Welcome to the Odyssey Reading Group! Anyone is welcome to join in at any time, regardless of their Greek ability. If you’re itching to explore Homer’s epic tale of survival, adventure, love, lust, kinship, betrayal and spooky dead people, hop on in, you’ll be very welcome. People who have some Greek but have never tried reading Homer before are doubly welcome.
Friends - sorry for my absence. I would love to say that I’ve been doing something urgent and exciting but I’ve actually just been distracted by British politics over the last few weeks.
This week’s reading takes us up to the end of Book 6, so I think there’s scope for a bit of a review of Book 6 before we leave for Alcinous’ palace as well as discussion of the text itself. There are a few things that I’d like to explore further before we move on.
Montcombroux has brought to my attention in the previous thread that there are people reading along with the group who are going through the Greek but who don’t post. It was my ambition for the group when I set it up to be as inclusive as possible, but I’ve still not found a way to provide a space for people to ask questions about the text at the same time as the broader discussion we normally have. Answers on a postcard, please (seriously, if anyone has any ideas they would be gratefully received either here or by private message). Maybe I should do a poll to find out more about the people who read along but don’t post.
New threads tend to kill old threads so I’ll keep this going until next Friday (4th Oct) then move on to Book 7.
Firstly, I really am a dreadful dunce when it comes to metre - Hainsworth says of “ἄστυδε ἔλθωμεν” (296) that “emendations (ἄστυδ’ ἀν-, ἄστυδ’ έσ- … ἄστυ δι-) seek to obviate the hiatus which is not defended, as elsewhere in this position, by ‘une coupe nette du sens’ (Chantraine, Grammaire, i 89)”. Is he just saying that these emendations cover the hiatus but don’t make sense?
While we’re on Hainsworth, when he discusses Nausicaa’s departure he presents this strange opinion (p.314):
“Nausicaa drives away and, but for a routine epilogue at the beginning of vii and a brief re-entry at viii 457-68, out of the story. This resolute dismissal by the poet of a sympathetic character cannot be other than an indication of his attitude towards her. The scene by the river is an episode, no more, a necessary and well-elaborated part of the οἰκονομία of the poem. The poet draws in outline an indulgent portrait of a well-bred girl: but there is no emotional involvement, least of all on the part of the hero. See introduction to vi.”
The underlying assumptions about the relationship between poet and character are bizarre - is he suggesting that the poet has inherited a character they don’t like and so limited her involvement or that the poet responsible for creating Nausicaa has somehow gone off her?
I think what he’s saying is that in other instances of hiatus, the difficulty with the hiatus is often removed by “une coupe nette du sens” - a clear break in sense. In this instance, however, it is not. There is no break in sense between ἀστυδε and ἔλθωμεν.
I’ve been reading Mark Edwards’ book Homer:Poet of the Iliad, and in chapter 6 he deals with Homer’s use of story patterns and myth. In the case of Nausicaa, he mentions that Woodhouse (“The Composition of Homer’s Odyssey”)calls this the “Winning the Wife” story pattern which Homer modifies for his own narrative. Viewed in this light, Homer is telling a story which will delight his audience (after all, a visit to fairy-land should be delightful!) but also needs to provide a way for Odysseus to finally leave fairy-land and return to Ithaca. The audience knows that Odysseus is destined to make his way back to Penelope, so Nausicaa has to go, but the picture he paints, within the constraints of his own narrative, is still a beautiful one.
I think it’s a good idea to consider how the Odyssey is underpinned with folklore motifs, and there’s lots to be gained by discussing it in those terms (I like Charles Segal’s suggestion in Singers, Heroes and Gods that Nausicaa is a “genius of rebirth”) - if anything, though, I think this makes it even stranger that Hainsworth is saying that Nausicaa has had a “resolute dismissal” which “cannot be other than an indication of his attitude towards her”. Perhaps I’m giving the word attitude more weight than it deserves, but it seems to me a mistake to suggest that the poet would develop a character so fully and then because of their “attitude” towards that character simply dispense with them. Much better, IMO, to say that she has fulfilled her function as part of one folk motif and doesn’t fit neatly into the motifs of the following books, so the seams remain visible in Homer’s cloth.
It’s the “cannot be other” that gets me - I can think of lots of other explanations and deciding between them relies on our intuitions (grounded in wider reading) about the process by which the poem was produced, not unveiling some absolute truth. It’s like saying that Shakespeare bumping off Ophelia “cannot be other than an indication of his attitude towards her” i.e. complete tosh.
