Homer's Use of Personal πολυ- Compounds

Author(s): W. B. Stanford
Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Apr., 1950), pp. 108-110
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/266437
Accessed: 21-09-2018 13:17 UTC

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 support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Classical Philology

This content downloaded from 137.204.24.180 on Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:17:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS

HOMER'S USE OF PERSONAL iroXv- COMPOUNDS

What follows is a limited study of the dis- discrepancy are platitudes: Homer was more
tribution of the iroXv- compounds, both adjec- interested in character than in possessions, and
tival and nounal, applied to named persons in the Odyssey is more "ethical" than the Iliad.
the Iliad and the Odyssey. It omits those that The more ethical compounds of iroXv- must
refer exclusively to places or to abstractions now be classified.
without any specific personal reference or to
A. APPLIED TO ODYSSEUS UNIQUELY
unknown persons singly or collectively. For
example, it excludes 7roivX)Xta-ros because the -caVos, -KEp8EIVJ, -KEp8's (VOOS), -
river-god in question has no name but includes a-os), -II2'xavos, -ruKpa, (adverbially), -rXcas
7-oXvacp-qTos because the child referred to is(but
ob-cf. -rX'Awv in B and -rX-qros applied hirac
viously Odysseus; it excludes roXv5a'Kpvos toap-unspecified -yipovrEcs)., -poiros.
plied only to ,uaX-q but includes its cognates inB. APPLIED TO ODYSSEUS AND OTHERS
-vs and -vros as used of Ares and Hector. The
-aptqros (O. + an unspecified OEos)
reason for this limitation to what I shall loose-
ly call "personal" or "ethical" terms (though
(Aivos of 0. + Achilles and the Trojans),
-i71irs (O. + Hephaistos), -7rEvPOs (O. + Pe-
7roXva7r-Ep's, for example, is omitted for lack
nelope and the halcyon), -7rXa-yKros (O. + pi-
of a specific personal reference) is that the in-
rates and the wind), -a-rovos (O. + Eris, the
quiry is subsidiary to a general study of the
woes of the Achaeans, and an arrow), -TXq'?1,uoCV
character of Odysseus. My lists are based on
(O. + Nestor: cf. -TXas in A), -45pwv (O. +
Cunliffe's Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect.
Hephaistos and nvEs).
It will be shown that Homer uses these
7ro\v- compounds with careful restrictions when C. APPLIED TO OTHERS UNIQUELY

they describe notable personal qualities. But -f3ovXos (Athene), -6alba8Xos (Sidonia
I find no similar care in his use of roXv- terms
well as sundry objets d'art), -t3paijq (E
denoting mere wealth. He uses only seven of
-WrqXaV& (Circe), -Av'ar'r-q (Penelope)
these with reference to named persons: -apvt (Telemachus: Menelaus is ov iroXvi,4vo
(Thyestes), -tirros (the Iliadic Mentor), -Kr?)- iii. 214), -7raiciraXos (Phoenicians), -o-K
,iwv and -XifCos (Amphios), -A-qXos (Iphiklos and(Myrine, whoever she was: II. ii. 814), -
Phorbas), -XaXKos and -Xpvaos (Dolon). (I de- (Phemios).
fer until later three applied to women, -&,pos,
D. APPLIED JOINTLY TO OTHERS BUT
-,uv'o--rr, and -4acp/,taKos,which imply more than
NOT TO ODYSSEUS
just conventional wealth.) Even a certain care-
lessness or lack of genuine interest in these -aKpvs -v-ros (Ares, Hector, and a
tions), -6wpos (Penelope and Andromache),
plutocratic terms may be argued. For Homer
squanders two pairs of them on minor charac- -u5pts (Eurycleia and Phoenicians), -qap/caKos
(Circe and Ll7TpOL).
ters. He does not think it worth while to give
one to any leading hero in either epic. He uses The following facts emerge:
none with specific personal reference in the a) Out of the twenty-nine "ethical" xroXv-
Odyssey, though epithets for places are fairly terms in Homer, eight are confined exclusively
equally divided between the two epics (allow- to Odysseus. No other Homeric figure gets
ing for the Catalogue), and the more ethical more than one exclusively.
terms, now to be considered, are slightly more b) Odysseus shares eight of these terms with
numerous in the Odyssey. The reasons for this others, namely, Hephaistos, Ares, Eris, an un-

