La Dodona tessalica: una invenzione di Aristarco?, "Appunti Romani di Filologia" 22, 2020, pp. 53-66, 2020
The Byzantine lexicon called "Ethnikà", by the grammarian Stephanus, mostly came to us in epitomi... more The Byzantine lexicon called "Ethnikà", by the grammarian Stephanus, mostly came to us in epitomised form; however the codex Coislinianus preserves a fragment from the original version, and also traces of Stephanus’ personality and polemic bias. The Byzantine grammarian is very skeptical about the existence of a Dodona in Thessaly, which should be attested by Homer (Il. 16.233ff.), beside the more famous Epirotic one. How can it be, since Homer mentions, in the following verses, the Selli, priests in the Epirotic Dodona?
The thesis, according to which should exist two toponyms with this very name, the Epirotic and the Thessalian one – respectively in the Odyssey and in the Iliad – is well attested: it is followed by grammarians and antiquarians such as Epaphroditus (1 c. AD), Philoxenus (1 c. BC), Mnaseas (2 c. BC) and Apollodorus of Athens, disciple of Aristarchus (2 BC).
In my opinion, the thesis of a Dodona in Thessaly should be assigned to Aristarchus because: 1) its spreading derives from the prestige of its author ; 2) the thesis is only attested from the 2 century BC onwards ; 3) it seems to rest upon the comparison of Homeric passages : a) a first group, which attests a characterized and recurring scene (“eveyone prays to the god of his homeland”) ; b) the mention of Dodone in the reign of the Thessalian Gouneus (Il. 2.750) ; 4) the presence of Aristarchan terminology. The absence of Aristonicus’ scholia on the two Iliadic passages which should attest the Thessalian Dodona, could explain why we missed hitherto to assign this odd antiquarian thesis to Aristarchus.
Uploads
Papers by Andrea Filoni
The chapter, which is concerned in interpreting the Homeric description of Charybdis (scil. Od. XII), possibly derives from Posidonius; arguments in favour of this thesis are offered. Extant ancient exegesis on Od. XII also is considered (Aristonicus; Porphyry). Finally, some remarks on how the Poet used the monster within the narration of Od. XII - not without inconsistencies which puzzled the ancient interpreters.
The chapter, which is concerned in interpreting the Homeric description of Charybdis (scil. Od. XII), possibly derives from Posidonius; arguments in favour of this thesis are offered. Extant ancient exegesis on Od. XII also is considered (Aristonicus; Porphyry). Finally, some remarks on how the Poet used the monster within the narration of Od. XII - not without inconsistencies which puzzled the ancient interpreters.
At the same time, not all these critical excerpts, written down in the style of the Prolegomena, are placed within the introductory books: some are also placed throughout the periegesis itself (i.e. they were composed later than the surrounding context: cf. 3.2.12-14; 3.4.4; 11.6.2-4, then 7.3.2-11, 12.3.20-27 and 14.5.22-29, strongly intertwined to each other). The motives because of which these excerpts in prolegomenic (/polemic) style are placed in the Prolegomena or not, are not always evident. Possibly, Strabo added the cross-references (at least the long-ranged) in the latest phases of composition/redaction of his work.
Da: Paolo SCATTOLIN (paolo.scattolin@univr.it)
Nell’ambito del corso di Storia comparata delle lingue classiche, il prof.
Stephanos Matthaios (Università di Salonicco) terrà i seguenti seminari
presso il Dipartimento di Filologia Letteratura e Linguistica dell’Università
di Verona:
(a) mercoledì 27 maggio, Polo Zanotto (Viale dell’Università, 4), ore
10.10-11.50 (aula 1.5):
«Aristarchus and his contemporary scholars on the foundation of the
Alexandrian word-class theory»;
(b) mercoledì 27 maggio, Polo Zanotto (Viale dell’Università, 4), ore
17.20-19 (aula 1.3):
«Language and cultural change as reflected in the ancient Greek
lexicography».
