The Text of the Iliad, III

Author(s): T. W. Allen
Source: The Classical Review, Vol. 14, No. 8 (Nov., 1900), pp. 384-388
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/694642 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 21:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:32:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
384 THE CLASSICAL
versation, crops out in the change from the
objective present infinitives, 4VX77TELv etc.,
to a future infinitive, flo)O4EcLv: another
line or two, and the lively narrative would
doubtless have taken the second step, and
become direct quotation: for a Greek is
always tempted toward the more dramatic
form. Then again cYvvGEJveoL repeats a-vvrL-
OEvraLwith its widest subject, which how-
ever is instantly cleft with a o' p~hvetc.
8~
ZEvo4&v comes in a line later, but the
other generals are not alluded to again.
There is no 'irregularity' here, unless it
be irregular for a man's coat to fit him
perfectly and be a misfit for his brother.
Yet it would be impossible to codify these
variations, in the width of the subject, by
general rules of grammar.
The next sentence cited is a no less
familiar one from Thucydides I, 2, 1.
Kaovbvy oi -Xach
balveras y&p , viv 'EAXX&S
/Epale oLKov/LCV?, XXaA/pLavaE'rao-'rLoEE
ovoca ra
K
7rp&drEpaKaL ~ El "rv TaOoL av?r&v
&TrokELToVrTEV.The brief note in the ex-
cellent Classen-Morris-White edition re-
marks, that the three participles 'belong
to the imperfect.' Now, of course, the
imperfect indicative tended to pass into
present participle, if any. But every
such transition was liable to produce
ambiguity, which is ' the unpardonable sin'
in style. Hence it is most carefully
guarded. In this case, oiKov/Lcv represents
OTLOV 7raXaLoLKLraL, not KETro. To be sure,
an English translation uses a perfect or past
indicative ('It appears that it was per-
manently settled not long ago,' or 'It
appears that it has not been settled long'),
but this is itself a grave ambiguity found in
English only. Action continuing from the
past into the present is expressed by the
present, with the proper temporal adverb, in
most languages. r• -rpd~rpamakes the real
time of oto-aLclear, and yet the apparent
parallelism with may have disguised
the transition to•rdXaL
the imperfect. Finally,
the close link rE...KaL makes us realise
without effort that is in the
same time as ovo-aL.KaakOXEtovrE
There is a similarly brief note on the
THE TEXT OF THE ILIAD,
I HAVEshown (C.R. March 1899) that
the existing MSS. of the Iliad, with the
exception of several fragments of the
Ptolemaic era, constitute a vulgate, that is,
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:32:29 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVIEW.
series of 'imperfect' infinitives in Thuc. I,
3, 2. The passage seems to admit us into
the very workshop of Thucydides, while he
struggles for absolutely clear and logical
expression, with by no means adequate
command of graceful style. oKE 8~ /LOL,
he
begins, emphasizing the conjectural nature
of his whole statement. Then he passes to
the past tense: 0;i8 'rovoLa r70'r70 $prao4d
70 eXEv. Yet, having thus made the time-
relation plain, he is again more anxious to
regain the connection with the modest OKEZ,
which now becomes personal and ceases to
be parenthetical. So we have an infinitive,
&dXX rh pyv rp 70~E ro
~vaElwvov
Elo vKa vo KaL
wnVVOV8E TVaL rj avfr/. We may
o ElKX?••OLV
say, that the subject of 8oKo has narrowed,
from the whole long sentence to i-'KX~OLV
alone. Now, here again the lack of any past
tense to use makes the present, ivaL, less
striking, like oVo-aL in the other passage.
Yet even so, besides EXEV,the temporal
phrase zrph"EMyrvos guards it. It is true,
that two real 'imperfect infinitives' fol-
low: and KakXeo-OaL. Yet any-
•rapE'XerOaL traces the
one who patiently long sentence
through its windings will be struck, not
merely with the careful timing references
to the Pelasgians, Hellen, etc., but especially
with the reversion, at the last, to the indica-
tive, ~8v'varo. The use of an 'imperfect' in-
finitive, then, cannot be denied: but it is a
delicate crossing line between tenses which
must not be confounded, and the stylistic
effort for perspicuity is therefore especially
instructive.