108

This content downloaded from 137.204.24.180 on Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:17:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 109

specified god, Nestor, Achilles, the Trojans, A comparison with Homer's use of proper
Penelope, pirates, the halcyon, the wind, names in IIoXv- or IlovXv- supports a theory
Greek woes, and an arrow. In other words, that he may have restricted his use of personal
Odysseus is comparable with the gods in his 7roXv- terms deliberately. Fourteen suggest
intelligence, with Achilles in courage, with the ethical qualities: HoXvaL/iovLw5tbs ("Son of Much
aged Nestor in trials and experience, with his Skilled"), HovXv&ia,as (-va), -6EV'K7S (cf. a&ev-
wife in sorrow, with pirates and the halcyon in icK'S), -OEpoEt56nS (cf. OEpotrqs), - L50S -KaI&T?7,
his unhappiness and wanderings. His griefs -6&pOS (-q), -VEC?KS, -teLVOS, -1r7qOVu567S, -7rOLfT7S
may even be compared with those caused to all (?from 7rot-e&), -45eL1, -os,-r,-4 OvrrS.
the Achaeans by baneful Eris. The wind or an Several of these suggest distinctly Odysseus-
arrow are fitting symbols for his vicissitudes like traits, especially -Lbos, -7roLFrs, and -frqTs.
and for all the wounding woe that his name Many are doubtless traditional. But two con-
etymologically implies. None of these terms is fined to the Odyssey may well be ad hoc coin-
ineptly shared. ages. They are certainly very apt: HoXvwrquo-
c) The thirteen terms not applied to Odys- vL81s, the pseudonym given to Odysseus' father
seus refer to divinities or semidivinities in Od. xxiv. 305, well refers back to his true
(Athene, Ares, Circe), foreigners (Sidonians, grandfather, Autolycus, who was supremely
Phoenicians, and perhaps Myrine), members of "Much-mischievous" (Od. xix. 395-96) or
Odysseus' household (Telemachus, Penelope, "Much Involved in Woe" (Od. xix. 407) ;2 and
Eurycleia, Phemios), Hector, and Androm- IIoXv0EpoeCs, "Son of Much Boldness," ad-
ache. Specific women receive eight 7roXv- mirably suggests that the father of the insolent
terms; men, only three. Two are applied to Ctesippus was a kind of "Multi-Thersites." It
professional workers, i.e., the Ithacan bard and may be deduced that common usage before
Greek physicians at Troy. and in Homer's time used these personal roXv-
It is also noteworthy that, apart from terms widely and freely, while Homer, when he
Odysseus, only three heroes at Troy are given was not taking over traditional names, dras-
ethical 7roXv- epithets. Hector is uniquely and tically restricted their use to two highly sig-
appositely "much bewailed," a passive quality. nificant cases, both, as it happens, connected
Nestor in three generations merited a descrip- with Odysseus.
tion which Odysseus acquired in one-"much The distribution between the two epics has
enduring," again a passive attribute. Only already been discussed. There is nothing to in-
Achilles (with some unspecified Trojans) dicate disunity of authorship in this or any
shares an active 7roXv- epithet with Odysseus- other aspect of Homer's use of 7roXv- terms. It
"of much boldness." To be bracketed with is as one would expect when one finds that,
Nestor in experience and Achilles in courage among Odysseus' personal epithets, 7roXvKep&4lSI
was a supreme honor for Odysseus. But he, -K776rS, -7rXacyKTOS, -T?rX,uw/v, and -rpoiros are
for his own part, has fourteen 7roXv- termsconfined
un- to the Odyssey, while -auvos, -pTrLS,
shared by any other hero. Clearly, Homer did -,wMixavos, and -rXas are common in the Iliad.
not regard versatility' as typical of any hero Of the nouns, the political 7roXvKoLpavLf (with
except Odysseus. On the other hand, Odysseus no specific personal reference) occurs in th4e
shares this versatility almost exclusively with Iliad; the more ethical and individualistic
divinities, foreigners, women, and members of -t6PEt7t, -K6P6&&q, and -,u71xavit1, in the Odyssey
his own household, so far as named persons only.
are concerned. It is also noteworthy that Homer uses com-
paratively few compounds in rav-, and, of
1 Even when translated "much" in English, ,roXv-
terms, I think, almost always imply, especially in these, only ravabraXos, -a4rorTuos, -a4iXlt~, -aco-
active compounds, variety: thus Achilles was "bold pLOS, and -%utos approach an ethical signifi-
in various ways"; Nestor had "suffered variously"; cance. None of these is applied to a hero.
wroX(,auvos is more than &yaxXvrT6 or JpuKcb8r (assuming
that it does not rather mean "telling many a Priam and Astyanax monopolize the middle
tale"); and we flnd ise-y6visot but not *XbOvpUor. Homer's
2 Wilamowitz' conjecture HloXvrappovibils, "Much
only compound in rotc&xo- (-p'Wrs) is applied exclu- Possessing," would be less apposite for Autolycus,
sively and frequently to Odysseus. though otherwise attractive.

