As my project on Demetrios is concerned I mainly thought about pictures as illustrations within the commentary written for each fragment. The previous posts are written from this point of view. There are however at least two extremely convincing examples using pictures at another stage of a scholarly work, more precisely at the very first stage of an edition.
I have just been told by the publisher of my PhD thesis that it has been published today. I am happy about the idea to have soon the BOOK in my own hands!
Many interesting details can be gathered about Demetrios’ hometown and it is surprisingly often mentioned in connection with outstanding scholars.
Most famously there is Neleus of Skepsis, pupil of Aristotle and Theophrastus. According to Strabo’s famous passage (13.1.54), he inherited the library of Aristotle and took it to Skepsis. A first (rather naive) question comes to one’s mind: Why did Neleus want to take the Library to Skepsis? Well, it is his hometown (as it is the hometown of Demetrios). But a second well-known details about the story is striking. Why did Neleus’ heirs want to hide Aristotle’s library from Pergamon? Why were the Skepsian not simply proud of helping the Library of Pergamon to become a rival to Alexandria? According to Strabo Skepsis was subject to the Attalic Kings then. Could this then be explained by some local pride, some claim, let’s say, for an own center of scholarship?
Further, our geographer and antiquarian is also a native of Skepsis and his work on the Trojan Catalogue was considered as a monumental contribution to Homeric scholarship even in Antiquity. It is also often quoted because he gives a very independent version or explanation of an Homeric problem. Most famous is, of course, his claim that Skepsis was the royal residence of Aeneias, who never left the Troad, and his own son Ascanius as well as Hector’s son Scamandrius were the heads of a long dynasty ruling over Skepsis (13.1.52-53). This statement too could well have been motivated by local pride.
But there is still more to be added. There is for instance a third scholar from Skepsis, who is even less known than our Demertios. His name is Metrodorus of Skepsis. He was, according to Strabo, a philosopher who changed to politics later (13.1.55). He is also known to have written a historical work, while being at the court of the anti-roman Mithridates. His History may have had a rather anti-roman touch but more interesting for us, he is linked to Demetrios of Skepsis by Diogenes Laertius (5.84: Μητρόδωρον προεβίβασε).
Moving from the people living there to the place itself, there are also two strange details to be mentioned. First, Strabo tells us at lenght the history of Skepsis, its previous location under the name of Palaeskepsis and the temporary forced migrations of its population. Second, several explanation for the name of Skepsis are given by different sources. The scholia (ΣD Il. 20.3) mention a link to the episode of Paris’ judgment, in Stephanus of Byzantium it is linked to the episode of Rhea hiding her children and giving stones to their father (σκήψασθαι). Strabo links it to περίσκεπτον (seen from far away, 13.1. 52). But Strabo’s comment following this explanation is more striking: he considers the name of Skepsis as being a barbarian name and wonders if Greek etymology can be applied in this case.
So the idea one gets from these evidences, is the one of a rather old native (maybe even prestigious) settlement, or at least one which has a history that could be believed by some as going back to the time of the Trojan War or beyond, so that the need was felt (because of its importance, its age or the pride of the local scholars) to find some explanation for its non-appearance in the Homeric text.
This is however in contrast with Cook’s archaeological description of the site…
see:
J.M. Cook, The Torad, Oxford 1973.
P. Pédech,”Deux Grecs face à Rome au 1er siècle av. J.-C.: Métrodore de Scepsis et Théophane de Mitylène”, REA 93, 1991, 65-78.
A few weeks ago, I received the advertisement of a new book by L. Canfora about the so-called Artemidorus papyrus:
I am looking forward to discovering this book and the Italian scholar’s argumentation about this exceptional text.
For more details about Canfora’s point of view, one may follow the discussion on the blog: What’s New in Papyrology? . In particular the following post gives the current discussion Artemidorus papyrus
Among many tools, blogs and web-pages on and about the ancient Greek language, I just want to emphasize two. One is based in Europe and the other in the US.
Greek Grammars and Other Resources for Learning Ancient Greek
CIRCE
It is well-known that the format of our book derives directly from the ancient codices. After a coexistence of about three centuries (roughly from the 2nd century AD to the 4th century AD) of both of the formats (rolls and codices), the codex won over the roll. And some modern scholars claim even that it has not changed its format since then for over a millennium (see Roberts C.H./Skaet T.C., The Birth of the Codex, London /New York 1983, 76).
Nevertheless with the better understanding and growing usage of the new electronic devises to create texts the domination of the codex is somewhat challenged. It will certainly not be completely ruled out, as the advantages of its format are far to many. One could mention for instance the compactness which allows to take along a book while travelling. This has been suggested as one of the reasons for the preference for codices in ancient times, especially in a Christian tradition (see McCormick M., “The Birth of the Codex and the Apostolic Life-style”, Scriptorium 39, 1985, 150-158). In our times, even if travel is again an important part of our lifes, the weight of some of the book is now seen rather as an inconvenient.