The present purpose is, however, to illus-
trate not a particular construction, but the
infinite variableness of all so-called types.
Nothing can be understood or enjoyed
aright, when torn out of its proper place.
This is true of shell-fish or algae, but cer-
tainly no less true of the delicate perishable
organisms we call sentences. They yield
themselves up wholly only to him who sees
the life in language, ay, the life behind
language, steadily, and sees it whole.
Linguistics is biology, not anatomy.
Wi. C. LAWTON.
III.
a body the members of which diverge from
each other in different degrees, but in
degree only and not in kind. An apparent
exception to this uniformity, the family h,
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
was shown (July 1900) to be a special case
of the general tradition.
Upon analysis of the readings of the
MSS. (October 1899) it appeared that in
60 cases the modern vulgate was identical
with the text to which the ancients gave
the same name-so far as it can be re-
covered; in 16 the reading of the ancient
vulgate had been displaced by that of Aris-
tarchus, and in the remaining 24 the MSS.
varied between one and the other. This
did not imply that the only ancient readings
to be found in our text are those of Aris-
tarchus, but that considering the predomin-
ant position of Aristarchus as regards his
predecessors, and the small number even of
his readings that have found their way
into even a (•T)
single MS., it seemed probable
that the readings of other ancient critics
where they exist otherwise than sporadi-
cally in the vulgate, owe their survival to
their having adopted or coincided with the
ancient Kowvq. This was most demonstrably
the case with Zenodotus.
There being then in the modern manu-
script text 40 per cent. of non-vulgate
readings, of which 16 per cent. have ex-
pelled their contraries, we have to seek an
explanation of their presence in these pro-
portions. The explanation will at the same
time supply a theory of the genesis of the
actual Homeric text.
The old view which started with Wolf
and may still be met with, that our text is
that which the Alexandrians formed out of
the vulgate by the exercise of their criticism,
needs no refutation: the opposite position
that the Alexandrians exercised no influence
on the Homeric text, is in fact correct;
their influence directly was nil, they did
not supplant the ordinary editions with the
copyists. Yet the Alexandrian readings
stand in the ordinary modern text, in cer-
tain proportions.
That this partial admixture of Aristar-
chean readings is the result of a recension,
the deliberate choice of a learned man-
an idea which may perhaps commend itself
to some enquirers-again almost disproves
itself: the table which I have given C.R.
1899 p. 432 shows an irregularity in the
survival of Aristarchus' readings far beyond
the possibilities of a recension. This ir-
regularity, and the fact that no sort of
merit distinguishes the survivals from the
neglected readings, seem inconsistent with
any process which involves the idea of
intention or choice.
As I have said, one family (h) seemed a
possible exception to the general modern
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:32:29 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
385
vulgate, a possible actual descendant of
Aristarchus or even of a time earlier than
he. I have tried to show (C.R. July 1900)
that the higher percentage of Aristarchean-
ism in this family is due to natural and
automatic causes. I venture to propose the
same process as the explanation of the non-
vulgate elemer;t in our Homeric text
generally. I advance that from late
classical times at least the lections of the
commentators were written upon the margin
of many of the ordinary copies, and that the
substitution of these marginal readings for
those of the text, in varying proportions,
during centuries of transcription, produced
the mediaeval text.
The evidence for this hypothesis is rather
circumstantial than direct.
It may be taken as a general rule that
all, or nearly all, minuscule MSS. of the
Iliad are corrected, not clerically, but in
substantial particulars. They are corrected
in different degrees, some occasionally,
others systematically, and in exactly the
lines on which known variants occur.
There being no apparent source for these
corrections, it is to be supposed they
proceed from comparison with other manu-
scripts (as we are occasionally explicitly
informed).
