The Descent of the Greek

7/29/2019 The Descent of the Greek

1/4

The Descent of the Greek Epic: A ReplyAuthor(s): M. L. WestReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 112 (1992), pp. 173-175

Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/632165 .

Accessed: 25/11/2012 07:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:39:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenichttp://www.jstor.org/stable/632165?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/632165?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic


2/4

NOTESOTESinscriptionsdo not (generally),26 nd one cannot there-fore confidently affirm that the K- forms are generallyIonic: thatthey were at least sporadicand genuine is ofcourse proved by their use in elegiac and lyric poets.They would appear,however,as West's evidence seemsto show, to have been utilized by poets in their morelocal utterances,elegiac or iambic, in poems composedfor local audiences.EvenHipponax, or instance, houghhe knew that K- was allowable in trimeter and epode,used t- in hexameters (128.3, 129 West), burlesquethoughthey be. The K- forms,in short,were a parochialphenomenon,one not suited for the pan-Aegean andeven pan-Hellenicepic. Given the choice-if indeed hewas-between a local dialectal feature redolent of aspecific time and place, and a more general, morewidespread orm, the Homericpoet chose the latter.Homericepic was not a poem of local derring-doorlocal political concern.It was a poem which celebratedHellenic heroism against the Asiatic foe, and whichrecalled mighty deeds of mighty warriorsunited in aGreekoverseas expedition.In the service of this poemthe poet utilized a pan-Hellenic language, a languagefull of (heroic) archaisms and the various forms ofGreekknown to him from around the Aegean Sea andpossibly elsewhere. Though basically Ionic and hencebasicallyhis own dialect,or an archaic formof his owndialect, Homeric epic nonetheless admitted influencesfrom outside that dialect. A national epic requiredanational language,and Homerforged that language,ashe forged his poem, out of resources drawn from theentire Greek world. WILLIAM. WYATTR.

Brown University,RhodeIsland26 Cf.Buck n. 17)63,F.Bechtel,Diegriechischenialekteiii (Berlin1924)87-89.Bechtel olds hat k-develops egular-ly in the indefinite elative etweenwo o/'s. And tmaywellbe that this is where the development egan.See now J.Chadwick,HScx (1990)174-77.

The descent of the Greek epic: a replyInJHS cx (1990) 174-7 Dr John Chadwickexpressesscepticism about certain lines of argument ollowed inmy article 'The Rise of the Greek Epic' (JHS cviii[1988] 151-72). He will not expect me to be heartenedby his remarks.But I am. If this (I reflect) is the worstthat the linguistic establishmentcan throw at me, therecannot be too much wrong with my approach.His paperconsists largelyof a rehearsalof elementaryfacts and principlesfamiliar to me and to everyone inthe field. We differ,evidently,in our assessmentsof thebearingof these facts andprincipleson my reconstruc-tion of the main phases of the epic tradition.I will tryto explain succinctly why his representationseave meso unabashed.His first point is that the spelling conventions of ourtext of Homer (use of ei and ou for e and o, elimin-ation of qoppa, etc.) cannot go as far back as theseventh century.The text therefore underwent variousmoderisations' beforereaching heAlexandrian ditors.In this process, he claims, forms such as cKO), bo0o, if

inscriptionsdo not (generally),26 nd one cannot there-fore confidently affirm that the K- forms are generallyIonic: thatthey were at least sporadicand genuine is ofcourse proved by their use in elegiac and lyric poets.They would appear,however,as West's evidence seemsto show, to have been utilized by poets in their morelocal utterances,elegiac or iambic, in poems composedfor local audiences.EvenHipponax, or instance, houghhe knew that K- was allowable in trimeter and epode,used t- in hexameters (128.3, 129 West), burlesquethoughthey be. The K- forms,in short,were a parochialphenomenon,one not suited for the pan-Aegean andeven pan-Hellenicepic. Given the choice-if indeed hewas-between a local dialectal feature redolent of aspecific time and place, and a more general, morewidespread orm, the Homericpoet chose the latter.Homericepic was not a poem of local derring-doorlocal political concern.It was a poem which celebratedHellenic heroism against the Asiatic foe, and whichrecalled mighty deeds of mighty warriorsunited in aGreekoverseas expedition.In the service of this poemthe poet utilized a pan-Hellenic language, a languagefull of (heroic) archaisms and the various forms ofGreekknown to him from around the Aegean Sea andpossibly elsewhere. Though basically Ionic and hencebasicallyhis own dialect,or an archaic formof his owndialect, Homeric epic nonetheless admitted influencesfrom outside that dialect. A national epic requiredanational language,and Homerforged that language,ashe forged his poem, out of resources drawn from theentire Greek world. WILLIAM. WYATTR.

