A Speech Without a Head

Erasmus, Adagia 1.1.14

“Ἀκέφαλος μῦθος, that is Speech without a head is said of imperfect and mangled speech. Plato, in book six of his Laws writes Οὔκουν δή που λέγων γε ἂν μῦθον ἀκέφαλον ἑκὼν καταλίποιμι· πλανώμενος γὰρ ἂν ἀπάντῃ τοιοῦτος ὢν ἄμορφος φαίνοιτο,  that is, ‘I would not, to be sure, happily abandon the speech without a head after I had begun speaking. Indeed, if a wanderer of such a sort ran into someone, he would seem ill-formed.’ Again, in his Gorgias, he writes Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ τοὺς μύθους φασὶ μεταξὺ θέμις εἶναι καταλείπειν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπιθέντας κεφαλήν, ἵνα μὴ ἄνευ κεφαλῆς περιΐῃ  that is, ‘but they say that it is not right to desert your speeches; rather, you must put a head on them, lest they stumble about without it.’ Perhaps he was alluding to that which Plutarch notes in his dialogue On Defective Oracles. Among the Cretans, there was a certain festival conducted with new-fangled and ridiculous ceremonies, when a statue of a man was shown without a head. They say that this was the father of Homerion, who raped a nymph and was found without a head. This proverb is related by Zenodotus.”

Image result for headless horseman

Ἀκέφαλος μῦθος, id est Sine capite sermo, dicitur imperfectus ac mutilus. Plato libro De legibus sexto : Οὔκουν δή που λέγων γε ἂν μῦθον ἀκέφαλον ἑκὼν καταλίποιμι· πλανώμενος γὰρ ἂν ἀπάντῃ τοιοῦτος ὢν ἄμορφος φαίνοιτο, id est Nequaquam profecto, postea quam dicendi parteis suscepi, sermonem absque capite libens reliquerim. Etenim si oberrans talis occurrat alicui, foedus videretur. Rursus in Gorgia : Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ τοὺς μύθους φασὶ μεταξὺ θέμις εἶναι καταλείπειν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπιθέντας κεφαλήν, ἵνα μὴ ἄνευ κεφαλῆς περιΐῃ, id est At ne sermones quidem interim aiunt fas esse deserere, quin potius imponendum illis caput, ne sine capite obambulent. Fortassis allusit ad id, quod refert Plutarchus in dialogo De defectis oraculis. Apud Cretenses festum quoddam novis et absurdis ceremoniis agebatur ostenso hominis simulachro sine capite. Hunc aiebant Homerioni patrem fuisse, qui constuprata per vim nympha sine capite fuerit repertus. Proverbium refertur a Zenodoto.

Odysseus, Older Brother

Od. 14.145-147

“But a longing for Odysseus who has gone wrecks me.
I am feel ashamed to name him, stranger, even though he is absent.
For he used to really care about me and take pains in his heart.
But I call him my older brother even though he is not here.”

ἀλλά μ’ ᾿Οδυσσῆος πόθος αἴνυται οἰχομένοιο.
τὸν μὲν ἐγών, ὦ ξεῖνε, καὶ οὐ παρεόντ’ ὀνομάζειν
αἰδέομαι· περὶ γάρ μ’ ἐφίλει καὶ κήδετο θυμῷ·
ἀλλά μιν ἠθεῖον καλέω καὶ νόσφιν ἐόντα.”

Translators who contend with this passage may struggle with it because it seems odd in English to say “I feel shame to name…” someone. In fact, I don’t think I would understand this passage at all (and I still might be wrong) if it were not for my wife’s language and culture (she speaks Tamil, a language from southern India). In many cultures, naming someone by their personal name is a sign of privilege; not naming them or using an honorific is a token of respect. In Tamil, for instance, there are different names for aunts and uncles depending on whether they are older or younger than your parents.

Outside of the family, as a sign of respect, one calls older men and women aunt and uncle (or grandfather and grandmother) and family friends or cousins of close age but still older “big sister” (akka) or big brother (anna).

The passage above hinges, I think, on some kind of a token of respect. Eumaios, the swineherd, is hesitant to speak Odysseus’ name and declares that he should call him êtheion. Most translators render this as “lord”, “sir”, “master”. But the scholia give a different answer.

Schol. BQHV ad Hom. Od. 14.147

BQ. “But I call him elder…” I do not call Odysseus ‘master’ but big brother because of his loving-care for me. For to êtheie is the address of a younger [brother] to an older.”

ἀλλά μιν ἠθεῖον καλέω] οὐ καλῶ αὐτὸν ᾿Οδυσσέα ἢ δεσπότην, ἀλλὰ ἀδελφὸν μείζονα διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἐμὲ φιλοστοργίαν. τὸ δὲ ἠθεῖε προσφώνησίς ἐστι νεωτέρου πρὸς μείζονα. B.Q.

H. “This is one part of the speech [?]. But it clearly means older brother”

ἓν μέρος λόγου ἐστί· δηλοῖ δὲ τὸν πρεσβύτερον ἀδελφόν. H.

