeric Proper and Place Names. I didn’t realize that there was an edition that combined them. I have the 1977, but it’s not there.
EDIT:
Synizesis, but not word-terminal, and seems very much the exception
I’m having a little difficulty seeing υἱός as an iamb. I’ve seen cases of internal correption, where υἱός scans as two shorts, but I can’t remember of any cases where it scans as an iamb (but I think that’s just down to my aging memory or inexperience!). Here though, I can’t see how the iamb fits into the line. There are some variations on the spelling of the genitive of Μηκιστεύς (Μηκιστέως, Μηκιστέος, Μηκιστέω, Μηκιστῆος), but in every case the last syllable scans long, which makes it the first syllable of the second foot. When I was reading this verse (a long while back!), my thought at the time was that either -ἐος ,ῆος, ἐως, or έω was being pronounced as one long syllable by synizesis. I think I just naturally took the next syllable υἱ- as long, meaning that the second foot was a spondee and -ός as long by position becoming the first syllable of the third foot, a dactyl, -ὀς Τα λα.
The idea is that it would scan as “ὑός” in that position, which is followed by a consonant, hence short-long.
Given that ὑός is simply a form that alternates with υἱός, I wonder if “internal correption” is a great way to describe this. The glide that naturally appears at vowel junction between two words in Homeric Greek (epic correption) wouldn’t necessarily have a lot to do with the ὑός form.
I’m having a little difficulty seeing υἱός as an iamb.
ἀρχὸς οἰνωνῶν (Aetos)·
The variants scan differently. Note than the final syllable in Μηκιστῆος is short, hence:
Μηκιστῆος υἱὸς
/ - u u / -
with internal correption, versus the vulgate:
Μηκιστέως υἱὸς
/ - - / -
Does that help?
υἱός scans as an iamb not infrequently in Homer, though there are only a few instances of internal correption with other words.
[In such cases, υἱός was likely pronounced with a glide, hῠyος or hῠyuς or, after y-deletion, hῠος/hῠuς, which you find often in inscriptions, the ending in -υς being older, then ὑός in later Attic. The monophthongization of υι before vowels was unstable until a relatively late date, hence the diversity of forms. Some older editions print ὑός when the first syllable scans short.]
Thank you, Phalakre! I was fixating on the idea of the last syllable of Μηκιστῆος being subject to synizesis to satisfy the metre, when it scans perfectly well with ῆ and ος as two separate syllables and υἱ shortened by internal correption. I confess this is one of those palm to the forehead moments!
In his praefatio to the 1998 edition, p. xxxiv, West has to say the following:
Πηλῆος υἱός A 489, Π 21 = Τ 216, Μηκιστῆος υἱός Β 566 = Ψ 678 cum
editoribus plurimis dedi, quamquam libri plerique vel -έως exhibent vel
-έος, quod probat Janko ad Π 21. Correptio vocis υἱός frequens est, cf.
Δ473 Άνθεμίωνος υἱόν, Ε 612(?), Ζ 130, Η 47 = Λ 200, Ι 84, O 244, Ρ 575
(v.l.), 590; fortasse fuerat olim ὑύς, ὑύν. Cf. Chantr. I 228 sq.
Many thanks to you all for your help - glad to know other people have difficulty with it! Only the 7th line I’ve scanned, so it’s a steep learning curve. I’ve got it right now, So can I confirm I’ve actually understood you all and what I’m doing:
Μηκιστέως υἱὸς Ταλαϊονίδαο ἄνακτος
Μηκιστῆος no problem here once I knew about υἱὸς
υἱός can be read as ὑός which scans here as short + long by position. This is 'An instance of “internal correption" . Aoidoi.org states “In Epic and elegiacs, a long vowel or diphthong at the end of a word may become shortened if the following word starts with a vowel. This is called epic correption.” So internal correption works the same and this is a case of the υἱ shortening to ὑ before the ό, is it?
“the ι becoming semivocalic and then falling out”, Does this mean the same thing?
Ταλαϊονίδαο I can understand now the first part following on from υἱὸς, I should have just assumed that the last α is long as it’s the fifth foot?
ἄνακτος - the only one not to cause trouble in itself, but is the lack of elision between the short ο and short ἄ of ἄνακτος here an example of hiatus in Greek? Or does it have another name?
I’ll reply individually on other points. Thank you.
“υἱός here scans as an iamb—short + long (by position). An instance of “internal correption,” where a vowel is shortened before another vowel within a word. It’s rare in Homer. Can you work out the rest of the line now?”
YES! Is it more common in Attic?
“See this LSJ entry: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#context=lsj&eid=105117. For proper names, there is a useful appendix in the updated version of Cunliffe, the most useful dictionary for learning to read Homer. But the scansion of Ταλαϊονίδαο should be clear without looking anything up.”