Marginalia are a more fruitful source of
textual alteration. We find long scholia,
short scholia or-another form of these-lists
of variants introduced by yp. All of these in-
fluence a scribe as he copies his archetype,
and induce him to transfer some of them to
his text, or to append them as corrections to
it. The effect of scholia, long and short,on the
text which they accompany, may be studied
in the Venetus A; a certain number of
interlinear corrections can hardly be denied
to proceed from the marginal or intermar-
ginal scholia (and my remark Journal of
Philology, xxvii. p. 171, that the scribe did
not pay attention to the scholia, needs
modification) Compressed scholia with yp.
are to be found also in T, and in the
'scholia minora.' Lists of mere variants
with yp. are less common, but still are often
found: a remarkably consistent example is
in Ven. 458, a MS. of the h family, which
has the non-h readings collected on the
margin throughout; other noticeable MSS.
are 'Ang.', Vat. 5, and many more occa-
sionally.
In the Ven. A we can watch the process
of the casual attraction of variants into the
text; in the others it cannot be doubted
that if they were used as archetypes a
cc2
386 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

certain proportion of their variants must I will ingenuously confess that I do not
have won a place in the resulting text. In see any valid objection that can be made to
the rare instances where one MS. can be this theory. I can imagine however that it
proved to have been copied from another might be observed that while such a theory ac-
this is the case (e.g. Vat. 27 from Vat. 4.) counts for sporadic or occasional cases ofAris-
The adscription and attraction of variants tarcheanisms in the text, it is hardly able
is a constant feature in minuscule MSS. to explain the presence of the 16 per cent. in
In uncials and papyri also we find correction all MSS., or in other words of the 67 Aris-
and adscription frequent, and as far back as tarchean readings which have found their
the third century B.c. The Ptolemaic frag- way into all MSS. To this I answer (1)
ments have readings superscribed at 1 397, that in this case too, for the reasons given
398 X 152; the Bankes MS. of s. II. A.D. above, no other hypothesis seems admissible.
has corrections and marginal variants, the No recension could have selected exactly
Ambrosian of s. IV.-V. has among many these 67 cases to the exclusion of the other
clerical one or two real corrections; the 664, and it is equally improbable that these
Bodleian papyrus (s. V.) has several mar- 67 readings come from any particular edition
ginalia and a few corrections. which had a special influence upon the
The critical signs also, which occur vulgate. (2) The case of a reading, not
systematically in Ven. A, and system- original, entering and pervading an entire
atically or sporadically and at wide inter- text, is far from an uncommon phenomenon.
vals of time in several uncial and minuscule Upon it rest in fact most modern conjectures;
MSS. (Brit. Mus. pap. 128 s. I. B.c., Bodl. it is assumed without question by the enter-
MS. gr. class. a. 1 (P) s. V. A.D., 'C' prising critic that the graphical corruption,
(s. XI.),' D' (s. XI.), 'T,' Ven. cl. ix. cod. the interpolation, the gloss, which his con-
3 and others) are examples of the tendency jecture is to displace, has entered acbextra
to annotate, according to the material which and conquered the entire tradition. How-
was at hand, the margin. ever unfounded in the case of most con-
We see then the tendency constant, from jectures this assumption may be, it can
our earliest MSS. onward, to annotate the hardly be validly objected to my theory that
margin of a MS. with readings of the a quasi-graphical and mechanical process
opposite sense to those of the text; and we has imposed Aristarchus' readings to the
can sometimes trace, and must often assume, extent of 16 per cent. upon the whole text.
the supplanting of the text by them. A more important consideration is, what
To turn to more general considerations, consequences follow from the adoption of
to account for such a casual and arbitrary this hypothesis I what view of the history of
collection of variants as the Aristarcheanisms the Homeric text does it involve?
of our text, a process is required which con- The hypothesis which I have stated, that
tains the element of chance. Now the the divergences from the ancient vulgate in
operation of copying is admittedly one of our text are due to the gradual and casual
these: the business of a scribe is con- incorporation of variants registered on the
ditioned by semi-conscious and mainly margins of manuscripts, evidently implies
physical circumstances. Graphical similari- that the KOLV)EKOOL~had come to be the one
ties act only at random, the gloss supersedes direct source of tradition, and that the MSS.