êtheion: Older brother, really amazing.

ἠθεῖον, πρεσβύτερον ἀδελφὸν, θαυμαστὸν ἄγαν. V.

The sociolinguistic apparatus that conveys the full force of Eumaios’ feeling here is not fully present in English. But even just translating this as “brother” would make sense since, earlier, Eumaios claims that he would not even mourn his parents as much as he would Odysseus.

(This is a little disturbing from the perspective of how a slave defers to the master, but it works out even better for Eumaios’ view of his position in the ‘family’ since later he says that he was raised with Odysseus’ sister Ktimene).

Image result for ancient GReek vase odysseus and eumaeus

Harmless, Useless Sophistry

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers  [Chrysippus] 7.7

“If someone is in Megara he is not in Athens. If a body is in Megara there is nobody in Athens. If you say something, then something moves through your mouth. So, you say “wagon”. And then a wagon moves through your mouth. Also, if you did not lose anything, then you have it. You never lost horns, so you have horns.” Some say Euboulides said this.”

“εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἐν Μεγάροις, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν Ἀθήναις· ἄνθρωπος δ᾿ ἐστὶν ἐν Μεγάροις· οὐκ ἄρ᾿ ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν Ἀθήναις.” καὶ πάλιν· “εἴ τι λαλεῖς, τοῦτο διὰ τοῦ στόματός σου διέρχεται· ἅμαξαν δὲ λαλεῖς· ἅμαξα ἄρα διὰ τοῦ στόματός σου διέρχεται.” καί· “εἴ τι οὐκ ἀπέβαλες, τοῦτ᾿ ἔχεις· κέρατα δ᾿ οὐκ ἀπέβαλες· κέρατ᾿ ἄρ᾿ ἔχεις.” οἱ δ᾿ Εὐβουλίδου τοῦτό φασι.

Seneca, Moral Epistle 45.8

“Again, the one who is asked whether he has horns is not so foolish as to search his own brow nor also so incompetent or limited that you may persuade him that he doesn’t know this with that most sophisticated logic. These kinds of things deceive without harm in the same way as the dice and cup of a juggler in which the deception itself entertains me. But explain how the trick works, and I lose my interest. I say that same thing about these word tricks, for by what name might I better call sophistries? They are harmless if you don’t understand them, and useless if you do.”

Ceterum qui interrogatur, an cornua habeat, non est tam stultus, ut frontem suam temptet, nec rursus tam ineptus aut hebes, ut ne sciat tu illi subtilissima collectione persuaseris. Sic ista sine noxa decipiunt, quomodo praestigiatorum acetabula et calculi, in quibus me fallacia ipsa delectat. Effice, ut quomodo fiat intellegam; perdidi usum. Idem de istis captionibus dico; quo enim nomine potius sophismata appellem? Nec ignoranti nocent nec scientem iuvant.

Image result for Ancient Roman Philosophy paradox
Bronze head of a Philosopher from a shipwreck near Antikythera

The Enemy of My Enemy etc. etc.

Erasmus, Adagia 1.1.11 – ‘Syncretism’

“‘Syncretism’ used to be used as a Cretan proverb in cases when those who seemed to be the bitterest enemies were unexpectedly driven back into the greatest concord. This used to happen often, especially when some common misfortune befell both parties. Plutarch, in his commentary On Brotherly Love, reviews and simultaneously explains the proverb with these words:  Ἔτι τοίνυν ἐκεῖνο δεῖ μνημονεύειν ἐν ταῖς πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς διαφοραῖς καὶ φυλάττειν, τὸ τοῖς φίλοις αὐτῶν ὁμιλεῖν καὶ πλησιάζειν τότε μάλιστα, φεύγειν δὲ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ μὴ προσδέχεσθαι, μιμούμενον αὐτὸ γοῦν τοῦτο τὸ Κρητῶν, οἳ πολλάκις στασιάζοντες ἀλλήλοις καὶ πολεμοῦτες ἔξωθεν ἐπιόντων πολεμίων διελύοντο καὶ συνίσταντο· καὶ τοῦτο ἦν ὁ καλούμενος ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν συγκρητισμός that is, It will also be proper to remember and to take care when brothers are arguing among themselves , that you may have at the same time familiarity and intimacy with their friends, but flee their enemies and not admit them to your friendship. Clearly, he is following the example of the Cretans who, though they fought frequently experienced factional strife and civil wars among themselves, would always abandon their hostility and join together when enemies invaded from elsewhere. This is what they used to call ‘syncretism’. So says Plutarch.

Quintus Curtius mentions something similar about the Sudracae and the Malli in the ninth book of his history of Alexander. He says that though they were otherwise accustomed to wage war against each other regularly, they had joined themselves together when Alexander at the approach of Alexander. We can also adduce the authority of Aristotle, Συνάγει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τὰ κακά, that is, Bad circumstances bring people together.

