This monograph is a valuable contribution to the study of Eustathios’ Παρεκβολαὶ εἰς τὴν Ὁμήρου Ἰλιάδα. It ties in with the growing interest in Eustathios’ work on classical authors and primarily on the Homeric epics, as well as in the culture of the Komnenian era. The beginning in the West of the study of Eustathios’ Parekbolai on the Homeric epics (Angelo Poliziano, in ms. form, 1487-91) coincided with the publication of the editio princeps of Homer (Florence 1488-9), of which most readers had had an indirect knowledge through Latin translations. It was the importance of the Parekbolai for Homeric studies that caused their great popularity following the appearance of their editio princeps (1542-50). In surveying the reception of Eustathios, Filippomaria Pontani drew attention to ‘the massive use of the Parekbolai’ in the footnotes to the landmark French and English translations of the Homeric epics respectively by Anne Dacier and Alexander Pope and correctly attributed the rapid decline of their authority primarily to the ‘rise of Altertumswissenschaft’ — in G. S. Kirk's Cambridge Commentary on Iliad 1-4 (1985) I counted only seven citations of Eustathios. The revival of scholarly interest in his commentaries, which was sparked mainly by M.H.A.L.H. van der Valk's monumental critical edition of the Parekbolai on the Iliad (1971-87), has been marked by a shift of focus towards specialized studies, Homeric reception, and the literary culture of the Komnenian ‘Renaissance’, especially in regard to the Homeric ‘renaissance’ — the latter foreshadowing the importance of Petrarch's ‘rediscovered’ Homer (1353-4) in shaping the Italian Renaissance.
In the introduction vdB sets the stage for her topic by outlining the cultural milieu of the Komnenian period as regards engagement with classical texts; the popularity of Homer and his place in education; his association with the origins of rhetoric and the so-called ‘literaturization’ of rhetoric (that is, its gradual transformation into an ars scribendi); and Eustathios’ approach to the composition of the Iliad and an outline of his main sources. In chapter 1 she discusses the proem to the Parekbolai, where Eustathios reiterates the image of Homer as the source of all learning and proposes the Iliad as a model rhetorical text from which the modern rhetor or prose writer may benefit by learning ‘methods’, ‘words’, ‘maxims’, ‘historical narratives’, and ‘myths’ — the two last are the most valuable concepts for understanding Eustathios’ treatment of the composition of the Iliad. VdB proceeds to examine Homer's δεινότης, by which she means the ‘skilful composition’ of the Iliad (chapter 2); the ‘plausible composition’ of the Iliad, by which she renders the term πιθανότης (chapter 3); and finally the function of the gods in the composition of Homer's epic (chapter 4).
The idea of focusing on composition instead of compiling a handbook of rhetorical elements in Eustathios’ Parekbolai to be consulted as a reference publication was both brilliant and fruitful. VdB's monograph is a substantial and exciting work, among other things because it allows readers to witness Homer ‘at work’, designing his narrative and making the best possible choices, while divine plans, decisions, actions, and knowledge are treated as mere expressions of the poet's narrative plans and composition designs. Zeus would stand for the ‘mind’ of the poet and the Muse for his ‘knowledge’.
The two key concepts of the book, which provide the titles for chapters 2 and 3, are respectively δεινότης and πιθανότης. VdB argues that Eustathios derived the former from Hermogenes’ influential treatise Περὶ ἰδεῶν λόγου (On Types of Style), where it indicates ‘the right use of all types of style’ (six main types and thirteen subtypes). In my view ‘adapting [one's] style to the subject and the occasion and the personages involved’ (Hermogenes 372.10-12 Rabe, of Demosthenes) has very little to do with what vdB defines as the focus of δεινότης: ‘For Eustathios skilfulness amounts to the ability to make the best choices in order to produce the most effective, attractive, and economic composition […]’ (72-3).
The exact use and meaning of δεινότης in Eustathios would have required the systematic study, with the help of TLG, of all occurrences of the term, but the book offers no analysis of this kind for this or any other rhetorical term. Statistics comparing the instances of δεινότης with those of πιθανότης and cognates in both commentaries of Eustathios reveal something remarkable: the occurrences of the former are 61 (41 +19), while the occurrences of πιθανότης amount to 557 (304+253); the resulting ratio is 9.13 times in favour of the latter. By contrast, in Tzetzes’ Homeric works there are 35 occurrences of δεινότης and only four instances of πιθανότης (three in the Exegesis and one in the Allegories of the Iliad).
VdB argues that Eustathios wrote ‘with potential detractors [of Homer] in mind’. I would be inclined to conclude that, regardless of any possible motive, πιθανότης stands at the heart of a ‘well arranged’ composition where both the ‘historical’ and the ‘mythical’ parts are plausibly constructed and linked together. Also considering the striking contrast with Tzetzes, I would suggest that πιθανότης represents the overarching principle in the composition of the Iliad (as well as of the Odyssey) and might have deserved a different and more prominent place in the structure of the book.
The few comments made above are not intended to detract from the achievement of VdB's learned book or diminish its quality and worth. Works of such complexity leave much room for suggestions and further research, but the fact remains that this monograph, the first devoted to Eustathios’ Parekbolai on the Iliad, stands out for being original in its conception and for treating a stimulating topic which is both focused and all-embracing.