I think Hainsworth would have been better served had he added “role” after “her”. (It’s Herodotus time, so I’ll leave it at that!) After rereading his introduction to Book 6, I don’t think Hainsworth is offering what on the surface appears to be a harsh criticism of the poet. Here is the section I’m referring to:
Hainsworth, Introduction Book 6, p.291:
“In addition the poet has chosen to develop the character of Nausicaa, to the delight of every reader. The motif of her impending marriage probably has deep roots in folk-tale, as if the unknown stranger she assisted were to become her suitor. It supplies an amusing gloss to several passages here and vii and viii, but it is potentially dangerous, as is apparent from the number of later authors and commentators who refused to limit the role of Nausicaa to this episode. Some married her to Telemachus, as Hellanicus FGrH 323 a F 156, and Aristotle, fr. 506 Rose, or even took seriously her dream of marriage to Odysseus (see 244 ff.), as Goethe in his unfinished tragedy. It is evident that the poet’s intention lay elsewhere. In many respects Nausicaa is a feminine doublet of Telemachus, a model of decorum and courtesy. These are important matters in the Phaiakis (see 29-30n.), and underscore its wider function, which is to contrast the peace of Scheria with the disorder of Ithaca during the absence of Odysseus. The Phaiakis thus complements the Telemachy (where the chief aim is to link the Odyssey with the greater heroic world). To accomplish this purpose a certain fullness of style is necessary, especially in discourse: in good manners small details are important.”
I would love to say that I’ve been doing something urgent and exciting but I’ve actually just been distracted by British politics over the last few weeks.
Mark,
That is incredibly hilarious! It’s almost enough to make me revise my opinion of Boris. He must have won a prize at school for that rendition! I’ve never heard those lines delivered with so much …? Help me out here, Sean, there’s got to be a word for that style of presentation.
As Joel says, we should steer clear of politics - purely taken as a piece of recitation, he crushes all his vowels into a lazy drone. It’s how I imagine one might recite the passage as, say, a dilettante’s party trick. Not to cast aspersions.
That’s fair game. On the surface he strikes me as the unfortunately familiar sort of person that has received a classical education, but did not achieve Greek fluency, and who therefore views it mostly as a social signaling mechanic or academic game rather than a language. Just as obviously, however, to a sympathetic observer, is the boy who loved Homer and the idea of the language, and the education, and who worked hard at it, at least at times. It’s unfortunate that we are so bad at giving such boys what they want – a real working mastery of the language.
Sorry for the barb. I admit though that I was surprised at the length of his recitation. I was expecting him to stop at say, line 7, or perhaps 21; he managed 42 lines (although if he was going that far, he should have continued at least to Apollo’s response!)and delivered them with feeling. The pronunciation was atrocious, but intelligible and to me at least it was obvious he understood the meaning of the lines he was reciting. Perhaps it’s just a party trick, a social signal, or an academic game, but I’ll tip my hat to him all the same for giving it a go.
ἥρως - Hainsworth says this is the spelling in the MS tradition with “remarkable uniformity” but that the form is “without parallel” for the genitive. Allen has ἥρωος, which Merry says is “generally read as a dactyl” like βέβληαι (Il 11.380 - with a caron over the η, can’t find a way to do that), but Ahrens reads both as synizesis. Steadman doesn’t even mention it!
So should we take it as a weird spelling, synizesis or internal correption, and how do we decide?
Stanford also says that “ἥρως is the reading of most MSS.; it could also be a nominative,…,vocative (cp. 4,423), but is punctuated in the text here as being a genitive. A few MSS. have the rare genitive form ἥρω with hiatus (permissible after a strong stop). Eustathius read the genitive ἥρωος with internal correption, cp. οιος in 7, 312 and υιος in 11, 270.” (the dipththongs are pronounced short)
Because of the punctuation, ἥρως is considered appositive with Ἀλκιονοοῖο. All it would take is to place commas after Ἀλκινοοῖο and ἥρως to read it as a nominative (being used a vocative as it is in 4,423). Ah well, yet another mystery!
I have a tin ear when it comes to Greek but that feels clunky to me. I’d be interested to know whether there’s any methodological debate here at all or just intuition. Perhaps Michael will bend near the earth to cast some pearls.