This adage will also be rightly applied to those who enter friendship not because they esteem each other personally, but because one needs the help of the other, or because they hope to overcome a common enemy by joining forces. We see this happen often in these times, that some peoples who bear the utmost hostility to each other will form a military alliance. So great is the frenzy for revenge even among Christians. This is also related by the Byzantine writer Apostolius, the most recent compiler of proverbs among the Greeks.”

Image result for crete ancient map

Συγκρητισμός Cretico proverbio dicebatur, quoties fieret, ut qui modo videbantur hostes acerrimi, repente in summam concordiam redigerentur. Id quod frequenter evenire solet, maxime si quando malum aliquod inciderit utriusque commune. Plutarchus in commentario Περὶ φιλαδελφίας, id est De fraterna caritate, recenset simulque explicat paroemiam his verbis : Ἔτι τοίνυν ἐκεῖνο δεῖ μνημονεύειν ἐν ταῖς πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς διαφοραῖς καὶ φυλάττειν, τὸ τοῖς φίλοις αὐτῶν ὁμιλεῖν καὶ πλησιάζειν τότε μάλιστα, φεύγειν δὲ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ μὴ προσδέχεσθαι, μιμούμενον αὐτὸ γοῦν τοῦτο τὸ Κρητῶν, οἳ πολλάκις στασιάζοντες ἀλλήλοις καὶ πολεμοῦτες ἔξωθεν ἐπιόντων πολεμίων διελύοντο καὶ συνίσταντο· καὶ τοῦτο ἦν ὁ καλούμενος ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν συγκρητισμός, id est Praeterea oportebit et illud meminisse fratribus inter se dissidentibus observareque, ut potissimum eo tempore consuetudinem habeas et convictum cum illorum amicis. Rursum, inimicos fugias neque admittas ad familiaritatem, illud videlicet Cretensium exemplum secutus qui frequenter, cum factionibus et bellis intestinis inter sese pugnarent, invadentibus aliunde hostibus omissa contentione conjuncti sunt. Atque is erat, quem illi syncretismum appellabant. Hactenus Plutarchus. Simile quiddam refert de Sudracis et Mallis Quintus Curtius libro nono, quos alias bellare inter se solitos, periculi societas junxerat imminente Alexandro. Pertinet huc, quod alias ex Aristotele referemus : Συνάγει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τὰ κακά, id est Conciliant homines mala. Adagium recte accommodabitur et in illos qui amicitiam ineunt, non quod sese ex animo diligant, sed quod alter alterius opis egeat aut quo veluti conjunctis copiis communem inimicum pessundent. Id quod his temporibus saepenumero factitari videmus, ut arma jungant alioqui inter se infensissimis animis. Tanta inest et Christianis hominibus ulciscendi rabies. Refertur et ab Apostolio quodam Byzantino, recentissimo apud Graecos proverbiorum coacervatore.

Thunderous-Mouth-Milling and Petty-Bragging: Some Words for a Thursday

The Suda has the following anecdote which seems to be taken and altered from Diogenes Laertius or something similar.

“thunderous-mouth-milling”: Eubulides says this “the eristic, asking his horn questions and discombobulating the orators with his falsely-intellectual arguments, taking with him the “thunderous-mouth-milling” of Demosthenes.

Ῥομβοστωμυλήθρα: Εὐβουλίδης φησίν: οὑριστικὸς κερατίνας ἐρωτῶν καὶ ψευδαλαζόσιν λόγοις τοὺς ῥήτορας κυλίων ἀπῆλθ’, ἔχων Δημοσθένους τὴν ῥομβοστωμυλήθραν.

ῥομβοστωμυλήθρη (lit. “thunderous-mouth-milling” (?) seems to be a misunderstanding or humorous take on ῥωποπερπερήθρη, usually translated as “braggadocio” but is more like “cheap/petty bragging”
From Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers 2.10

“The eristic Euboulides, asking questions about horns
And discombobulating the speakers with his falsely-intellectual arguments
Has gone off, taking the petty self regard of Demosthenes with him

For it seems that Demosthenes was a student of Eubulides and was able to stop his problems with the letter ‘r’ because of it. Eubulides was also in conflict with Aristotle and undermined him a lot.

οὑριστικὸς δ᾿ Εὐβουλίδης κερατίνας ἐρωτῶν
καὶ ψευδαλαζόσιν λόγοις τοὺς ῥήτορας κυλίων
ἀπῆλθ᾿ ἔχων Δημοσθένους τὴν ῥωποπερπερήθραν.

ἐῴκει γὰρ αὐτοῦ καὶ Δημοσθένης ἀκηκοέναι καὶ ῥωβικώτερος ὢν παύσασθαι. ὁ δ᾿ Εὐβουλίδης καὶ πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλην διεφέρετο, καὶ πολλὰ αὐτὸν διαβέβληκε.

Eubulides is now known for some interesting paradoxes.

Image result for ancient greek eubulides
Demosthenes, no longer thunderous-mouth-milling.

Odysseus, Ancient Athlete Enraged

Homer, Odyssey 8.165–185

Euryalus (a Phaeacian youth) has just claimed that Odysseus looks more like a pirate than an athlete.

