18.
mvp-aristotle-comment-1016
1461a22
κατὰ δὲ προσῳδίαν,
scil.
δεῖ λύειν (or
διαλύειν), understood from
9
τὰ δὲ πρὸς τὴν λέξιν ὁρῶντα δεῖ διαλύειν.
κατά means 'by reference to', as in
κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῆς λέξεως in 27; it is the equivalent of the instrumental dative we find elsewhere in the context (see on 10) with
λύειν (or
διαλύειν).
Προσῳδία with Aristotle comprises accent, breathing, and quantity—all the elements in the spoken word which in the ancient mode of writing were left to be supplied by the reader. For accent as a form of
προσῳδία see
Soph. el. 4, 166b1
(v. infra on 23);
21, 177b
; and
23, 179a14
. Breathing is distinctly said to come under this head in
Soph. el. 20, 177b3
τὸ ὄρος καὶ ὅρος τῇ προσῳδίᾳ λεχθὲν σημαίνει ἕτερον. ἀλλ᾽ ἐν μὲν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ταὐτὸν ὄνομα, ὅταν ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν στοιχείων γεγραμμένον ᾖ καὶ ὡσαύτως, κἀκεῖ δ᾽ ἤδη παράσημα ποιοῦνται, τὰ δὲ φθεγγόμενα οὐ ταὐτά.
That quantity also was regarded by Aristotle as a part of
προσῳδία may be inferred from the position of
μήκει καὶ βραχύτητι in the enumeration in
20, 1456b32
(v. Schmidt, Beitr. zur Gesch. der Grammatik p. 188). His idea of
προσῳδία, therefore, agreed with that of Choeroboscus (Scholia in Dionys. Thracis art. gramm. p. 124 Hilgard),
ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ἐν ταῖς προσῳδίαις τρία ἐστὶν εἴδη· ἔστι γὰρ τόνος, χρόνος, πνεῦμα (comp. Egger, Apollonius Dyscole p. 29, and Schmidt, l. c. p. 185).
18.
mvp-aristotle-comment-1017
1461a22_2
Ἱππίας.
The view of Sengebusch (Hom. Diss. prior p. 206) is that he lived in the second half of the fifth century, and may perhaps be identified with the Hippias of Thasos mentioned by Lysias (13. 54 and 61) as one of the victims of the Thirty Tyrants. Schrader (Porphyr. in Il. p. 413) doubts whether there is any sufficient evidence for this date.
18.
mvp-aristotle-comment-1018
1461a22_3
δίδομεν δέ οἱ.
The parallel in
Soph. el. 4, 166b1
(v. on 23) shows that
δίδομεν δέ οἱ εὖχος ἀρέσθαι was the reading in Aristotle's Homer in
Il. 2. 15
, where our existing vulgate has
Τρώεσσι δὲ κήδε᾽ ἐφῆπται; the reference too in the parenthesis,
ὥσπερ Ἱππίας ἔλυεν ὁ Θάσιος, shows that Hippias must have had the same reading before him. It is clear that we have in this instance at any rate 25. 1461a20-23 337 1461a22 a real variant, and not one of Aristotle's misquotations.
δίδομεν δέ τοι εὖχος ἀρέσθαι occurs in
Il. 21. 297
, but in a context very unlike that of Il. 2. 15. The deceptive dream of Agamemnon in
Il. 2. 8 sqq.
had been criticized by
Plato
Rep. 382 E
, as making Zeus a deceiver; and it was felt to be a difficulty by several of the grammarians (v. Porphyr. in Il. l. c. p. 23 Schr.). As the half-line
δίδομεν δὲ οἱ εὐχος ἀρέσθαι seems to credit Zeus with a direct lie, this was doubtless the difficulty which Aristotle and Hippias thought to remove by the artifice of reading ΔΙΔΟΜΕΝ not as
δίδομεν, but as
διδόμεν, i. e. as an infinitive in the sense of an imperative, so as to shift the actual falsehood from Zeus himself to the Dream-god (comp. Wolf, Prolegomena ad Hom. p. 128 ed. Peppmüller).
18.
mvp-aristotle-comment-1019
1461a23
τὸ μὲν οὐ καταπύθεται ὄμβρῳ:
Il. 23. 327
ἔστηκε ξύλον αὖον ὅσον τ᾿ ὄργυι ὑπὲρ αἴης, ἢ δρυὸς ἢ πεύκης· τὸ μὲν οὐ καταπύθεται ὄμβρῳ.
