P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
dikaiopolis
Textkit Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:40 pm

P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by dikaiopolis »

mwh wrote:On the subject of time manipulation, here in a 1st-cent.BCE papyrus commentary is a notable anticipation of Zielinski’s insight that concurrent events are sometimes represented as consecutive: ο δε ποιητης διηγηματικος ων ου⟨δε⟩ δυναμενος α⟨μα⟩ παντα ειπειν τα κατα τον ⟨αυτον⟩ χρονον πραχθεντα παρα μερος ειρηκεν. (“The poet, since he is in narrative mode and not able to recount simultaneous events all at the same time, has recounted them successively.” (POxy 1086.58-60, on Il.2.788)
That’s a great text (=Erbse’s Pap II.), undoubtedly one of the most important Homeric commentaries on papyrus, with σημεῖα and all (including the non-Aristarchean Χ(ρησιμον) siglum, I think on this very passage).

I was recently looking into a problem related to the passage you cite (as part of my diss. research). If anyone still has an appetite for the scholia (τῶν ἐπιθυμία…), I can bring it up here. The note in Pap. II is about how Iris is sent simultaneously with Ὄνειροϲ at the beginning of Β, though narrated separately. A bT scholion (B.6c) discusses the sending of “baneful Dream”:

B.5-6:
Ἥδε δέ οἱ κατὰ θυμὸν ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή, 
πέμψαι ἐπ᾽ Ἀτρεΐδῃ Ἀγαμέμνονι οὖλον ὄνειρον·

Sch. B.6c (bT):
οὖλον: τοῦτο κατὰ συμπάθειαν, ὡς „οὐλομένην“ (Α 2), b
(BCE3E4)T καὶ ἵνα ποθοῖμεν μαθεῖν, τί εἴργασται ὁ οὖλος ὄνειρος. 
Ἕκτορι δὲ Ἶρις πέμπεται (cf. Λ 182–210), ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ νῦν, ὅπως μὴ πρὸ τοῦ Καταλό- 
γου ἡ ναυμαχία γένηται.
ἢ οὖλον τὸν ἀσαφῆ καὶ ὕπουλον b(BCE3) 
T (εἰ μὴ ἄρα τὸν μαλακὸν λέγει, ἐπεὶ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν διαλεγόμενος
οὕτω φησίν· b [BE3] T „οὖλε“ [Β 8])· καὶ Τρῶας γὰρ ἀπώλεσε 
θαρρήσαντας ὑπομεῖναι τὸν Ἀχιλλέα, ποιητικὸν δὲ τὸ πλάσσειν ὀνεί-
ρους. ἢ τὸν ἐπ’ ὀλέθρῳ πεμπόμενον. ἢ τὸν ὁλόκληρον, ὡς τὸ <***> 
„οὖλέ τε καὶ μέγα χαῖρε“ (ω 402). T 

Previously, I assumed Ἕκτορι δὲ Ἶρις πέμπεται was a reference to the sending of Iris (as Polites) later in B. Thus, the note would disagree with the (possibly Aristarchean) reading in Pap. II. They weren’t sent simultaneously, but Dream first then Iris. This is also how Lundon takes it. Later I noticed that Erbse added “(cf. Λ 182-210)” in the corrigenda in vol. 7 (and thus on the TLG version, but not in vol. 1). The reference thus being to Iris’ mission to Hector in Λ—note that she speaks first to Priam in B (though ultimately to Hector). More importantly, Iris’ mission in Λ is explicitly connected with the ναυμαχία (Λ.193). In that case, there would be no obvious disagreement with the papyrus fr. I think Erbse’s reading make sense. Is this perverse?

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2504
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by Hylander »

Without understanding much of the bT sch., I think Erbse is probably right here. The sch. seems to be referring to the message brought by Iris from Zeus to Hector in Λ 182–210, which spurs Hector on to the ναυμαχία. It seems to be saying that the mission of Iris to Hector in Λ can't occur before the Catalogue, because the ναυμαχία can't occur before the ships have been enumerated in the Catalogue.

it's not clear to me what the point of the sch. is, apparently comparing the Baneful Dream to Iris' message to Hector. Is the point just a comparison of the two ways that Zeus sends messages -- the Baneful Dream sent by Zeus to Agamemnon vs. Iris sent by Zeus to Hector?