Very-clever Odysseus glared at him and then answered in response

“Friend, you don’t speak well. You’re like a reckless man.
The gods don’t give good things to people at once in this way–
Not in form or brains or in ability to speak.
For one man is not exceptional in looks
But a god crowns his form with words. People delight
As they see him, and he speaks without hesitation in public,
With sweet reverence, and is conspicuous among those assembled,
And they gaze upon him like a god when he goes through the city.

Another is equal to the immortals in his appearance
But no charm sits well upon his words—
Just so, your shape is excellent, not even a god
Could make it differently. But your mind is limited [apophôlios].
You have raised the spirit in my dear chest
By speaking against what is right. I am no novice in sports,
As you at least claim, but I think I was among the best
When I could trust my youth and my hands.
But now I am overcome by evil and pains. I have endured much
Surviving the wars of men and the harrowing waves.
But, even so, after suffering much, I will play your games.
Your speech gnaws at my heart: you have pissed me off by speaking.”

τὸν δ’ ἄρ’ ὑπόδρα ἰδὼν προσέφη πολύμητις ᾿Οδυσσεύς·
“ξεῖν’, οὐ καλὸν ἔειπες· ἀτασθάλῳ ἀνδρὶ ἔοικας.
οὕτως οὐ πάντεσσι θεοὶ χαρίεντα διδοῦσιν
ἀνδράσιν, οὔτε φυὴν οὔτ’ ἂρ φρένας οὔτ’ ἀγορητύν.
ἄλλος μὲν γὰρ εἶδος ἀκιδνότερος πέλει ἀνήρ,
ἀλλὰ θεὸς μορφὴν ἔπεσι στέφει· οἱ δέ τ’ ἐς αὐτὸν
τερπόμενοι λεύσσουσιν, ὁ δ’ ἀσφαλέως ἀγορεύει,
αἰδοῖ μειλιχίῃ, μετὰ δὲ πρέπει ἀγρομένοισιν,
ἐρχόμενον δ’ ἀνὰ ἄστυ θεὸν ὣς εἰσορόωσιν.
ἄλλος δ’ αὖ εἶδος μὲν ἀλίγκιος ἀθανάτοισιν,
ἀλλ’ οὔ οἱ χάρις ἀμφὶ περιστέφεται ἐπέεσσιν,
ὡς καὶ σοὶ εἶδος μὲν ἀριπρεπές, οὐδέ κεν ἄλλως
οὐδὲ θεὸς τεύξειε, νόον δ’ ἀποφώλιός ἐσσι.
ὤρινάς μοι θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι φίλοισιν
εἰπὼν οὐ κατὰ κόσμον· ἐγὼ δ’ οὐ νῆϊς ἀέθλων,
ὡς σύ γε μυθεῖαι, ἀλλ’ ἐν πρώτοισιν ὀΐω
ἔμμεναι, ὄφρ’ ἥβῃ τε πεποίθεα χερσί τ’ ἐμῇσι.
νῦν δ’ ἔχομαι κακότητι καὶ ἄλγεσι· πολλὰ γὰρ ἔτλην,
ἀνδρῶν τε πτολέμους ἀλεγεινά τε κύματα πείρων.
ἀλλὰ καὶ ὧς, κακὰ πολλὰ παθών, πειρήσομ’ ἀέθλων·
θυμοδακὴς γὰρ μῦθος· ἐπώτρυνας δέ με εἰπών.”

 

Schol. QT ad Od. 8.166 ex

 “it is the Homeric custom to get a sense of the manner and character of someone you meet from their words. [This occurs elsewhere] for Telemachus: “you are of good blood, dear child, based on the way you think.” This is because he believe that being well-born and educated necessarily go together and he says everything appropriately. But Odysseus, for he did not maintain strongly that he is reckless, but says that he is like someone who is, because of his response and what he said.”

ξεῖν’, οὐ καλὸν ἔειπες] ἔθος ἐστὶν ῾Ομηρικὸν ἐκ τῶν λόγων χαρακτηρίζεσθαι καὶ τὸν τρόπον τοῦ ἐντυγχάνοντος. καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις περὶ τοῦ Τηλεμάχου “αἵματος εἶς ἀγαθοῖο, φίλον τέκος, οἷ’ ἀγορεύεις” (δ, 611.)· οἰόμενος τὸν εὐγενῆ καὶ πεπαιδευμένον ἀναγκαίως ὁμιλεῖν, πρεπόντως δὲ πάντα λέγειν. ᾿Οδυσσεὺς δὲ, οὐ γὰρ διεβεβαιώσατο τὸ ἀτάσθαλον αὐτὸν εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἐοικέναι φησὶ τούτῳ διὰ τὸ
ἀντειπεῖν καὶ εἰρηκέναι. Q.T.

Schol. E ad Od. 8.177 ex 11-14

“Apophôlios properly means one who is not worthy of being included in the number of men, for they lack words and deeds at the right time. They call the primary schools phôleus. The one who has not frequented schools is called un-schooled.”