the original incalculably, homoeoteleuton, other than the KonLVawere only known, and
homoearchon, and the other principles of only exercised an effect upon the Homeric
criticism now work and now do not. Their text, indirectly and through commentaries
casual operation is no hindrance to any of and scholia. This no doubt is a considerable
them. The incorporation of marginalia assumption, and also the less interesting or
into a text, the correction of a text by com- attractive account. Our modern text loses
parison with other copies of the author, are in interest if it is cut off from all direct
eminently phenomena of this sort. The affiliation to the Alexandrian and prae-
theory therefore suits the fact that in book Alexandrian editions.
A out of 34 Aristarcheanisms the MISS. It is however a conclusion pointed to by
have 2, in B 2 out of 28, in 1 2 out of 25, the whole of the independent evidence. This
in Z 4 out of 19, and so on. evidence consists of the only contemporary
authorities, the papyri and the quotations.
If the hypothesis appears to account for The only papyri which depart in such
the facts in general, we have next to ask if a marked degree from the average as to
thereisany circumstance which contradicts it, deserve exclusion from the KOLV?are the
and what consequences its adoption implies. third century Ptolemaic fragments, published

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:32:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 387

by MM. Mahaffy, Nicole, Grenfell and Hunt. while he preserves to us many stories
Their number may we hope be increased, but about the text, uses in his quotations MSS.
the vulgate papyri of the first century B.C. mostly of the vulgate type; his variations
and later are already so numerous that we are usually of single words or at most half
should be justified in treating such additions lines. The same remark is true of Diogenes
as exceptions and survivals. Laertius. After him, or more correctly,
The quotations tell the same tale. It may after Plutarch, there is no sign of extensive
be seen from Professor Ludwich's collections variation in the quotations. Plutarch, an
(Ueber Homercitacteaus der Zeit von Aristarch antiquarian, who lived in a country district
bis Didymos, 1897) and from comparison of of continental Greece, will have possessed a
authors not included in that work or in his copy of some ancient edition, but even in
Die Homervulgata als voralexandrinische his day it was an exception; and neither
erwiesen, 1898, p. 71 sq. that the post-Aris- MS. nor quotation suggest such a survival
totelian citations down to Diodorus yield after his time. Ammian and Julian are
very few variations from the vulgate.1 If quite vulgate, and so is Macrobius-a
we were to bow entirely to their evidence valuable witness on account of the range of
we should say that the KOLV) swept the field his quotations. The KOLYv will have gradually
in the second and first centuries B.C. The choked off the sporadic editions, and by the
quotations of the first and second centuries epoch when the first Homeric scholia were
A.D.however show a certain reaction. Strabo collected, it may be doubted if any of them
exhibits a considerable number of omissions survived in the book-market.
and additions, severe grammarian though he My hypothesis therefore, derived from the
is: Apollonius the lexicographer, when analysis of the readings of the mediaeval
every allowance is made for his system of text, agrees with the conclusion of the direct
quotation and the corruption of his text, history of tradition, so far as it is known to
has certain undoubted variants. Dio of us. The book-trade, which had never been
Prusa and Pausanias though they use largely affected by either the special editions
vulgate texts have each occasional valuable nor the criticism of the Alexandrians, con-
information. Plutarch has numerous and tinued in its course of propagating the KOLc ;
important variations (B 413, E 518 a b, I the influence of the other editions was only
458-461, A 451 and 453, S 206, 207, 208) conveyed through the casual aberration of
besides the striking passage 'I 223 sq. the copyist's eye, roving between his text and
confirmed by Bodl. ms. gr. class. b. 3 (P) what he presumed were corrections of it upon
(Greek Papyri, series ii. 1897). Athenaeus, the margin. Genealogical relation therefore
1 Among the prae-Alexandrianwrite:s who contri- between the mediaeval text and the Alexan-
bute variants to the text we have to reckon, beside drian and prae-Alexandrian editions there
Plato, Aristotle,Aeschines,and Lycurgus,not only is none; the actual survivals of the readings
Dioscuridesthe disciple of Isocrates(adds I 119a), of these editions do not suggest any thread
but Chrysippusthe Stoic. Chrysippus,whosename of real connection. The one
occurs frequently in the Homeric scholia (see Bekker's permanent and
index), is quoted by Galen, de plac. Hipp. et Plat. organic element in the text of Homer is the
(ed. I. Miiller, 1874) iii. 114 sq. Galen says (114 KoLv4; the rest is accidental and casual
end, 115) rJirwvaphv yhp rai'ra 7h er?fal rpbs rol'rotsOs accretion.