But it's true that in B 787 Iris comes to the Trojans σὺν ἀγγελίῃ ἀλεγεινῇ, which is maybe more like the Baneful Dream than the passage in Λ.

And the sch. seems to be perplexed by the two nearly diametrically opposite meanings of οὖλε, voc. of οὖλος, "baneful" as in B 8, and imperative of οὔλω, "be well" as in ω 402. In B 8, οὖλε ὄνειρε can't possibly mean "be well, dream", i.e., "greetings, dream", (οὖλε, ὄνειρε) in light of accusative οὖλον ὄνειρον two lines earlier. That's ludicrous. Is that what the sch. is suggesting? Is the interpretation "be well, dream" what is meant by τὸν μαλακὸν (the "gentle" dream?) and τὸν ὁλόκληρον?
Bill Walderman

dikaiopolis
Textkit Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by dikaiopolis »

Thanks, Hylander. I’m still not sure if Ἕκτορι δὲ Ἶρις πέμπεται only refers to Λ. Is it possible the two Iris scenes are conflated here?

Here’s how I’m parsing this multi-part scholion:

(1) Answers the question of why the poet uses οὖλον here at the beginning of the account: (a) out of sympathy with the Greeks, like ουλομενην in the proem, and (b) to make the reader long to know what the dream has wrought. The former reason fits with other exegetical scholia that see the poet breaking his regular practice of refraining from judgment and revealing his own sympathies, especially through the use of short descriptors or epithets (e.g., A.403a (bT)).

(2) A short note about narrative sequence: Iris is sent to Hector later (either later in B, contra Pap. II, or in Λ.), so the ναυμαχία could happen after the catalogue.

(3) A somewhat hectic lexical note. This is close to a D scholion on B.6 (from van Thiel’s ed.):

οὖλον ὄνειρον: νῦν τὸν ὀλέθριον (=B 8D, E 461D). δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὸν προσηνῆ καὶ τὸν ὁλόκληρον, ὡς ἐν Ὀδυσσείᾳ φησίν· οὖλον ἄρτον ἑλών (~ ρ 343D). δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν τριχῶν διαστροφήν (ζ 231D “συνεστραμμένας”). ‘oὖλον’ δὲ ‘ὄνειρον’ οὐκ αὐτὸν ὀλέθριον ὄντα, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐπ’ ὀλέθρῳ πεμπόμενον. ἤ ‘οὖλον’ “τὸν ὑγιῆ”, ὥσπερ λέγεται, οὐλὴ τραύματος (~ τ 391D). σημαίνει δὲ ἡ λέξις καὶ τὸ ὑγιαίνειν. ὡς ἐν ἐκείνῳ, ‘οὖλέ τε, καὶ μάλα χαῖρε, Θεοὶ δέ τοι ὄλβια δοῖεν’ (ω 402). ZYQXAUIG, ~ ApS 124,1+11. Epim.

In our bT scholion (unlike D, or ApS below), it says οὖλον could mean (a) unclear and unsound—after all, Zeus sends the dream to destroy many Achaeans, though he also ends up killing many Trojans. But it belongs to the poets to invent dreams. [This part is a little hard to follow. I’m not sure exactly what καὶ Τρῶας γὰρ ἀπώλεσε θαρρήσαντας ὑπομεῖναι τὸν Ἀχιλλέα refers to.] It could mean “unclear”, unless perhaps (b) it means “soft” as you might surmise by the vocative in B.8 (οὖλε Ὄνειρε). For οὖλος as “soft,” think of phrases like οὔλων τε ταπήτων in Π.224. We might say “thick” or “woolly,” but ancient lexicographers took it as “soft.” Or (c) dream is called οὖλον because he was sent for destruction (cp. the D sch.). Or (d) οὖλον means “whole.” On the basis of the D sch., Erbse suggests reading ἢ τὸν ὁλόκληρον, ὡς τὸ <ἄρτον ἑλών. τὸ δὲ οὖλε σημαίνει τὸ ὑγιαίνειν, ὡς τὸ> οὖλέ τε, καὶ μάλα χαῖρε. So “whole” in the sense of the bread in ρ.343. Or, with Erbse’s supplement, (e) it means ὑγιαίνειν (as in ω. 402).