καὶ ἔστι κυρίως ἀποφώλιος ὁ μὴ ἄξιος συναριθμεῖσθαι ἀνδρῶν ὁλότητι ἐν φωτὶ, ἤγουν ἐν καιρῷ ἔργων ἢ λόγων δεομένῳ. φωλεοὺς λέγουσι τὰ παιδευτήρια. ὁ γοῦν μὴ φοιτῶν εἰς τὰ παιδευτήρια λέγεται ἀποφώλιος. E.

Image result for Ancient Greek vase Odysseus

That’s Nothing Compared to Parmenon’s Pig!

Erasmus, Adagia 1.1.10

Nothing to the Pig of Parmenon

Οὐδὲν πρὸς τὴν Παρμένοντος ὗν, that is, Nothing to the Pig of Parmenon. This was said of emulation which falls far short of the original which it imitates. Plutarch, in his Symposiacs, in the second problem of the fifth decade, gives roughly this explanation concerning the origin of this adage: There once was a certain Parmenon of that type of people who even in our times imitate and represent the various sounds of animals and humans so skillfully that they appear to listeners (not to those who see them) to be real and not imitation sounds. There are also those whom this art delights beyond reasonable measure. Therefore, on account of this art, Parmenon is reputed to have been most pleasing to and celebrated by the common people. Some other people tried to imitate him, straightaway everyone was saying, Εὖ μέν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲν πρὸς τὴν Παρμένοντος ὗν, that is, Very good, but that is nothing compared to Parmenon’s pig, when someone came forth carrying a real pig beneath his arms. Since the people thought that its sound was an imitation, they shouted back (as they are used to), Τί οὖν αὕτη πρὸς τὴν Παρμένοντος, that is, What is that to Parmenon’s pig? When the true pig was brought forth, it immediately discredited their judgment, which was derived from their imagination rather than the true state of affairs. Plutarch also mentions this in his commentary On Listening to the Poets. We do not use this saying unseasonably whenever someone, deceived in his opinion about some matter, judges it incorrectly, as when someone admires an unpolished epigram written in the modern style because he is persuaded that it is actually ancient; alternatively, as when one reads an ancient and polished work and condemns it as modern. This flight of the imagination has such power that it even imposes itself upon the judgments of the most learned.

Image result for pig ancient greek

 Nihil ad Parmenonis suem. x

Οὐδὲν πρὸς τὴν Παρμένοντος ὗν, id est Nihil ad Parmenonis suem. De aemulatione dictum, quae longo intervallo abesset ab eo quod imitaretur. Plutarchus in Symposiacis, quintae decadis secundo problemate, quo pacto natum sit adagium narrat ad hanc ferme sententiam : Parmenon quispiam fuit ex hominum eorum genere, qui nostris etiam temporibus varias animantium et hominum voces ita scite imitantur ac repraesentant, ut audientibus tantum, non etiam videntibus verae, non imitatae voces videantur. Neque desunt quos hoc artificium majorem in modum delectet. Parmenon igitur hac arte vulgo ut jucundissimus ita etiam celeberrimus fuisse perhibetur; quem cum reliqui conarentur aemulari ac protinus ab omnibus diceretur illud : Εὖ μέν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲν πρὸς τὴν Παρμένοντος ὗν, hoc est Recte quidem, verum nihil ad Parmenonis suem, quidam prodiit veram suculam sub alis occultatam gestans. Hujus vocem cum populus imitaticiam esse crederet statimque, sicut solent, reclamarent : Τί οὖν αὕτη πρὸς τὴν Παρμένοντος; id est Quid haec ad Parmenonis suem ? vera sue deprompta ac propalam ostensa refellit illorum iudicium, utpote non ex vero sed ex imaginatione profectum. Meminit idem Parmenonis ac suis adumbratae in commentariis De audiendis poetis. Nec intempestiviter utemur hoc adagio, quoties aliquis opinione deceptus de re perperam judicat. Veluti si quis epigramma parum eruditum ac neotericum supra modum admiraretur persuasus antiquum esse. Rursum, si quod antiquum esset et eruditum, ceu nuperum damnaret. Tantum enim valet haec imaginatio, ut eruditissimis etiam viris in judicando imponat.

Fish-Eaters, Meat-Eaters and Bread: A Strange Scholion and Dehumanizing Structures in the Odyssey

Homer, Odyssey 8.221-222

“I say that I am much better than the rest,
However so many mortals now eat bread on the earth.”

τῶν δ’ ἄλλων ἐμέ φημι πολὺ προφερέστερον εἶναι,
ὅσσοι νῦν βροτοί εἰσιν ἐπὶ χθονὶ σῖτον ἔδοντες.

Schol. B ad Od. 8.222 ex

“Who eat bread…” He says this because there are some races who don’t eat bread. Indeed, some are called locust eaters and fish-easters, like the Skythian race and the Massagetae are called meat-eaters. Some of the locust-eaters, after seeing bread, used to believe it was shit.”