Hunt rightly saw in the first interpretation of the verses 306-7 (col. I, ll. 7-15) that of Aristarchus; but he was excessive in thinking that the whole commentary was Alexandrian: in fact, the presence of another interpretation of the same verses (col. II, ll. 3-7), the fact that Aristarchus’ interpretation is presented without the syntactical part, and apparently the general interest of the commentator only on Homer’s Realia, suggest that the commentary of P.Ryl. 24 is a post-Aristarchean (“exegetical”) one. Indeed Aristarchus’ influence is still perceptible: this agrees very well with the early date of the papyrus.
La trattazione delfica di Strabone (IX 3, 5-12) è da attribuire a Eforo, citato alla fine (parr. 11-12); i parr. 11-12 (tolta la polemica straboniana) sono da porre al principio, in quanto narrano la ktisis del santuario; dovevano seguire, nell’opera eforea, i parr. 5-10. L’attribuzione avviene per molti motivi: la natura antiquaria della trattazione; la sua unità interna; la complementarietà con la citazione eforea; un parallelo con il libro XVI di Diodoro. La storia delfica è vista in modo deterministico: la sua ricchezza è causata dalla sua posizione centrale; la stessa ricchezza produce una storia fatta di saccheggi, tentati e riusciti. Emergono molti elementi del metodo di lavoro eforeo: l’uso della letteratura ‘classica’ come fonte storica (Omero, le Eumenidi eschilee ma soprattutto Pindaro); attenzione per i nomoi locali (il rito del Septerion); possibili indizi di autopsia (uso di iscrizioni; ispezione del tempio e dei segni lasciati dal saccheggio focese).
Yet, this monograph, whose Strabo preserves a survey, is interesting from many points of view: 1) the topic is geographic; 2) this topic is dealt with not by a professional geographer or scientist, but by a grammarian, i.e. a teacher of literature; this way, we can appreciate the different point of view; 3) Aristonicus follows Aristarchus’ method in interpreting literature (sc. an internal one: this is expressed in the well-known adagio ‘explaining Homer through Homer’); therefore, we can appreciate how this method is applied to a geographic theme. Περὶ τῆς Μενελάου πλάνης also is a precious example of Hellenistic Περὶ-Literatur, useful to reflect upon the genre.
A possible explanation is the following: in the chronographic tradition deriving from Apollodorus of Athens, Ol. 1.1 is strictly related to Hesiod’s death, happened in the same or in the preceding year. At its turn, Hesiod’s life is put in relation to Homer: Paterculus recomputed Apollodorus’ interval between the latter poets of 138 years into 120, since he dated Homer’s floruit at 920 BC (approximated from 914, the dating which C. Nepos offers to Paterculus) and Hesiod’s at 800 BC. If we sum 120 to Paterculus’ abnormous Ol. 1.1 date (793 BC) or to the preceding year (794 BC), we obtain respectively 913 and 914; the latter date clearly is Homer’s floruit. This fact suggests that Paterculus’ shorter interval between Homer and Hesiod could have strongly backdated Hesiod’s passing (which, actually, is not explicitly mentioned) and, consequently, Ol. 1.1. Possibly, confusion between floruit and death datings is also to be taken into account.
The thesis, according to which should exist two toponyms with this very name, the Epirotic and the Thessalian one – respectively in the Odyssey and in the Iliad – is well attested: it is followed by grammarians and antiquarians such as Epaphroditus (1 c. AD), Philoxenus (1 c. BC), Mnaseas (2 c. BC) and Apollodorus of Athens, disciple of Aristarchus (2 BC).
In my opinion, the thesis of a Dodona in Thessaly should be assigned to Aristarchus because: 1) its spreading derives from the prestige of its author ; 2) the thesis is only attested from the 2 century BC onwards ; 3) it seems to rest upon the comparison of Homeric passages : a) a first group, which attests a characterized and recurring scene (“eveyone prays to the god of his homeland”) ; b) the mention of Dodone in the reign of the Thessalian Gouneus (Il. 2.750) ; 4) the presence of Aristarchan terminology. The absence of Aristonicus’ scholia on the two Iliadic passages which should attest the Thessalian Dodona, could explain why we missed hitherto to assign this odd antiquarian thesis to Aristarchus.
ATTENTION: page and note numbers shifted in respect to published version