For (3), the lexical note, you can compare Apollonius Sophista (124,1), about which mwh is an authority:

οὖλον ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ μαλακοῦ “οὔλων τε ταπήτων.” σημαίνει δὲ τὸ 
  ὅλον ἡ λέξις· “ἄρτον οὖλον ἑλών.” ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ὀλεθρίου “οὖλος 
  Ἄρης,” ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ συνεστραμμένου “οὔλας ἧκε κόμας” καὶ “χλαῖ- 
  ναν πορφυρέην” μεταληφθήσεται εἰς τὴν ὅλην, ὅ ἐστιν ὁλο- 
  πόρφυρον.  

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by mwh »

Yes, the scholium incorporates lexical stuff from other sources. The beginning is typical bT (or “exegetical”), but the bit highlighted by dikaiopolis is seemingly separate (whether from the bT commentary or not), and the only bit directly relevant to his query. (So I'll leave the rest aside.)

I’ve never thought about it. But thinking my way through it now:
Previously, I assumed Ἕκτορι δὲ Ἶρις πέμπεται was a reference to the sending of Iris (as Polites) later in B. Thus, the note would disagree with the (possibly Aristarchean) reading in Pap. II. They weren’t sent simultaneously, but Dream first then Iris.
I don’t follow. There’d be no disagreement with what the papyrus says. The whole point of the note in the papyrus is that simultaneous actions have to be presented as if they’re not. The narrative follows first one fork and then the other.

But Erbse must surely be right to refer the note to bk.11. Otherwise the ινα μη clause is nonsensical.

The note in the papyrus commentary is attached to 2.788, where Iris comes to the Trojans with the αγγελιη αλεγεινη from Zeus. The pap.comm.’s notes on the earlier part of bk.2 are lost, but it seems safe to assume that its note at 788 implies (or rests on the assumption) that Zeus had sent Iris off to the Trojans at the same time that he had sent Dream off to Agamemnon at the beginning of the book; they were each sent off on their respective missions to the opposing sides, but the poet defers narrating the Iris branch of the fork until the Dream one is dealt with. That seems a reasonable interpretation, and one in line with Homeric narrative conventions.

The 2.6 schol. appears to be at variance with this, for it seems to imply that Dream’s mission to Agamemnon is to be envisioned as simultaneous with Iris’ mission to Hector in bk.11. In view of all the intervening action and recorded passage of time, however, not to mention other missions for Iris between the events of bk.2 and bk.11 (bk.8, for one; are there others?), that’s bizarre, not to say perverse :wink: . The synchronicity implied in the papyrus (Dream to Ag., Iris to Trojans) is incomparably more tenable.

So do the two notes represent conflicting views? It seems they do. (Nothing new about that.) The papyrus commentary is heavily Aristarchean in its content. So does the papyrus’ note represent Aristarchus, while the 2.6 bT-scholium offers a competing view? That’s the least implausible solution I can come up with, though it certainly lowers my opinion of the bT commentary if it’s right.

OR (second thoughts) Cut the Gordian knot: there’s no connexion at all between the two notes. The papyrus’ dictum is a keen observation by Aristarchus on Homeric narrative convention. The statement in the 2.6 scholium is a fragment of a note in the bT commentary characteristically addressing the question “Why does Homer use Dream as Zeus’ messenger instead of Iris?”, adducing the Il.11 passage where Iris is dispatched in just the same way as Dream is dispatched in bk.2: βασκ’ ιθι, ουλε Ονειρε 2.8 ~ βασκ’ ιθι, Ιρι ταχεια 11.186.
Yes I think this is a more satisfactory approach.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2504
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by Hylander »

Thanks, mwh.

In my very limited experience, it seems that sometimes the scholia are very insightful and sometimes downright silly (at least from a modern perspective).