Our text of Homer embodies the suggestion of Hippias,
οὐ for
οὗ. The objection to the older mode of reading the word was probably this, that the statement was against scientific truth, oak and pine being held to be among the woods least liable to rot through moisture (
Theophr. H. P. 5. 4, 3
). The view of Hippias is given with greater fullness in
Soph. el. 4, 166b1
:
παρὰ δὲ τὴν προσῳδίαν ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἄνευ γραφῆς διαλεκτικοῖς οὐ ῥᾳδιον ποιῆσαι λόγον, ἐν δὲ τοῖς γεγραμμένοις καὶ ποιήμασι μᾶλλον, οἷον καὶ τὸν Ὅμηρον ἔνιοι διορθοῦνται πρὸς τοὺς ἐλέγχοντας ὡς ἀτόπως εἰρηκότα “τὸ μὲν οὐ καταπύθεται ὄμβρῳ”. λύουσι γὰρ αὐτὸ τῇ προσῳδίαν λέγοντες τὸ ΟΥ ὀξύτερον. καὶ τὸ περὶ τὸ ἐνύπνιον τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος, ὅτι οὐκ αὐτὸς ὁ Ζεὺς εἶπεν “δίδομεν δέ οἱ εὐχος ἀρέσθαι”, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἐνυπνίῳ ἐνετέλλετο διδόναι. On this passage Alexander, or rather Michael Ephesius (p. 33 Wallies), has a comment which, besides serving to explain the passage in the Soph. el., is not without interest for the history of the early criticisms on Homer:
τινὲς οὖν ἐκάκιζον τὸν Ὅμηρον, περισπωμένως τὸ οὐ ἀναγινώσκοντες καὶ λέγοντες ἄτοπόν τι αὐτὸν εἰρηκέναι διὰ τοῦτο, ὡς λέγοντα δῆθεν ὅτι τοῦ ξύλου ἐκείνου ... τὶ μὲν κατασήπεται τὶ δὲ οὐ κατασήπεται· εἰ γὰρ μὴ καὶ τοῦτο ἐδήλωσεν ἐναργῶς, τὸ τὶ δὲ οὐ κατασήπεται λέγουσιν ἄντικρυς δηλοῦσθαι διὰ τοῦ εἰρημένου, τοῦ “οὗ τὸ μὲν καταπύθεται”.... ἐπιδιορθοῦται δὲ τούτους [εν τῷ περὶ Ποιητικῆς], ὡς αὐτὸς Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῇ Ρητορικῇ [read with Vahlen, ἐν τῷ περὶ Ποιητικῆς] φησιν, Ἱππίας ὁ Θάσιος μὴ περισπωμένως ἀναγινώσκων τὸ οὐ ἀλλ᾽ ἀποφατικῶς, ὅπερ αὐτὸς ὀξύτερον εἴρηκεν, ἵνα ᾖ τὸ λεγόμενον ὡς ἡ πεύκη τὸ δένδρον οὐ καταπύθεται ὄμβρῳ .... τὸ δ᾽ ἕτερον [scil. παράδειγμα] τὸ ἐπαγόμενον, τὸ περὶ τὸ ἐνύπνιον τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος, φησι τὸν Δία εἰπεῖν τὸ “ δίδομεν δὲ οἱ εὐχος ἀρέσθαι”, οὐδαμοῦ κεῖται ἐν τῇ Ἰλιάδι . εἰσὶν οὖν τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ Διὸς πρὸς τὸν ὄνειρον ὅτι βὰς ταῦτα εἶπε τῷ Ἀγαμέμνονι ὅτι δίδομεν αὐτῷ πάντες οἱ θεοὶ τὴν νίκην. φασὶν οὖν οἱ ταῦτα λέγοντες ὡς ἐνταῦθα ἁμαρτάνει ὁ ποιητὴς εἰσάγων τὸν Δία διαλεγόμενον ταῦτα τῷ ὀνείρῳ καὶ τρόπον τινὰ ψευδόμενον, ὅπερ οὐκ ἔστι θεοῦ. οἱ γοῦν ἐπιδιορθούμενοι τοῦτόν φασιν ὡς οὐ τῷ Ἀγαμέμνονι ὁ Ζεὺς ἔλεγε τὸ εὐχος δοθῆναι ἀλλὰ τῷ ὀνείρῳ κατὰ τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος· ἀναγινώσκουσι δὲ οὕτως, “δίδομεν δὲ οἱ”, ἀντὶ τοῦ σοί, τῷ ὀνείρῳ. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ψεῦδος· ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς νοῦς ἐστι κἂν ὁ τόνος ἀναβιβασθείη κἂν περισπασθείη ἡ ἀντωνυμία ἡ οἱ. ποῦ γοῦν [ οὖν] ἐστιν ἡ ἁμαρτία; ἢ οὐκ εἰς τὸ “ δέ οἱ” ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸ “δίδομεν”. εἰ γοῦν [? μὲν οὖν] τὸ “ δίδομεν δέ οἱ εὐχος ἀρέσθαι” ἀναγνῷ τις τὸν τόνον θεὶς εἰς τὸ δι τὸν Δία ποιεῖ ψευδόμενον, ὡς ὑπισχνούμενον διδόναι τὴν νίκην καὶ μὴ εἰς ἔργον ἐξάγοντα τὴν ὑπόσχεσιν· εἰ δὲ εἰς τὸ δο τὸν τόνον θεὶς ἀναγνῷ τὸ ἑξῆς, καὶ τὸν Δία τοῦ ψεύδεσθαι ἀπολύσει, καὶ τῷ Ὁμήρῳ περιποιήσεται τὸ ἀνέγκλητον, ὡς τοῦ Διὸς λέγοντος τῷ ὀνείρῳ καὶ ἐπιτάττοντος διδόμεναι αὐτὸν τὸν ὄνειρον τὸ εὐχος τῷ Ἀγαμέμνονι καὶ μὴ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Διός. καὶ γοῦν ὁ ὄνειρος ὑπισχνεῖται τῷ Ἀγαμέμνονι τὸ εὐχος καὶ ψεύδεται, καὶ οὐχ ὁ Ζεὺς αὐτός.
It will be observed that in the explanation of
Il. 23. 328
in the
Soph. el. the negative
οὐ is said to be distinguished from the pronoun
οὗ by being pronounced
ὀξύτερον, i. e.
ὀξυτόνως. This takes us back to a time when
οὐ was oxytone wheresoever it occurs (
comp.
Kühner, Gr. Gr. 1. 1 p. 331
), as it was held to be by more than one of the grammarians:
Herodian p. 504 Lentz
τὰ εἰς οῦ περισπῶνται, πανταχοῦ, ἀγχοῦ, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ πλὴν τοῦ [? τὸ] ἰδού τὸ δεικτικόν, ἰου τὸ σχετλιαστικόν, καὶ οὗ τὸ ἀρνητικόν· τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ συνεπείᾳ ὀξύνεται.