σῖτον ἔδοντες] εἶπε τοῦτο διά τινα γένη, οἵτινες οὐκ ἤσθιον σῖτον. διὸ καὶ ἀκριδοφάγοι τινὲς καὶ ἰχθυοφάγοι ἐκαλοῦντο, ὡς καὶ τὸ Σκυθικὸν καὶ Μασσαγετικὸν κρεοφάγοι καλοῦνται. τινὲς γὰρ τῶν ἀκριδοφάγων ἰδόντες ἄρτον κόπρον εἶναι ἐνόμιζον. B.

Eusth. Comm. I Ad Hom. Od. 1.293

“Those who eat grain/bread.” This is perhaps said regarding the difference of other mortals who are not these kind of people—the kind of sort the story claims that the long-lived Aethiopians are too. These people, after they saw bread, compared it to shit. There were also those who lived from eating locusts and others who lived off fish. For this reason they are called locust-eaters and fish eaters. The Skythian race and the Masssegetic people who live primarily off meat do not wish to eat grain.”

Τὸ δὲ σῖτον ἔδοντες, πρὸς διαστολὴν ἴσως ἐῤῥέθη ἑτέρων βροτῶν μὴ τοιούτων. ὁποίους καὶ τοὺς μακροβίους Αἰθίοπας ἡ ἱστορία φησίν. οἳ ἄρτον ἰδόντες κόπρῳ αὐτὸν εἴκασαν. ἦσαν δὲ καὶ οἱ ἐξ ἀκρίδων ζῶντες καὶ οἱ ἐξ ἰχθύων. οἳ καὶ ἀκριδοφάγοι διατοῦτο καὶ ἰχθυοφάγοι ἐκαλοῦντο. τὸ δὲ Σκυθικὸν φῦλον καὶ τὸ Μασσαγετικὸν κρέασι διοικονομούμενον οὐδ’ αὐτὸ ἐθέλει σιτοφαγεῖν.

Strabo, Geographica 16.4.12

“In a close land to [the Aethiopians] are people darker-skinned than the rest and shorter and the shortest-lived, the locust-eaters. They rarely see more than forty years because their flesh is rife with parasites. They live on locusts who arrive in the spring carried by the strong winds that blow into these places. After throwing burning logs into trenches and kindling them a little, they overshadow the locusts with smoke and they call. They pound them together with salt and use them as cakes for their food.”

Πλησιόχωροι δὲ τούτοις εἰσὶ μελανώτεροί τε τῶν ἄλλων καὶ βραχύτεροι καὶ βραχυβιώτατοι ἀκριδοφάγοι· τὰ γὰρ τετταράκοντα ἔτη σπανίως ὑπερτιθέασιν, ἀπο-
θηριουμένης αὐτῶν τῆς σαρκός· ζῶσι δ’ ἀπὸ ἀκρίδων, ἃς οἱ ἐαρινοὶ λίβες καὶ ζέφυροι πνέοντες μεγάλοι συνελαύνουσιν εἰς τοὺς τόπους τούτους· ἐν ταῖς χα-ράδραις δὲ ἐμβαλόντες ὕλην καπνώδη καὶ ὑφάψαντες μικρὸν … ὑπερπετάμεναι γὰρ τὸν καπνὸν σκοτοῦνται καὶ πίπτουσι· συγκόψαντες δ’ αὐτὰς μεθ’ ἁλμυρίδος μάζας ποιοῦνται καὶ χρῶνται.

Strabo’s passage is, from a modern perspective, fairly racist (and more so even than the Eustathius). I don’t believe that the Odyssey’s formulaic line carries the same force, however. For Homer, people who eat bread are those who cultivate the earth and have to work (they don’t live easy lives like the gods). People who don’t eat the fruit of the earth are marauders and monsters.

The Odyssey’s ethnographic frame develops structures that insist to be fully human, one must (1) live in a city and (2) have recognizable laws and institutions, and (3) cultivate the earth. Creatures who don’t do these things are marginalized and dehumanized either through their behavior (the suitors and sailors) or through actual deformity (the Cyclopes, Kikones, and, well, pretty much most of the women in the poem). So, while the epic itself is not clearly racist in the modern sense, it supplies and deploys frameworks by which other human beings may be marginalized and dehumanized.

Image result for Ancient Vase Odyssey odysseus

What Games Are the Phaeacians Good At?

Homer Odyssey 8.97-103

“Hear me, leaders and chiefs of the Phaeacians.
We have already sated our desire for the righteous feast
And the lyre which is the companion to a bountiful meal.
Now, let us go out and test ourselves at every kind of competition
So that this stranger may tell his friends once he gets home
How much we are better than the rest at boxing
And wrestling, and jumping and running.”