7
rt%
/IvpCa
E2
rXb
)iop
d'v
XplmtLr7ros 7rapacrtO6e-ra... The value of the collation of Homeric
I.r.pa Tb
•),b
(7rewp 7•v'trCLa 7rapaypcdcotLxL, 7rX~ipo'
iat 6 XplarLrros 3BXorov
Galen's variants MSS. is necessarily affected by this con-
thereforemay be supposed d'r4ripo•wo•.
to representChrysippus' clusion. The Homeric apparatus does not,
text. We findseveralversesnot in ourHomer: as that of most authors, testify to the
? 115 7rpieVr, vvlo'•S~eoEQLv ALb~saXYdv survival of good elements of an original
eptL78VEIOS text: it indicates where and how acci-
ib. Yvw'LxvtL.
o'TE8j7 O'rfl74W V ' &L&aeppevas 'AhEXro ZEbS
(sic). dental adscription has diversified a common
? 134 &hXo8' e'4 vr•eo?ir ~dos /Lr?fs a&~iwv. stock; its value is mainly historical, aid
And these variants: oal consists in the light it throws upon the
115 = 322 d$Bov v'
nature of the clerical transmission of a
'ivifoa"' haaos =
5 ?so0prsosOhXs MSS. -XdOov'o familiar and much-commented author.
iv. ? 153 e'r 'AXLaX s AXy~er6 T. W. ALLEN.
Karc7rep 'aic'a
reJvOov•vros rbV IldT'rpoiKxov
&AA' ire
Frotfl'rls
7r IKALYvad~peYds
re Kop6'QOn
(= 8 541, i• 499). KG•,awVy
POSTSCRIPT.
Immediately after this Galen quotes ?z514, so that
Chrysippus apparently read this verse instead of
?1 513
abrhp drtL ~a ydoto erdpor'ro Gios 'AxtLAXEs.
Professor Arthur Ludwich has honoured
At X 212 the scholia tell us he read 4i3pa
for ad4aa. the first of these articles (March 1899) with

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:32:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
388 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

some remarks in the very important list of
manuscripts of the Iliad which he has pub-
lished in the Flestschrift fiir C. F. W.
Mliiller (Supplermentbandd. Jahrb. f. klass.
Phil. xxvii. p. 31 sq.). It is of course im-
possible, except in the prolegomena to an
edition, to present the details and calcula-
tions upon which a classification of MSS.
rests, and I agree with the general consider-
ations by which Ludwich (p. 44, 45) is kind
enough to explain some differences in our
results. The method of distinguishing
MSS. must be quantitative: where the
total of agreements exceeds the total of
differences there is relationship, and I have
generally found agreement in one or two
striking variants delusive.
Ludwich mentions two cases of agree-
ment which I have passed over: first, the
omission of B 166-181 in my M 1 and M 9.
These lines were omitted for a graphical
reason, the identity of 164, 165 and 180,
181 and therefore we might have expected
to find them left out in MSS. of no relation-
ship, and so they are left out in my L 8,
L 11, L 12, Ang. Vat. 19, Vat. 25, and
other MSS.