Brown University,RhodeIsland26 Cf.Buck n. 17)63,F.Bechtel,Diegriechischenialekteiii (Berlin1924)87-89.Bechtel olds hat k-develops egular-ly in the indefinite elative etweenwo o/'s. And tmaywellbe that this is where the development egan.See now J.Chadwick,HScx (1990)174-77.

The descent of the Greek epic: a replyInJHS cx (1990) 174-7 Dr John Chadwickexpressesscepticism about certain lines of argument ollowed inmy article 'The Rise of the Greek Epic' (JHS cviii[1988] 151-72). He will not expect me to be heartenedby his remarks.But I am. If this (I reflect) is the worstthat the linguistic establishmentcan throw at me, therecannot be too much wrong with my approach.His paperconsists largelyof a rehearsalof elementaryfacts and principlesfamiliar to me and to everyone inthe field. We differ,evidently,in our assessmentsof thebearingof these facts andprincipleson my reconstruc-tion of the main phases of the epic tradition.I will tryto explain succinctly why his representationseave meso unabashed.His first point is that the spelling conventions of ourtext of Homer (use of ei and ou for e and o, elimin-ation of qoppa, etc.) cannot go as far back as theseventh century.The text therefore underwent variousmoderisations' beforereaching heAlexandrian ditors.In this process, he claims, forms such as cKO), bo0o, if

Homer had used them, would have been replaced bytoS, 6stou, so that there is no force in my argumentthat the absence of the K forms aligns epic Ionic withCentralor West Ionic as opposed to the Ionic of AsiaMinor.Chadwick fails to distinguish between orthographyand phonology.To replace 9ope by Kco0prl, aTvo;bydetvoS,etc., is merely a matterof spelling. There is nodoubt that moderisations of this sort must haveoccurredin the Homeric tradition,even though we donot know whatkind of alphabetwas used in the originalwritten text. But to replaceKlooby itoS is not a matterof spelling-X is not anotherway of writing K-it is asubstantivechange from one dialect form to another.That a change of this sort was effected in the pre-Alexandrian written tradition is an unsubstantiated

hypothesis,and one that raises awkwardquestions. WhyshouldKcoxand KOi be changedto ioS and tov, whenthey were perfectly familiar as 'Ionic' forms fromHerodotus and other authors? Why were they notchanged nCallinus,Mimnermus,Semonides,Hipponax,and Anacreon?'If we did not know where these poetscame from,we could infercorrectlyfrom their use of cforms that they came from the East Ionic area,2bycontrast with Archilochus, Tyrtaeus, Theognis, andSolon, who have t forms. Why should this criterionbedeemed inapplicable o the epic dialect?Chadwick writes: 'West might have supportedhisthesis of a Euboean origin for the Homeric text bypointing to the aspiration which is guaranteed byconsonant changes resulting from contact with initialaspirate (type ett0' otrto;). Psilosis is normal in EastIonic, but the aspirate s partially preservedin CentralIonic and fully in West Ionic'. I must point out firstlythat I was not arguing for 'a Euboean origin for theHomerictext',3butfor 'Euboea as the areain which theepic language acquired its definitive and normativeform' (my p.166). Chadwickthenproceedsto attack heargument did not use in supportof the thesis I did notpropound: But aspiration n Homer is quite obviouslythe consequence of editorial interference with thetradition, o thatthis provesnothingaboutthe originofthe text'. Actuallythe questionof aspirationandpsilosisin Homer is morecomplex than he implies. I dealtwithit briefly, and I think sufficiently for my purposes,onmy p.163.The usefulness of linguisticfeaturesas pointers o thepast would indeed be diminished if, as Chadwicksupposes, some generationsof oral transmission nter-vened between 'the monumentalcomposer' and theestablishment of a complete written text, which hethinks only happened towards the end of the sixthcentury.This is of course the theoryof G. S. Kirk,andit was courteouslydemolishedby AdamParrya quarter

'Cf. 166 of myarticle.2 Amorgos elongshereas a Samianolony.3 I didsuggesthat heOdysseymightbea Euboean oem,but I made t clear hatI believe he Iliadto havebeencom-posed n AsiaMinor172).