This content downloaded from 137.204.24.180 on Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:17:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 110 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS

three. The first refers to Athene's disguise as a
youth, the last to Irus the beggar. It is not
until the early fifth century that xrav- com-
pounds grow common. Why? Because, per-
haps, of Homer's superb sense of 4uqbE'v 65yav,
in contrast with the "whole-hoggery" of writ-
ers like Pindar and Aeschylus. Odysseus the
iroXvj,cxavos of Homer does not become urav-
odp-yos until Sophocles' time.3
TRINITY COLLEGE W. B. STANFORD
DUBLIN
3 Cf. myarticles on "The Denigratioin of Odysseus,"
Hermathena, LXXIII (May, 1949), 33-51, and LXXIV
(Nov., 1949), 41-56.

HPO2KHAH2, "MOURNFUL"

Editors, lexicographers, and translators of

faello da Volterra (1451-1522)3 wrote, instead,
Homer find no difficulty in the following pas-quidem charae [sic] hospitalita-
"principium
sage on Iphitus, except for one word:tis" ("the beginning of a precious friendship").
These interpretations gave way to "prin-
4 8' 'O8vo-ezs ti45Os O'l) Ka'L XKL/LO
cipiumf-XoS
hospitalitatis dolorosae," which I find
first in Andreas Divus of Capodistria (Venice,
apXW tELVOofV`S rpO-KbfOs- OUV8 Tpac'TE?p
1537; Paris, 1538). The same words appeared
7VCL@Tn7V cXX?1Xw-CA TpV zyap LtOs v6"s `re4weV
in the anonymous Basel edition of 1551 and
Iqcrop EvipvrI5rn' (Od. xxi. 34-37).
were accepted by Ob. Giphanius, Aemilius
Portus (whom Henricus Stephanus followed),
The nearest English equivalent of 1rpocTK5f8os
and Johannes
ought to be "devoted" (or, more loosely, "in- Spondanus-to mention schol-
timate, affectionate"), according to ars
the of extant
the sixteenth century only. Sebastianus
Greek definitions: Castalio's "principium hospitalitatis calami-
tosae" (Basel, 1561) amounts to the same
T7)s rTOLOVUo?1 Kq8eiOVLKUs EXELV )TpOs aXx?7-
thing. The only vernacular translation worth
Xovs (Sch. Vulg.).
quoting from that century is one in Castilian
Kr78E/.OVLKr1S 5Lclas. KrbovraL 'yap a9XX'XUw
by Gongalo Perez, which reads, "por principio
at OLXoL Ka' t'VOL (Sch. Ambr. B). doloroso / De la hospitalidad."4
Tro be rpooKr5f8os a9TL Tov) K7)8e,4ovLK7)s,
This meaning of -rpocTKIcb's was generally ac-
q5poVTLoTLKlSs, CbpovTL8or . EVcovTLov be r4 irpoc-
cepted until the eighteenth century, when it
Kr16fos ro vuoKr8f'os Kaic aiK7fos (Eustathius).
was reaffirmed by Joshua Barnes (Cambridge,
Eustathius in this case betrayed ignorance and1711) but censured as "minus recte" by Sam-
carelessness by making 5voKrl5's (Od. v. 466)uel Clarke (London, 1740), who, instead,
the opposite of 7rpO0Kq's and implying that itwrote "principium hospitii necessarii." Since
is a synonym of aKrc1rls (II. xxi. 123; xxiv. 554).then, 7rpovKS' has been almost unanimously
Most Renaissance scholars understood apx71vtaken to mean "cordial, loving, close." A few
tELVOoUV?-s 7rpoo-Kif8os differently.' Francescopoets have implied in their paraphrases that
Aretino, who translated the Odyssey aroundthey understood the word otherwise.5 And
1460,2 made it "reverendi hospitii initium";K. F. Ameis in his first edition (Leipzig, 1858)
"reverendi" almost equals "binding." Raf- explained it as "neue Sorgen schaffend"; but
by his third edition (1865), he had given this
l For a comprehensive record of Homeric studies up in favor of "eng verbunden, liebevoll."
see Georg Finsler, Homer in der Neuzeit (Leipzig,
1912). A few very early versions of the Odyssey, by 3 I have seen the Lyon edition of 1541.
Leonzio Pilato, Francesco Filelfo, and Pier Candido 4 The others may be omitted, as either too un-
Decembrio, have perished, or at any rate are now literal or else based not on the Greek but on a Latin
totally unobtainable. But others were printed several version already mentioned. Finsler does not mention
times and are represented in the Harvard College the work of Perez (La Ulixea de Homero [Venice,
Library (not to mention other places) by at least one 15621); Spain falls outside his ken.
edition. 5 William Cowper's revised translation (Boston,
2 Ibid., p. 29. I know his work from Gregorius 1814) has "ill-fated pledges both / Of hospitality";
1\Iaxillus' edition (Strassburg, 1510), which Finsler and . Ippolito Pindemonte (Florence, 1823) renders
identifies as a copy of it. it "d' una amist5 non lunga unico pegno."

This content downloaded from 137.204.24.180 on Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:17:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms