Iota subscript or iota adscript?

[Timothée]

I was inspired to create a poll directly by Ursinus’ post. I have seen (and partaken of) one similar poll on Twitter. Do you prefer iota subscript or iota adscript, and why? As for myself, iota subscript being infinitely more beautiful, I use it even with upper case, which—granted—may be seen as sacrilege. The subscript can be contested as younger, but young is also the whole lower case.

[jeidsath]

From the introduction to van Thiel's Odyssey:

Die systematische Unterscheidung des Schlußsigma taucht in Handschriften um 1300 auf, die Unterscheidung des stummen Iota im 12. Jahrhundert. Es läge nahe, beide Phänomene parallel zu behandeln. Aber beim Iota geht es mir noch immer so wie Thaddeus Zielinski. In der Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie (15, 1898, 1344) bat er vor nunmehr neunzig Jahren darum, das Iota subscriptum wieder in seine Rechte einzusetzen. Er dachte sich die "Schuljugend vor Formen wie ἐπαιδόμενον und καταιϲθείϲηϲ, oder auch for βίαι und ἡμέραι, ratlos" und fuhr fort: "Ich gehöre doch auch zur Zunft, muß aber gestehen, daß es mich stört; und wenn mich auch die Bremse in jedem einzelnen Fall nur um den Teil einer Sekunde retardiert, so summieren sich doch diese Teile und nehmen mir in summa eine Zeit weg, die ich besser verwenden könnte" (Hinweis von Rudolf Kassel). Ich freue mich, daß die Herausgeber der neuen Sophoklesausgabe diese Meinung teilen.

The systematic differentiation of final sigma begins to appear in manuscripts around 1300, that of mute iota in the twelfth century. There are obvious reasons why one usually treats both phenomena equally. In the case of iota, however, I continue to share Thaddeus Zielinski's feelings. Some ninety years ago in the Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie (15, 1898, 1344) he pleaded that we concede to iota subscript its due. He thought of pupils rendered "helpless, when faced with forms like ἐπαιδόμενον and καταιϲθείϲηϲ, or βίαι and ἡμέραι," and he continued: "I like to think of myself also as a member of the guild, but I must confess that the new fashion bothers me; and if I have to apply the brakes each time for just a fraction of [a] second, this adds up to a total amount of time that I could use better" (reference supplied by Rudolf Kassel). I am happy that the editors of the new edition of Sophocles share this opinion. [trans. Robert Daniel]

Personally, I find both iota subscript and final sigma to be fine inventions of learned medieval scribes. Iota subscript was an actual differentiation in speech and it is helpful to reflect it in writing.

Lunate sigma and adscript iota have a specific use case: to report the reading of a manuscript or papyrus in a non-biased way. And they should be used for that. But just as correctly, in that case, accents and word divisions are left out. Lunate sigma and adscript iota are the wrong tools for a corrected text. When I come across them in a text that contains word breaks and accent marks, I question the motivations of the editor.

The case of initial capitalization (as separate from uppercase) is an unfortunate typesetting problem. I would prefer subscript iota for clarity, but only if it can be made to look good. The difference isn't worth uglifying a book.

EDIT: Unicode, surprisingly, created glyphs for capitalized Greek vowels with iota subscript (probably by mistake). Since then, font creators have been working on solving the ugliness problem, simply because those glyphs are there. So it's probably fine to use them in digital texts for initial capitalization.

[Paul Derouda]

I don't have strong views on the subject. I voted iota adscript, though I'm not sure. Certainly for the oldest texts like Homer it makes sense, at the very least. Occasionally, adscript confuses me a bit, since I'm not as used to it as I'm to subscript. But the most disturbing to me is the common mixed convention of using adscript with capital letters but subscript with lower case. I'd prefer either one or the other.

On the other hand, I like variety and the fact that different editors use different conventions. Personally, I don't like lunate sigma so much. I do like differentiated final sigmas, and even medial betas.

I prefer small case at the beginning of sentences and reserving capitals for proper names. I wonder why this convention is used only for dead languages? I think it would be better for living language as well.

As you can see, probably no existing printing house prints Greek exactly the way I like it. But as I said, I like variety. And Teubner's new(ish) font, the one used in West's Iliad, is ugly.

[Paul Derouda]

And why, why, why is Greek printed in cursive most of the time?

[Timothée]

Porson is a stylish font (used in OCT). Is it actually really based on Richard Porson’s own hand? Paul and I have been drooling over a (quite expensive) Stephanus based font (I forget the name). Is Stephanus the pinnacle of beautiful Greek fonts?

Some papyrologists (like Jaakko Frösén, who taught me Herodotus and Herodas) would seem to prefer the lunate sigma. E.g. Hesiod OCT (3rd ed.) has it, too.

As to the use of upper case (proper names excluded), West’s Iliad does write Μῆνιν, but is that actually the last capital? I had thought that every new chapter could begin with a capital, but that’s apparently wrong.

[Paul Derouda]

I think the majuscule M(ῆνιν) in West's Iliad is an Anfang, he uses it because it's the first letter of the Iliad. He didn't think that the song divisions were original, and for that reason he didn't mark them typographically. He didn't want to divide the Iliad into chapters or "songs". He even said somewhere that if it were possible, he'd change the whole line numbering based on books (A to Ω) to a continuous one.

I like the non-cursive fonts used in the entry headers in many dictionaries, like LSJ and Brill – but I'd prefer proper fonts with proper curvy ϱ's and so on instead of those sober and dull ρ's. LfgrE got it right!

But please! Tell me! Why is Greek so often printed in cursive!? It's annoying! LoLz!

[Timothée]

To make it look more fluid and lively? Dunno. But it does seem to run forward, ¿doesn’t it?, as the word cursive suggests. But I do think it’s not so much printed in cursive but an inherent characteristic of the used typeface.

[Paul Derouda]

Actually, I thought cursive stood for cursing! LIKE ALL CAPS STAND FOR YELLING! Henceforth, I shall be posting in Italics only! Omg! Or at least this one post!

I'm not sure about the typographical finesses, but it seems to me that cursive/Italic fonts (is there a difference?) are not just slanted equivalents of non-cursive fonts, but different in other regards as well. But be it as it may, I much prefer using slanted fonts for emphasis ONLY.

By the way, if you like Henricus Stephanus, you can still find a hard copy here! Student price!

[Timothée]

Student price!

I think I should still wait for my next month’s salary. Is it a Stephanus that the late great Madame le Professeur Jacqueline de Romilly has here?

[Paul Derouda]

At 2:00 she says that when she was a student, her mother bought her a Thucydides with Latin translation on parchment, which she then read during the summer vacation. The image shows a Thucydides edited by Stephanus and translated by Laurentius Valla, but whether it's a reprint or an original I cannot tell.

Apparently young Jacqueline de did have a little more financial backing as a student than most of us...

I'm sorry for diverting this thread, but Timothée doesn't seem to object...

[mwh]

If I may interrupt this fine conversation:
It was W.S. Barrett in his Hippolytus who pioneered the use both of iota adscript and of lunate sigma in non-papyrological texts. M.L. West made a case for the familiar iota subscript, I forget why, perhaps to avoid the ambiguity of αι but I think there was a little more to it. I can't imagine there’s anything new to say about it, and it seems a trivial issue to me, though subscript is obviously better for beginners. I’m not voting.

[jeidsath]

Here is Zielinski's full case for the subscript (1898). It is a fun read. Zielinski writes passionately. He points to Maass as the pioneer for iota adscript in Germany, "waving his Marotte." Less excited than he is described by Zielinski, Ernst Maass discusses the history of the iota subscript in this footnote from his Orpheus.