Homer had used them, would have been replaced bytoS, 6stou, so that there is no force in my argumentthat the absence of the K forms aligns epic Ionic withCentralor West Ionic as opposed to the Ionic of AsiaMinor.Chadwick fails to distinguish between orthographyand phonology.To replace 9ope by Kco0prl, aTvo;bydetvoS,etc., is merely a matterof spelling. There is nodoubt that moderisations of this sort must haveoccurredin the Homeric tradition,even though we donot know whatkind of alphabetwas used in the originalwritten text. But to replaceKlooby itoS is not a matterof spelling-X is not anotherway of writing K-it is asubstantivechange from one dialect form to another.That a change of this sort was effected in the pre-Alexandrian written tradition is an unsubstantiated

hypothesis,and one that raises awkwardquestions. WhyshouldKcoxand KOi be changedto ioS and tov, whenthey were perfectly familiar as 'Ionic' forms fromHerodotus and other authors? Why were they notchanged nCallinus,Mimnermus,Semonides,Hipponax,and Anacreon?'If we did not know where these poetscame from,we could infercorrectlyfrom their use of cforms that they came from the East Ionic area,2bycontrast with Archilochus, Tyrtaeus, Theognis, andSolon, who have t forms. Why should this criterionbedeemed inapplicable o the epic dialect?Chadwick writes: 'West might have supportedhisthesis of a Euboean origin for the Homeric text bypointing to the aspiration which is guaranteed byconsonant changes resulting from contact with initialaspirate (type ett0' otrto;). Psilosis is normal in EastIonic, but the aspirate s partially preservedin CentralIonic and fully in West Ionic'. I must point out firstlythat I was not arguing for 'a Euboean origin for theHomerictext',3butfor 'Euboea as the areain which theepic language acquired its definitive and normativeform' (my p.166). Chadwickthenproceedsto attack heargument did not use in supportof the thesis I did notpropound: But aspiration n Homer is quite obviouslythe consequence of editorial interference with thetradition, o thatthis provesnothingaboutthe originofthe text'. Actuallythe questionof aspirationandpsilosisin Homer is morecomplex than he implies. I dealtwithit briefly, and I think sufficiently for my purposes,onmy p.163.The usefulness of linguisticfeaturesas pointers o thepast would indeed be diminished if, as Chadwicksupposes, some generationsof oral transmission nter-vened between 'the monumentalcomposer' and theestablishment of a complete written text, which hethinks only happened towards the end of the sixthcentury.This is of course the theoryof G. S. Kirk,andit was courteouslydemolishedby AdamParrya quarter

'Cf. 166 of myarticle.2 Amorgos elongshereas a Samianolony.3 I didsuggesthat heOdysseymightbea Euboean oem,but I made t clear hatI believe he Iliadto havebeencom-posed n AsiaMinor172).

17373

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:39:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

NOTESof a century ago.4 I do not see why Chadwick finds'furtherevidence' for it in the phenomenonof diectasis(6p6o, 6p6cav, 06ox, etc.). I agree with him thatthese 'spellings', as he calls them, representthe actualpronunciationof rhapsodes;but why not of Homer?