“κέκλυτε, Φαιήκων ἡγήτορες ἠδὲ μέδοντες·
ἤδη μὲν δαιτὸς κεκορήμεθα θυμὸν ἐΐσης
φόρμιγγός θ’, ἣ δαιτὶ συνήορός ἐστι θαλείῃ·
νῦν δ’ ἐξέλθωμεν καὶ ἀέθλων πειρηθῶμεν
πάντων, ὥς χ’ ὁ ξεῖνος ἐνίσπῃ οἷσι φίλοισιν
οἴκαδε νοστήσας, ὅσσον περιγινόμεθ’ ἄλλων
πύξ τε παλαιμοσύνῃ τε καὶ ἅλμασιν ἠδὲ πόδεσσιν.”

Schol. EQ ad 8.100 ex 6 asks

[now, let us go out..]“Why were the Phaeacians after dinner competing in the field competition, the race and the double race, and not any other sport? For these are wholly the activities of leisurely people. Perhaps because it was necessary to make this suitable to their character, since the poetry is imitation [mimesis], [the poet] composed it thus. For they say “the feast and the cithara and dances are always dear to us”

νῦν δ’ ἐξέλθωμεν] διὰ τί οἱ Φαίακες εὐωχηθέντες ἠγωνίζοντο γυμνικὸν ἀγῶνα, δρόμον καὶ δίαυλον καὶ οὐ τὴν ἄλλην ἄθλησιν; παντελῶς γὰρ ἀπόνων ἀνθρώπων ταῦτα. ἴσως δὲ, ἁρμόττον τοῖς ἤθεσι δέον ποιεῖν, ἐπειδὴ μίμησις ἡ ποίησις, οὕτω πεποίηκεν. ὅτι δὲ τοιοῦ-τοι δῆλον. ἔφασαν γὰρ “ἀεὶ δ’ ἡμῖν δαίς τε φίλη κίθαρίς τε χοροί τε” (248.).

Schol. HQ ad Od. 8.102 ex

And how does he say later “For we are not preeminent at boxing or wrestling”? Certainly, in however much they are inexperienced with Odysseus, they believe they all surpass him  in these games when in the actual performance once he speaks of himself himself, Odysseus boasted about the rest of the competitions, begging out only in the race and responding to the praise of Alkinoos when he said “but we run swiftly with our feet and are best at ships…” (247)

καὶ πῶς φησιν “οὐ γὰρ πυγμάχοι εἰμὲν ἀμύμονες οὐδὲ παλαισταί” (246.); ἐν ὅσῳ τοίνυν ἄπειροί εἰσιν ᾿Οδυσσέως οἴονται νικᾶν ἅπαντας ἐν τούτοις, ὅτε δὲ τῇ πείρᾳ δείξας ἑαυτὸν ᾿Οδυσσεὺς ἐκαυχήσατο περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἄθλων μόνον παραιτησάμενος τὸν δρόμον, ἀντιμεταλαβὼν τὰ ἐγκώμια ᾿Αλκίνους φησὶν “ἀλλὰ ποσὶ κραιπνῶς θέομεν καὶ νηυσὶν ἄριστοι, ἀεὶ δ’ ἡμῖν δαίς τε φίλη, εἵματά τ’ ἐξημοιβά” (247—249.).

 

Image result for Ancient Greek running vase
A vase from the Getty Museum

Throwing ‘Shades’

Erasmus, Adagia 1.1.9: Umbrae

“Σκιαί, that is, Shadows, once used to be said as a proverbial joke about those who came to a party to which they were not invited, but had followed their friends who had been invited just as a shadow follows a body. Horace alluded to this saying in the first book of his Epistles, writing to Torquatus:

‘I will take Bruta, Septimius, and – unless some earlier dinner or a finer girl detains him – Sabinus; there is even a spot for many shadows, but stinking goats oppress excessively tight parties.’

In this spot, Acron makes no mention of the proverb, I think, because he would rather pass over a thing bandied about or well-known to the common mob. Christopher Landinus, a man learned in other respects, interprets ‘shadows’ as spots in the country covered with shadows, in which party guests can conveniently lie down. Further, he interprets ‘goats’ as snappish clowns. Finally, he explains ‘say what number you would like it to be’ in this way: ‘Write back of what pecuniary condition you would like the guests to be. For if you desire guests more worthy than you, you will be the last; if you desire inferior guests, you will be the first.’ I would not have recorded all of this, if it were not the proper to show what sort of delirious nonsense the ignorance of even one proverb can sometimes drive an educated man.

The sense of the Horatian poem is this. He advises Torquatus to come to the dinner accompanied by only a few men, namely Bruta, Septimius, and Sabinus, not because there would be a deficiency of places to recline, but because there would be some inconvenience from the stench of their armpits if they sat too close. Then, if he would like there to be more shadows, that is companions, he should forewarn himself about the number, lest he be unprepared to respond. Therefore, he calls Bruta, Septimius, and Sabinus the shades of Torquatus if they should come not because they had been invited by Horace, but simply as companions of Torquatus, whom Horace had actually invited. Similarly, we find elsewhere:

‘Vibidius with Servilius Balatro, the shades which Maecenas had brought out…’

that is, his voluntary companions. Plutarch, in the seventh book of his Symposiacs, explains what shadows are with these words:

