Рассказ о посещении Эолии (к вопросу о композиции гомеровского эпизода, Od. 10. 1-79)
Two editions of Iliad with minute apparatus, that were published by T.W.Allen in 1930 and by M.L.West in 2000, give us entirely different images of Homeric vulgate (i.e. majority of manuscript readings). The first one based on ca. 200 manuscripts and the second one relying on 19 of them (and even less in most cases) vary conceptually. This paper focuses on several cases from the second half of Iliad, where differences in vulgate readings lead to diverse assessment of Aristarchean variant. For instance in 13.594 Alexandrian philologist reads with West's "Ω" ("omnes"), but against Allen's "vulg.". The opposite case is in 13.785, where Aristarchus' variant is the same as in Allen's majority and opposite to West's vulgate. In 2/3 cases the latter is in concordance with Aristarchean readings. That means that Allen's statistics showing very modest influence of Alexandrian textology on manuscript tradition needs new critical evaluation in the light of these facts. The thing of even more importance is new statistics of Aristarchean variants mentioned in scholia. This data is compared with readings which are cited in apparatus of both editions. We see that West's Aristarchus very often agrees with our vulgate and that Allen on the contrary is too pessimistic about Alexandrian influence on the extant manuscripts. I think more balanced view would be closer to provable facts. Nevertheless, the problem of Homeric vulgate and the problem of its relations to Aristarchean edition(s) remain unsolved and need further investigation.
Giulio Bajamonti was a precursor of oralists in Homeric scholarship.
There are 30 similies in the 3 book of “Argonautica”, and the most of them are concentrated in the last 200 verses. The article is focused on the Hellenistic reception of the classical epic tradition and problems of intertextuality between Apollonius and Homeric epos: if the use of similies is related with the peculiarity of Homeric style, what kind of relationship is between the structure and imagery of theApollonius’ similies and of the old epic similies.
O. M. Freidenberg’s “The origin of literary description”-- along with fragment on Homeric representation of death at the battlefield is offered for publication for the first time; the work was started before WWII but remained unfinished. The publication and commentaries to it are prefaced by Introduction. Out of “The origin of a literary description” grew two cycles of revolutionary studies, one on the specifics of Homer’s similes (partial publication, 1946), and the other on the origin of the ancient Greek lyric (post mortem, 1973, also partial), both anticipated the study of corresponding problems in Europe for decades. However, many ideas of this unfinished work have not been voiced. Freidenberg addresses the birth of primal speech practices, i.e., narration, description, communication of a conversation contents, characterization of events, circumstances, people, etc. She reconstructs these practices on the specific features of early literature (the genesis of such practices in some measure repeats speech development in a child) and shows that the primitivism of oral narration, description, and characterizations is transformed into stylistic peculiarities. In other words, the folk genres and early literature retain the phases of the development of the techniques of narration, description and characterization as “devices,” tropes, stylistic peculiarities, and even grammatical categories. Freidenberg treats visual representation as well as enumeration, catalogues, lists, detailed descriptions but without generalization, absence of hierarchy and selection, cumulative narration, praesens historicum, retardation, simile and ekphrasis in this perspective. She attributes the minutest descriptions of impaling and dismemberment in battle to the experience of a priest, cattle breeder, or hunter. The practice of sacrifice provides the material to be used as an observation of reality. The “defects” of ancient descriptions are the first steps towards realism and naturalism in epic in which the ideas about the world, gods, heroes and a plot are still mythological. As for the human world, it emerges in the demonstration which compares parts of similes, or in the ekphrases of things. The epic reinforces the myth with reality where as the archaic lyric compares people to gods reinforcing thus reality with myth. The epic worldview, fundamentally anti-realistic, clothes its cosmic images in everyday garb whereas the Greek lyric engendered by realism, relies on religion and myth. In this study by Freidenberg, ekphrasis has a special meaning, namely, description of things, of what is hand-made. At the same time, craft ware themselves describe certain images wordlessly, via things, because the semantics of ancient things is mythic. Ekphrasis was preceded by “description” in forging, wood, and embroidery. Things do not function to characterize heroes, e.g., Achilles’s shield does not characterize a hero, it represents the mythic world in the phases both of birth and destruction.
Akin to the display of a concrete destruction or a concrete hero built on the material of sacrifice, akin to the simile which in itself contains the vision of everyday reality, Homer’s ekphrasis unites in itself mythism and reality through which the explanation of traditional material occurs. In the process, the creator of oxymoronic “oral literature” or “written mythological folklore” turns into an author. For Freidenberg, the appearance of author in lyrics who writes about oneself is the greatest event in the history of consciousness. The writing is not yet about one’s inner world but is about oneself none the less. Hence the lyric poetry is replete with sphragides of nearly all the poets for an author is a concrete person even though still an object of the cult with a semi-mythic biography but it is not the Muse any longer who dictates to the epicsinger.
Aristarchus of Samothrace had excluded some verses from his edition of the Iliad (presumably those which were poorly attested in manuscript tradition) and had athetized some others (possibly those which were widespread). We may assume that his textual variants can also be divided in two similar groups: (1) those which were present in his edition (and were well attested in papyri) and (2) those which were cited only in his commentary (and were absent from most manuscripts). If we accept this hypothesis, it might help us to solve one of the important paradoxes of Homeric manuscript tradition. On the one hand, numerus versuum in ancient manuscript tradition is identical to mediaeval Homeric vulgate and to aristarchean edition (according to the mainstream view). That shows the influence of Aristarchus, because the standardization of Egyptian Homeric papyri concurs with the time of the great philologist. On the other hand, most readings of Aristarchus are absent from Homeric vulgate (only 30% of his readings, according to disputable calculations of T. Allen, can be seen in all or most manuscripts). That means on the opposite that the great philologist had little influence on the tradition. The suggested hypothesis can be in full or partly compatible with the others, e.g. the interesting assumption of M. Finkelberg about the role of Ptolemy VIII in Homeric tradition.