It is well known thatmetricalandprosodicanomaliesin Homer often disappearwhen we replace linguisticforms of the transmitted ext by the older ones fromwhich they evolved. Earlyverse inscriptionssuch as theIschiacup5show thatmany such anomalies had alreadycome into being by the late eighth century.Chadwickthinks t reasonable o assumethatall previouseraswereequally tolerant of 'loose metrical practices', and heinfers that it is notjustifiedto argueback frommetrical-ly irregularformulas to older forms that would havebeen regular.Thus he disputesthe usualassumption hat'IXiou tpo&p6potl0v and Ai6Xo KIcutc 6&duartago back to 'IXtoo and At6Xoo. He says that thisview 'has been somewhat damaged by the revelationthat Mycenaean knew only a genitive in -oto'. Icannot detect any damage.No one, I think,maintainedthe -oo genitive to be Mycenaean. It is the logicalintermediate tage between earlier-oto andlater-ov. Itmight have happened that when the intervocalic idisappeared, he two short o's immediatelymergedintoa long one. But the Homericevidence points clearly tothe existence of a phase at which poets used uncontr-acted -oo. Chadwick regards 'IXioi and Ai6Xou asexamples of a licence to treat names scanning --- as---. There is evidence of this in inscriptionswhere anawkward name had to be accommodated. But anyonewho seeks to account for Homer's 'IXio and Ai6-Xov in this way must explain(a) why the licence is only used in the genitivesingular (eighteen instances,not only propernamesbutalso various nouns andadjectives);why never molossic'Iiot, Aap&tvtov, uaog?VfI;, tc? And(b) why the following word almost always beginswith two consonants, f not to lengthenthe second o of-oo. In two of the three exceptions the following wordbegins cteya-,which is equally capable of lengtheninga precedingshortopen syllable. The remainingcase isIliad ii 731 'AoKXrnmob 60o txai&.It cannot be fortuitousthat metrical irregularities nformulasconstantlyresolve themselves when antecedentforms are reconstructed. n some cases we have to goback a long way, even to forms earlier than thoserepresented in the Linear B documents. We shouldwelcome this evidence for the age of the epic tradition,which is consistentwiththe findingsof Homericarchae-ology. Chadwick himself seems to accept that thetraditiongoes back to the Mycenaeanperiod.He is more doubtful about the thesis that an Indo-

4 'Have we Homer's Iliad?', YCS xx (1966) 175-216,reprinted n J. Latacz (ed.), Homer. Tradition und Neuerung(Darmstadt1979) 428-66, and in A.M. Parry,The language ofAchilles and other papers (Oxford 1989) 104-40. Cf. M.L.West, 'ArchaischeHeldendichtung:Singen und Schreiben' inW. Kullmann and M. Reichel (ed.), Der Ubergang von derMundlichkeit ur Literaturbei den Griechen(Tubingen1990)33-50.5 CEG 454; see P. A. Hansen's addenda and corrigenda nCEG ii (304), where Risch's supplement(favouredby Chad-wick) s refuted.

European radition ies behindit. He emphasizesthat thehexameter,so far as our evidence goes, appearsto be aGreek invention. I never suggested otherwise. Thehypothesisof a continuityof poetic tradition romIndo-European imes is not understoodby its manyadherentsas excludingchangesof metre. On the otherhand,whenChadwickwrites, 'To prove that poetry existed amongthe undividedIndo-European eoples we shouldneed todemonstrate he existence of similarmetres, or at leastsimilarmetricalphrasesin at least two traditions',he isstatinga requirementhat has long been satisfied.Onlya few lines earlierhe has cited Meillet's monographLesorigines indo-europeennesdes metresgrecs, where thestrong similarities of Vedic and Aeolic metres werepointed out. Meillet's work has been successfullyextendedby RomanJakobson,CalvertWatkins,GregoryNagy, and others. PerhapsChadwick,like G. Zuntz, isunimpressedby Meillet's comparisons.6f so, he shouldtry to convince us that they are invalid, not speak as ifnothingof the kind had ever been published.As for the comparisonof poetic phrases in differentnational traditions,he again ignores most of what hisfellow philologists have done in this field. He mentionsonly the 'hoary example' of cKkt; (0ItOov Vedicsrdvo...dksitam, alling it 'almost unique'. 'The coinci-dence is striking', he concedes, 'but we should surelydemand a string of such coincidences before accept-ing...' Anyone acquaintedwith the literature ited on myp.152, nn.6-7, will know thatsuch stringsare available.Chadwick's concluding remarkson dialectal devel-opmentsin Greek are somewhatelliptical, and it is notentirely clear to me what in my argumentsis beingcriticized. If the implicationis that I have assumedthedialect groupingsof the first millenniumto be equallyvalid for the second, or that I am unaware that inidentifyingregional elements in the epic language onemustdistinguishbetween inheritedarchaismandinnova-tion, I plead not guilty.A second paper written in reaction to my articleappearsin the presentvolume: W.F. Wyatt, 'Homer'slinguistic forebears'.By courtesyof the author and theeditor I have been granteda previewand the opportunityto respond.I will contentmyself with a few points and,for the rest, leave it to our readers'discernment o judgebetweenProfessorWyatt's nterpretationf the factsandmine.My view of the developmentof the epic tradition snot quite so compartmentalizedas Wyatt makes itappear.I do not conceive of Mycenaean culture andMycenaeanepic as being confined to the Peloponnese,and while I speakof an accretion of epic themes fromthe south to a late MycenaeanThessalianpoetic tradi-tion, I do not think in terms of a specific migrationofbards n the context of some refugeemovement.Nor doI imaginea 'translation' rom Achaean into Aeolic. Thedifferences between Achaean (if this is taken to meanthe languageof the pre-DorianPeloponnese)andAeolic