Τὸ δὲ τῶν ἐπικλήτων ἔθος, οὓς νῦν σκιὰς καλοῦσιν, οὐ κεκλημένους αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπὸ τῶν κεκλημένων ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον ἀγομένους, ἐζητεῖτο πόθεν ἔσχε τὴν ἀρχήν· ἐδόκει δὲ ἀπὸ Σωκράτους, Ἀριστόδημον ἀναπείσαντος οὐ κεκλημένον εἰς Ἀγάθωνος ἰέναι σὺν αὐτῷ καὶ παθόντα τι γελοῖον· ἔλαθε γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὑπολειφθεὶς ὁ Σωκράτης, ὁ δὲ προεισῆλθεν, ἀτεχνῶς σκιὰ προβαδίζουσα σώματος ἐξόπισθεν τὸ φὼς ἔχοντος, that is

 ‘It has been asked where the habit arose of bringing to a party companions (whom they now call shadows) who were not actually invited or who were brought along by others who had been invited. They say that it started with Socrates, who persuaded Aristodemus to accompany him to Agathon’s party, those he had not been invited. Something ridiculous happened to Aristodemus, since indeed, he did not sense that Socrates had fallen behind, and entered first, obviously just as a shadow preceding its body as the light follows from the back.’

Thus says Plutarch. This story about Socrates and Aristodemus is, however, found in Plato’s dialogue The Symposium.”

Image result for ancient greek symposium

Umbrae.ix

Σκιαί, id est Umbrae, proverbiali joco dicebantur olim ii, qui venirent ad conuiuium non ipsi quidem vocati, sed comites eorum qui vocati fuerant, sic illos sequentes velut umbra corpus ultro sequitur. Ad hanc paroemiam allusit Horatius Epistolarum libro primo scribens ad Torquatum :

Brutam tibi Septimiumque,

Et nisi coena prior potiorque puella Sabinum

Detinet, ad summam, locus est et pluribus umbris,

Sed nimis arcta premunt olidae convivia caprae.

Hoc loco neque Acron proverbii facit mentionem, opinor, quod rem vulgo jactatam ceu notam praeterierit. Christophorus Landinus, vir alioqui doctus, umbras interpretatur loca in rure operta umbris, in quibus commode discumbant convivae. Praeterea capras interpretatur scurras mordaces. Postremo : Dic quotus esse velis, ad hunc exponit modum : Rescribe, cujus fortunae homines tibi convivas adhibeam. Nam si cupis digniore te, eris postremus, si inferiores, eris primus. Haec non fueram adscripturus, nisi conduceret ostendisse in quae deliramenta virum eruditum adigat nonnunquam unius proverbiali ignorantia. Sensus autem Horatiani carminis sic habet. Admonet Torquatum, ut ad coenam veniat paucis comitatus, videlicet Bruta, Septimio et Sabino, non quod sit defuturus in accubitu locus, si velit plures umbras secum adducere, verum id futurum incommodi, ut alarum odor convivii suavitatem, si angustius sedeatur. Deinde si velit omnino plures umbras, id est comites, praemoneat se de numero, ne non respondeat apparatus. Brutam itaque, Septimium et Sabinum umbras Torquati vocat, si veniant non ipsi quidem inuitati, sed a Torquato, quem vocarat Horatius, ceu comites adducti. Item alibi :

Cum Servilio Balatrone

Vibidius, quos Mecoenas adduxerat umbras,

id est ultroneos comites. Plutarchus Συμποσιακῶν libro septimo, quid sint umbrae narrat his verbis : Τὸ δὲ τῶν ἐπικλήτων ἔθος, οὓς νῦν σκιὰς καλοῦσιν, οὐ κεκλημένους αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπὸ τῶν κεκλημένων ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον ἀγομένους, ἐζητεῖτο πόθεν ἔσχε τὴν ἀρχήν· ἐδόκει δὲ ἀπὸ Σωκράτους, Ἀριστόδημον ἀναπείσαντος οὐ κεκλημένον εἰς Ἀγάθωνος ἰέναι σὺν αὐτῷ καὶ παθόντα τι γελοῖον· ἔλαθε γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὑπολειφθεὶς ὁ Σωκράτης, ὁ δὲ προεισῆλθεν, ἀτεχνῶς σκιὰ προβαδίζουσα σώματος ἐξόπισθεν τὸ φὼς ἔχοντος, id est, Mos autem adducendi comites, quos nunc umbras appellant, non ipsos quidem vocatos, sed ab aliis qui vocati fuerant ad convivium adductos, quaesitum est, undenam inoleverit. Existimabant natum a Socrate, qui Aristodemo persuaserit, ut non vocatus secum ad Agathonis convivium accederet. Acciderat enim Aristodemo ridiculum quiddam. Siquidem cum inter eundum non sentiret Socratem a tergo relictum, prior ingressus est, plane velut umbra corpus praecedens lumine a tergo sequente. Hactenus Plutarchus. Est autem haec de Socrate et Aristodemo fabula apud Platonem in dialogo, cui titulus Συμπόσιον.