Is the entire papyrus fragment available on line?
Bill Walderman

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by mwh »

It used to be, and it may be still, but online papyrological resources are constantly changing as they get amalgamated and systematized, and sometimes disappear in the process. Try https://wiki.digitalclassicist.org/Cata ... ary_Papyri, or Trismegistos, or the cedopal site. dikaiopolis may know better than me. The standard print edition is in vol.1 (I think) of Erbse’s magnificent Scholia Graeca, but it needs some modification. The “Lundon” that dik. refers to is an annotated re-edition of the papyrus by John Lundon that was his Italian doctoral thesis.

I’d agree with your impression of the scholia, the intelligent and insightful rubbing shoulders with the trivial and inane. A bit like Textkit.

dikaiopolis
Textkit Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by dikaiopolis »

I don’t follow. There’d be no disagreement with what the papyrus says. The whole point of the note in the papyrus is that simultaneous actions have to be presented as if they’re not. The narrative follows first one fork and then the other.
mwh, we read the pap. note in the same way, but I don’t understand why you call it implied. The bit we’re interested in reads: δεῖ δὲ νοεῖν ὅ[τ]ι κα̣[τ’ αὐ]τ̣ὸν τὸν χρόνον τοῦ ὀνείρου ἔ̣τι κ(αὶ) αὕτ̣η̣ ἀπέσταλται. ὁ δὲ ποιητὴς διηγηματικὸς ὤν, [ο]ὐ δυνάμενος ἅπαντα εἰπεῖν, τὰ κατὰ τὸν χρόνον πραχθέντα παρὰ μέρος εἴρηκεν. It clearly refers back to the beginning of B.

There’s some confusion over the line in the bT: Ἕκτορι δὲ Ἶρις πέμπεται, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ νῦν, ὅπως μὴ πρὸ τοῦ Καταλόγου ἡ ναυμαχία γένηται. I was talking about how this note might be taken as about non-simultaneity (contra Pap. II).. I.e., Iris is sent to Hector (later), but he’s not sent now, κτλ. This seems to have been how others have taken it as well. I’m questioning that now that Ι noticed Erbse’s later addition. You’re taking the bT note as also indicating simultaneity: Iris is sent to Hector, but it’s not narrated now, κτλ.

I don’t think it’s likely that bT is saying Dream was sent at the same time as Iris in Λ. Maybe it’s conflating the two Iris missions (in B and Λ) and making a point about non-simultaneity, perhaps against Aristarchus (as bT scholia often do)? That’s still quite odd.

I had wondered whether there might be something going on about Homer’s use of Dream vs. Iris in this sentence. I like your suggestion, but I’m not sure how strong a case could be made. It still doesn’t explain why the note talks about chronology (ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ νῦν, ὅπως μὴ πρὸ τοῦ Καταλόγου ἡ ναυμαχία γένηται). And while that would certainly be a question in the style of bT, I don’t know of a scholia that explicitly compares Iris and Dream as messengers. There are some short characterization notes about Iris in bT that come to mind, like that she’s an ἐρωτική goddess and always hangs out with Aphrodite (from Γ), but it would be worth looking into. Clearly, this part of the scholion is garbled by being too elliptical.

dikaiopolis
Textkit Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by dikaiopolis »

Hylander wrote:Thanks, mwh.

In my very limited experience, it seems that sometimes the scholia are very insightful and sometimes downright silly (at least from a modern perspective).

Is the entire papyrus fragment available on line?
Yes, it's Pap. II in vol. 1 on Erbse, which you can find on the TLG. I'm not sure about an open access version. In addition to Lundon's re-edition, he has an article on "Aristotle, Aristarchus and Zielinski on the Narration of Simultaneous Events in Homeric Epos" that talks about Pap. II.

To me, the silliness and even humor of ancient interpreters (not just scholia), is part of what makes it so intoxicating to study them. I'm not interested in finding ancient versions of modern classicists. If you allow them to play by their own rules, you'll find they are often brilliant readers.