6 G. Zuntz, Drei Kapitel zur griechischen Metrik (Osterr.Akad.Sitzungsber. cccxliii [1984]) 12 n.10. Zuntz assertsthatthe Indian metres adducedare 'so variabel,dass sich fir jededenkbare Form eine Parallele finden diirfte'. I cannot agree.They have characteristicrhythmswhich make a verse easilyrecognizableas such; and Meillet's comparisonsare based onstandard,not aberrant orms.

174




4/4

NOTES(the language of Boeotia and Thessaly) will still havebeenquitesmall at the periodin question.Such regionaldifferences as existed in speech would naturally bereflected in local uses of the epic language, and inThessaly the epic language naturallytook on Aeolicfeatures as they developed.Wyattmaintains hattherenever was an Aeolic epic,on the groundsthat it 'has not left a trace', that we donot hear of any pre-HomericLesbianpoets (butthen,wedo not hearof any Ionian ones either),and that thereisno hint of any epic poetry lying behind Sappho andAlcaeus, 'save reminiscencesof Homer'. Even if thescreen were as blank as he suggests, it would provenothing:therewould be no difficulty in the hypothesisthat a Lesbianepic tradition lourishedin the eleventh,tenth,or ninthcenturybut had died out by the seventh.But I must once again draw attention to the Lesbianpoets' nHppaocog nd nHpacuo;, orms that could onlyhave developed in a Lesbian tradition of poetry aboutTroy, the first by the regular Lesbian sound-change/CptV/ > /CeppV/,the second by accommodationof thenew form to formulas requiringthe original scansionwith shortinitial syllable.7Wyattdoes not deny that there are Aeolic and evenDoric forms in the epic language.The questionis howthey got there. His notion is thatIonianpoets brought

175them in deliberately,partlyto replace 'difficult' archa-isms (but why should an Ionian audience have found&iL?; and (g6; easier than *qut; and Ij6L;?),partlyfor thematicreasons(ThessalianAchilles, actionsituatedaroundLesbos,Lesbianspokennot farfrom theTroad).This is to attribute o the bards a measure oflinguistic self-consciousnessand artifice worthy of theAlexandrians.We are asked to imagine an Ionianpoetwho, in retailinga storyof ThessalianCentaurs, akes itinto his head to call them "lfpes instead of KEvraupotwithout therehavingbeen any Aeolic poetic tradition osupply him with this gloss. No. Thessalianmythology,reference to Lesbos in the context of the TrojanWar,and interest in Troy itself are not merely contingentphenomenathat encouragedan Ionianepic tradition osprouta few Aeolisms: they themselves point to priorAeolic epic, and thelinguisticAeolismspointwiththem.Why fight it?

M.L. WESTAll Souls College, Oxford7 Cf.CQxxiii(1973)191; HScviii(1988)163n.79,whereI pointoutthat hissound-changeusthavebeencompletedrelatively ate, afternptago; had becomeestablishednIonianpoetry.

Papers of Professor A.W. LawrenceAt the time of his death in 1991 ProfessorA. W. Lawrencewasre-working he valuablenotes which accompanyhis revisionofRawlinson's translation of Herodotus,published in a limitededition by the Nonesuch Press in 1935. Scholars who wish toconsult this materialshouldcontact Dr JudithPriestman,Dept.of WesternMSS., BodleianLibrary,Oxford OX1 3BG.



Documents

The Descent of the Greek