I can’t access the first one (needs subscription) but have just remembered (oops!) that I have my own copy of L&S, so it’ll finally get used. Not exactly a pocket book but I’ll be able to use it if the online version fails me again. At present nothing is very clear but working on it!
Thanks for the Cunliffe reference - I didn’t know of it, so have decided it would be a good idea to purchase one!
"Ah, I see in Leaf that υἱός = ὑός with “the ι becoming semivocalic and then falling out”, and that the “synizesis of Πηλέως or Πηλέος is not Homeric.” He points to A489 and Ρ575 as two other places with ὑός. "
Thanks for mentioning Leaf -hadn’t heard of him so that’ll be useful, having found it on Perseus.
This explanation works well enough. As I mentioned, internal correption isn’t very common in Homer (mainly just the word υἱός). Yes, more common in Attic poetry. This line is a bit unusual and troubled ancient readers as well. If you’re just starting out, I wouldn’t get too hung up on it.
The ending -ᾱο (gen sing) is always long (as in Ταλαϊονίδαο)
Yes, it’s hiatus due to an original digamma (ϝάνακτος). Many instances of hiatus can be explained by an original Ϝ; others cannot.
After reading a bit, you’ll eventually get a feel for Homeric verse and the meter will become internalized and automatic (except in anomalous cases—for a quick overview, see e.g. Martin West, “Homer’s Meter” in A New Companion to Homer. But I wouldn’t bother with this until later). It’s best to focus on the central caesura as the main organizing principle, feeling the line as a combination of two unequal parts (cola).
I think there is a free registration available for the online LSJ on TLG.
Cunliffe is definitely worth having. There is an “expanded edition” that includes Homeric proper names. Benner’s Selections from Homer’s Iliad or a similar reader is a good way to get started.
I looked into it a bit further, and Allen’s section on diphthongs seems to contradict this. His theory is that υι before a vowel (as is always the case) was pronounced [üyy] and that this is reduced to [üy] in places like Δ473 (he gives a few examples of similar reductions at Ν275 οἷος short οι, Π235 χαμαιεῦναι short αι, and Pindar Pyth viii 35 ἰχνεύων short ευ). The doubled semivowel always getting reduced to a single. The monophthongal ὑός always seems to have a long υ, so is unrelated and peculiarly Attic.
It’s still strange to me, however, that something that happens at word juncture in most cases would happen internally to words without a special explanation. In the above “χαμαὶ εὖναι” would seem natural enough. Maybe the accents of οἷός ἐσσι and υἱός explain the others, but it really seems like Homer fudging the meter a bit. I wonder if the audience winced? But if so, why was υἱός a repeated exception?
3) The ending -ᾱο (gen sing) is always long (as in Ταλαϊονίδαο[/b
Very useful - something like this had crossed my mind along the way but just too many potentials to look them all up - almost cross-eyed.
4) Yes, it’s hiatus due to an original digamma (ϝάνακτος). Many instances of hiatus can be explained by an original Ϝ; others cannot.
OK
—After reading a bit, you’ll eventually get a feel for Homeric verse and the meter will become internalized and automatic (except in anomalous cases—for a quick overview, see e.g. Martin West, “Homer’s Meter” in A New Companion to Homer. But I wouldn’t bother with this until later). It’s best to focus on the central caesura as the main organizing principle, feeling the line as a combination of two unequal parts (cola).—
Thanks for the suggestion here.
—I think there is a free registration available for the online LSJ on TLG.—
I couldn’t find one - individual regn. is pricey and short-lived, but I’ll be fine with my copy.
—Cunliffe is definitely worth having. There is an “expanded edition” that includes Homeric proper names. Benner’s Selections from Homer’s Iliad or a similar reader is a good way to get started.—
I’ve got a copy on the way and have plenty of books here so thanks for the help - I’m sure you’ll be hearing from me again.
There’s no telling how the first half of this line and identical 23.678 would “originally” have been articulated. The readings of the mss. aren’t of much value in recovering the “original” text here. Βut as I read West’s note on tyhis line -ηος is found only in a single late ms. Most of the mss. have -εως; a papyrus has -εω; and a few late mss. have -εος (which Janko prefers, scanning εο as a single syllable, in his note on 16.21).
West himself prints -ηος in his text, and Πηληος in 1.489, where the same issue pops up.
Μηκιστηος υ(y)ος (or going back even further, Mακισταος υ(y)ος) would be the older version of the formulaic expression, prior to quantitative metathesis. But the Homeric poems preserve both -ηος and the “modernized” -εως. 1.489 presents the same conundrum. As West notes, Chantraine reports a suggestion that the original form might have been υυς. But υyος seems to me more probable, especially given that οιος is sometimes scanned as οyος, scanned υ υ: e.g. οιος εσσι, 13.275, τοιος εων οιος ου, 18.105.
Anyone who wants to go deeper down this rabbit hole can look at 16.21, 16.203 and 19.216.