EDIT: I didn't see this before.
I’d agree with your impression of the scholia, the intelligent and insightful rubbing shoulders with the trivial and inane. A bit like Textkit.
This comes off as pretty tone deaf and off-putting, but maybe I'm not understanding you.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by mwh »

I don’t understand why you call it implied.
You’re right, it’s better than implied, it’s explicit. I’d momentarily forgotten that was expressly stated in the first part of the note. Thanks.
I like your suggestion, but I’m not sure how strong a case could be made. It still doesn’t explain why the note talks about chronology (ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ νῦν, ὅπως μὴ πρὸ τοῦ Καταλόγου ἡ ναυμαχία γένηται). And while that would certainly be a question in the style of bT, I don’t know of a scholia that explicitly compares Iris and Dream as messengers.
I think you should like it more. We both got hung up on relating the 2.6 scholium to the papyrus note, but that only leads to confusion (and to your renewing your implausible and unnecessary suggestion that the two Iris missions are somehow conflated). We should simply abandon the notion.
Hylander explained the chronological note. We need to have (or the bT commentator thinks Homer thinks we need to have) the catalogue of ships precede the ναυμαχια that the sending of Iris to Hector leads up to (and that the poet wants to get to, bT-sch.11.407): sending her now would be premature. And while you say you don’t know of a scholium explicitly comparing Iris and Dream as messengers, this very scholium compares the two.

I didn’t know Erbse is now in the TLG. That’s great.

I’m sorry if you took my comment on the scholia in reply to Hylander amiss. I thought it unexceptionable, but perhaps that only confirms my tonedeafness. I certainly don’t want to put you off your intoxication with ancient exegesis. Drink on!

dikaiopolis
Textkit Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by dikaiopolis »

I was referring to your comment about Textkit, which I don’t know as well as you or Hylander, not ancient exegesis. To me, these conversations about the thornier parts of the scholia have been helpful and interesting, not inane. That is perhaps not what you meant.

Note that the TLG version of Erbse includes all the corrigenda listed in subsequent volumes. This is great, but beware that it will not infrequently differ from the print edition. It’s also risky to use Erbse without his testimonia and app crit, as in the last part (3) of the scholion discussed above.

I understand the point about the ναυμαχία (see my initial post), but it still doesn’t sit right. The chronological note would be inexplicably mundane: the poet sends Dream now to (eventually) get to the Catalogue, but Iris way later in Λ (skipping over the more immediate Iris mission to Priam/Hector in B…and everything else that happens between the beginning of the Catalogue and the ναυμαχία, especially the wounding of the top Achaean players). So it would be technically correct, but trivial. Hence my (“implausible and unnecessary”) suggestion about a conflation of the two—like someone misunderstood the Aristarchean note about synchronicity, thinking he was talking about the Iris mission in Λ not B, and argued against it. The bT sch. on Λ.407-10 just strengthens my point. Homer wants to introduce the ναυμαχία, but needs to have the ἄριστοι wounded first. The Catalogue is neither here nor there. It could be that this rather elliptical part of the scholion goes back to a longer note about “Why Homer has Zeus send Dream here instead of Iris," but I don’t see enough evidence. In any case, I think that’s enough on that one sentence. Suffice it to say that previous commentators (at least Lundon, van Thiel, and Nünlist from what I’ve seen) have too readily assumed that it's arguing directly against the Aristarchean line reflected in Pap. II. For my purposes, the really important thing about this scholion is the image of "Homer" and his emotional manipulation of readers in (1).

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by mwh »

Dikaiopolis, the Textkit comment was flippant, and didn’t refer at all to these threads of yours. I’m shocked you should have thought it did. I most certainly wouldn’t call your posts inane (trivial maybe, but no more than mine :D ). I may be dismissive of some of your ideas, rightly or wrongly, but I do find them worth engaging with. I think you’d see what I meant if you looked at other forums, or had a deeper history here.

I’m glad you think that previous (modern) commentators have too readily assumed that that scholium is directly arguing against the Aristarchean line. Of course you’re right there’s not enough evidence to confirm my counter-suggestion. There never is. I’d claim only that it’s consistent with everything we know, and is without the problems that attend the prevailing assumption (which is only an assumption, after all, however hard it may be to shake ourselves free of it).

I agree about the importance of the bT author’s concern with the poet’s “emotional manipulation of readers,” though I wouldn’t put it in quite those terms. —But enough.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2504
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: P.Oxy 8.1086 and Σ ad B.6c (bT)

Post by Hylander »

Nothing substantive to add, but I hope that dikaiopolis and helios will post more questions about Homeric scholia. These discussions, even if trivial, have been fascinating.
Bill Walderman

Post Reply