Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:24:18.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Descent of the Greek Epic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

John Chadwick
John Chadwick
Affiliation:
Downing College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A fundamental assumption throughout this article is that the text of Homer is no different from that of other classical authors, since it has been preserved by the same kind of manuscript tradition. The difference is that while all our texts go back to the editions of the Hellenistic scholars, the gap between these and the author is relatively short for fourth and fifth century writers, but very much longer for Homer, if we assign to him a very approximate date of the late eighth, or even early seventh, century.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 110 , November 1990 , pp. 174 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 JHS cviii (1988) 151–72.

2 McCarter, K., The antiquity of the Greek alphabet (Missoula 1975).Google Scholar

3 e.g. Goold, G. P., TAPA xci (1960) 272–91.Google Scholar

4 e.g. in the newly published dedication of a mercenary of Psammetichus I: Πὴδωμ μ᾿ ὰνὲθηκεν ὼμφὶννεω . . . CRAI (1988) 524.

5 For a specimen of sixth century Euboean see the Eretrian law in Schwyzer DGE 800.

6 Heubeck, A.Schrift (Archaeobgia Homerica (x) (Göttingen 1979) 109–16Google Scholar, supplied ἐ[ε̆ν τ]ι but Risch, E., ZPE lxx (1987) 1–9Google Scholar convincingly showed that the restoration quoted here was more likely.

7 See note 4.

8 Dittenberger, Syll. iv p. 883; Schwyzer, DCE 644.9.

9 ὸκὸσο̄: Sanmarti, E. and Santiago, R. A., ZPE lxviii (1987) 119–27Google Scholar; lxxii (1988) 100–2. ὂκο̄ (= ὸπου): Pouilloux, J., CRAI (1988), 533.Google Scholar

10 Chantraine, P., Grammare homérique i 3 (Paris 1958) 6–16.Google Scholar

11 ὼμφὶννεω, ψαμμὴτιχος

12 Chantraine (n. 10) 75–83.

13 [Plato] Hipparchus 228b.

14 Accusative Ο 8; genitive Υ 67; both perhaps modelled on the more frequent dative O 57, 158, etc.

15 p. 191, n. 6.

16 ᾿Ιλῑου Ο 66, etc.; ΑΙο̄̀λου κ 36, 60. For the traditional view see Chantraine (n. 10) 45.

17 Schwyzer, DGE 133 (I), Corcyra, sixth century. The digamma is another artificiality.

18 Meillet, A., Les origines indo-européennes des mètres grecs (Paris 1923) 57–71.Google Scholar

19 For an interesting account of similar poetry among the present-day Bantu, see Opland, J., Publications of the Modern Languages Association of America xc (1975) 195–208.Google Scholar I owe this reference to L. Baumbach.

20 Meister, K., Die homerische Kunstsprache (Leipzig 1921).Google Scholar

21 Garcia-Ramon, J. L., Les origines postmycéniennes du groupe dialectal éolien (Suplementos a MINOS n. 6) (Salamanca 1975)Google Scholar; Lopez Eiré, A., Simposio de Colonizaciones (Barcelona 1974) 247–78.Google Scholar

22 Risch, E., MH xii (1955) 70–71.Google Scholar

23 Chantraine (n. 10) 290–91.