The omission of the Catalogue is a very
striking phenomenon: I know of eleven
MSS. in which it occurs, besides the one
family o, and most of them have no point
in common beyond it. The case is not so
simple as the last, for that the Catalogue
should have been omitted at all is quite
mysterious, as Ludwich himself has observed
(Die Homervulgatc, p. 32); but whatever
cause started the omission, it is certainly
sporadic in most of the cases where it
occurs.
As I have stated, several of my minor
families have not much stability, and on re-
treatment might be fused into other groups:
one I should have added, the combination
G (Vindobonensis 39) Mori (Trinity College,
Cambridge) 02 (Barocci 203), which may be
called q.

ON THE WORD Ap&Ma.

Two or three years ago something called KE~VYaVpLKV (LaOt KaL oaTvptVLKOVTLVa 6t'wov.
Opr 4. 19
my attention to the use of the word In Xen. Symp. rdrovov eLXyvivr rTOiv
According to Liddell and Scott it is8p&/a.
used ToiL CVELIVand regularly
in o-arVpLKOiv
records of aTXLrTO~
dramatic contests we may
'especially of tragedy,' but I began to
doubt whether in good Attic it was ever presume that stands for CLTVpLKOV
o-aTvpLK•V
used of comedy at all, and my doubts have Cf. Athen. 428 A o4ooKX~7 Iv
only grown stronger, the more I have 8p&txa. oarvpLK (unless, as is likely, a masculine
investigated the matter. Let us clear two name has been lost before o-arvp~Kj, for in
things out of the way at starting. lists of plays etc. o-arvptKO is often made to
The word is sometimes used with no agree with the name, e.g. "Ip8Ls
dramatic or theatrical sense at all. Thus Athen. 451 c, arg.oLarVptK
Aesch.
Schol. ~4•LyyL
Ar. oTa'ptKV
1124
Nesch. Ag. 533 8pGpcaT70o7rdTov Sept.): Frogs Xmpts
and probablyEV;XErc•L
twice "O in the Theaetetus, oarvpLKov. When we recall the close rov
n-'~ov,
as the commentators take it: 150 A 1b TyO connexion of satyric drama and tragedy,
faLOv ro0roTov, EXar'rov 8O roIJaT
8pdC
there is nothing surprising in 8pgLa.
and 169 B 01 &k KaT''Avraiov 70o~ETLO
7T jLOLI/adoXXOV 0- continuing to be used of the former (which
KELs TO pavy. So in the Rhet. ad Alex. was indeed the old form of tragedy), even if
8pata
1438 b 15 E7av JXrLv (= 7rpdcEtL could not be used of comedy.
it
following) rpT Av X•lya8pcita'ra Much later A1- This last is the point which we have now
ciphron seems &Lo/yozvE.
to use it twice in this way: to examine by a scrutiny of the places in
3. 52. 1 i/LEyap KOLVWV?)TcL 7T7 aTowOU good Attic Greek, so far as they are known
&bsvvarov, oV' El IOL(K T7 -pIc4EWs to me, where the word occurs.
dLavrevtLa Aooo- In Aristophanes the word occurs twelve
vatal 8pvb dE1TrpiroE
O 8pTO Epa:3. 62. 2 8'
oL&aO•8phCa Kat b7; times. Ten of these passages refer
o'oV oVKEiSIarKpLvKaTEOp)
T4 8EcTIO7. distinctly to tragedy (Frogs 920, 923, 1021
Secondly in its dramatic sense there is no to Aeschylus: Ach. 415, 470, Frogs 947,
doubt that it was used of satyric plays. Thesm. 849 to Euripides: Peace 795, Thesm.
See Plato Symp. 222 D T ocarvpLKodvo0V 52, 166 to Carcinus, Agathon, and
8pa•la 70o70: Polit. 303 C 'V
o70V70 arXYV~ws Phrynichus respectively) and the other two
fltv )OrrEp8pa•la, KaOaTEp Eppy v) 8V v 1 (fhesm. 149, 151) may reasonably be

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.145 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:32:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions