Eustathius On Iliad I-IV

Review: Eustathius on Iliad I-IV
Author(s): N. G. Wilson
Review by: N. G. Wilson
Source: The Classical Review, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Nov., 1974), pp. 188-190
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/708785
Accessed: 11-08-2016 20:46 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
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 Classical Association, Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Classical Review
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.217 on Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:46:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEWS
EUSTATHIUS ON ILIAD I-IV
M. VAN DER VALK: Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessa

ad Homeri Iliadem Pertinentes. Volumen prim
commentarios ad libros A-A complectens. P
Brill, 1971. Cloth, fl. 60oo.
EUSTATHIUS' commentary on the Iliad is probably on
if not one of the most valuable, monuments of me
often the case with the works of Byzantine scholars, an
this fact has been known for some time but the copy
ploited by any of the previous editors. Dr. van der Val
instalment of a new edition which according to the p
will run to six volumes. With astonishing and ad
collated the autograph twice, traced as far as possi
sentence of the commentary, presenting the resu
written substantial prolegomena which enlarge our kn
scholarship.
On the text itself I shall say comparatively little. Eve
to ensure the accuracy of the collation, and consultati
revealed a number of slips which may be ascribed
advertence. Contrary to the practice of previous editi
they stand, and rightly so; we now have an accur
actually wrote, with a note in the apparatus wherever
mistake of this kind. In order to compile the list of so
through the whole text six times and combed a vast q
ture, mostly late prose writers, in the hope of detectin
vidual pieces of information. The search has often bee
only admire the energy and devotion required for th
ments are sometimes very acute: on p. 2. 19 he is prob
John Tzetzes' proud allusions to his connections w
Admittedly in the proem I noticed a few passages wher
was not entirely convincing (cf. my notes in An Antho
Berlin 1971, pp. 98-Too), and at p. 2. 4 it has not occu
y7UcaavLras is what Eustathius intended, not yEdvaas (t
the readers who have tasted the attractions of the myt
criticisms of detail and should not be taken to refl
editor's notes to the main part of the text.
The introduction amounts to a book in itself and deserves to be noticed
accordingly. It is written in Latin and divided into short chapters, to which I
refer by their numbers.
1-37 are concerned with the manuscript. The reasons why it must be
regarded as the autograph are made clear. There is a long palaeographical
description, which would have benefited from being cast in the form adopted in
the official printed catalogues of some leading collections such as the Vatican
THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 189
library. The editor gives us details about Eust

punctuation; he shows that Eustathius read
first draft and made many additions as a resu
section I have only a few minor observations
inserted some sheets of printed matter as pro
the codex itself the editor thinks that this ope
in a printing shop; the idea is neither nec
Eustathius had no room left on a page for fur
wrote the extra material on little slips of pape
the appropriate point. The editor says that th
but this is wrong, and he himself later gives
26 The use of rEL by a scribe is not of suf
recording.
38-58 discuss the Roman edition by Maioranus. van der Valk proves that it
was set up from Paris. gr. 2695 and 2701. Maioranus seems to have had access
to the autograph, but to have consulted it very little. On investigation his text
turns out to be not far removed from that of the autograph; hence the number
of changes that need to be introduced into the text of the present edition is
relatively small. In 58 reference is made to Pope Pius II, to whom the edition
was dedicated; but in fact the Pope in 1542 was Paul III.
59-116 deal with Eustathius' sources and his scholarly accomplishments.
6o-69 are particularly useful. van der Valk notes that he has found no sign of
any ingenious textual criticism by Eustathius. He rejects Maas's famous asser-
tion that Eustathius was the author of the epitome of Athenaeus and the many
superior readings in it, without knowing of the literature cited by W. G.
Arnott in Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. cxcvi (1970), 3. This is important and as far as
I can see correct. It may be worth recording that Professor Fraenkel once
expressed to me the conviction that Maas was wrong in this matter.
Other points of interest include an amusing note on some pseudo-fragments
of Strabo (82), some apparently new fragments of the same author and of
Stephanus Byzantinus (82, 84), and an anticipation of Porson's emendation at
Soph. O.T. 1137 (9i).
I offer a few corrections of detail to this part of the introduction. 92 It is
not strictly true to say that the only play of Aeschylus normally read by the
Byzantines was the P. V. In 99 there is a long and learned account of the ex-
pression Ev 7)'OEL, but I wonder if it is not better to accept the sardonic view of
W. G. Rutherford, A Chapter in the History of Annotation, 133 ff. Ioga It is very
doubtful whether Tzetzes is the author of any scholia on Philostratus' Imagines;
see R. Browning in C.Q. xlix (1955), 195-200. Iio The anecdote about
Timotheus and Alexander is not known merely from Himerius; it is found also
in Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and St. Basil. I 12 John Italos may now be cited
from Cereteli's full edition (Tiflis 1966), 11 1-13. i16 I rather doubt if Eusta-
thius refers to Theophrastus de lapidibus at I 129. 44; he may possibly be think-
ing of Dioscorides v. 127.
S117-38 in conclusion give a more general description of Eustathius as a
commentator and explain the features of the new edition.
Typographically the book is very lavishly designed. A large format has been
chosen, but not so large that the length of the lines of print becomes tiring to
the eye. A way has been found to ensure that the reader can trace with a mini-
mum of delay references based on the pagination of the previous standard
O
190 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
edition and identify the afterthoughts added

of luxury is of course a high price, and in this
the reviewer first assumed it to be a misprint
are to be six volumes, although comparison w
four or at the most five, if one allows for gen
It is difficult to imagine that many libraries w
region of ?500 for this work even on the mo
portance for classical and Byzantine studies. W
of Greek are so limited priorities must be
present situation an alternative possibility wa
corrections necessary in the text could have
a clean copy of the Stallbaum edition for a ph
setting might have been needed in a few plac
have appeared if necessary as a separate vo
would have been a residual problem, but even
volume there would still have been a vast sav
that history is capable of repeating itself may
volume of the Rome edition was published in
before anything more appeared, and the subs
smaller type. Both facts suggest that the edi
impossibly expensive.
Lincoln College, Oxford N. G. WILSON
THE GREEK SCHOLIA ON ILIAD V-IX
HARTMUT ERBSE: Scholia Graeca in Homeri Ili

Volumen secundum scholia ad libros E-I contin
4 plates. Berlin: de Gruyter, I97I. Cloth, DM. 2
THE prompt appearance of the second volume of Profe
edition within a few months of the firstfruits of a new Eustathius which evi-
dently owes much to his inspiration may well seem to future historians of
classical scholarship to refute sufficiently the rather Hesiodic view of the
present age adumbrated in the preface ('temporibus inquietis atque ab huma-
nitate alienis').
I outlined the general rationale of this edition in reviewing vol. i (C.R. lxxxv
[197I], 65 ff.), and have not much to add here. I have the impression, though
it is somewhat subjective, that the unmarked hazards for those who consult
these scholia only occasionally are slightly increasing. There is, for instance,
a real trap for the shrewd but inexperienced at ix. 394 (HslE - O'4v Io T er
yvvamtKa yaLaUUE7aT avirdo), where the reading preferred by Aristarchus, ye
pLaaUErat for ya/LEeaara' , which avoids both a violation of Hermann's Bridge
and a unique sense for the middle of yatdw, is often cited as a peculiarly blatant
conjecture. The A scholium here is brief but clear, A4pirapxos "yvvatKd y)
tLLEaaraTL. The T scholium is expressed in a slightly odd way: Erbse prints it
thus: id 54 yiLLEUEaT Q7aT ELxov "(yE) SEco'UEm", dvrl 70io (pr/77UEI. To make
sense of the information preserved here one must know that, as Ludwich
showed (Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik i. I 18-21 ), rdiaa and synonymous terms
used in the scholia do not mean 'the unanimous manuscript tradition', but 'the

Eustathius On Iliad I-IV

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eustathius On Iliad I-IV

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eustathius On Iliad I-IV

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review: Eustathius on Iliad I-IV

M. VAN DER VALK: Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessa

library. The editor gives us details about Eust

edition and identify the afterthoughts added

THE GREEK SCHOLIA ON ILIAD V-IX

HARTMUT ERBSE: Scholia Graeca in Homeri Ili

You might also like