It has also be suggested several times that the use of internet changes the way of reading and writing, especially as the notion of “page” tent to disappear (as well as paginations, which is more inconvenient for modern readers).
The comment I would like to add to this debate occurred to me while reading an article by T.C. Skeat, where the scholar investigates the reasons why the codex replaced finally the roll and why this process took so long (see T.C. Skaet, “Roll versus Codex- A New Approach?”, ZPE 84, 1990, 297-298). He mentions one advantage of rolls, which could also be of interest for a discussion on web-based publications.
He mentions the fact that when illustrations are involved in a text, the roll, with its continuous process of reading unbroken by page-turning, allows to see an illustration and the discussion about it simultaneously. In a codex, on the other hand, in a great number of cases, the illustrations and the comments on them are not visible together. The illustrations are either given before or after the discussion, sometimes even at the end of the book, or their presence interrupts the discussion, because they are, for instance, on the right-hand page, which has to be turned over in order to read the end of the argumentation.
The possibility to display visual data along with texts without page-turning is also an advantage of web-based publications.
When we think about Strabo and the place where he studied, we have to bear in mind that at that time Rome become a major place for scholarship. If we believe Sueton (De Grammaticis, 2) Crates of Mallos shaped the Roman scholarship. This link to Pergamon is also strengthened by the fact that Attalus III gave his kingdom to Rome at his death (170-133 BC). However the Alexandrian philology, linked to an Aristotelian method, was also present in Rome. On may mention there the Latin poet and grammarian Accius (170-86 BC).
At this stage enters Tyrannion: he came to Rome in 68 BC, bought the library of Aristotle from Apellicon of Teos and started to publish the works of the Greek philosopher unknown to a larger public. With this huge editorial project Tyrannion emphasized the text. This focusing on new texts written before the works carried out in the two major Libraries could be felt by Tyrannion’s contemporaries as a kind of new start in philolophy: a midway between the two great philological traditions and a compromise in a long lasting debate between Pergamon and Alexandria.
Tyrannion was also the teacher of Strabo and may have influenced his student and shaped his work. Tyrannion was for instance well known for his geographical expertise (Cic. Ad Att. 2.6.1), he incarnated the ideal Strabonean scholar (a learned man coming from Asia Minor, counsellor of great politicians), and maybe one could add to this list Strabo’s preference for the Homeric text. In fact often Strabo tries to give new reading of the Homeric text, against previous readings, which could reflect this consciousness of a new Rome-based philology.
see:
Blaensdorf J., “Cratès et les débuts de la philologie romaine”, Ktema 13, 1988,141-147.
Dangel J., “Accius grammairien?”, Latomus 49, 1990, 37-58.
LehmannY., “Varron et le grmmairien Tyrannion: l’apport doctrinal de l’aristotélisme”, Ktema 13, 1988, 179-186.
The work of Demetrios of Scepsis is known to us mainly thanks to Strabo’s Geography. So our understanding of Demetrios’ achievement depends on the knowlegde we have of Strabo’s intentions and his way of using sources. In recent researches on Strabo, this aspect has been emphasized and they provide new facts about the Greek geographer.
One of the more striking features about Strabo is his combining of two rather different aspects in one work. On the one side, he is clearly a Greek scholar and he adopts a very Greek point of view, espacially when he is speaking about Greece and Asia Minor. On the other hand he is writing for a Roman audience. He spends some time in Rome, which is at this time one of the major center for scholars.
This doubleness of Strabo has been pointed out by A.M. Biraschi. She links Strabo’s reaction against Eratosthenes’ famous statment that poetry should aim to entertain rather than instruct (Str. 1.1.10 C 7) to a discussion found in Horace (AP, 333: aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poetae). Both authors, Biraschi goes on, react against Eratosthenes’ point of view and echo a cultural debat in Rome at this time.
So the question is: Why the researches of Demetrios were so useful for Strabo that he made this scholar one of his main sources? Is it his link to Pergamon, his Trojan origine, his particular position in regard to the location of Troy, his close reading of the Homeric texts?
See: A.M. Biraschi, Strabo and Homer: a chapter in cultural histroy, in D. Dueck et al. (eds.), Strabo’s Cultural Geography, Cambridge 2005
There has been much thinking about the way the new tools available on the WWW could or would influence old forms of writings. Commentaries are not excluded from these changes and their availability on Internet will transform radically their form and their scope. Some of the possible changes have been discussed by classical scholars themselves. Most of the transformations are ambiguous in their impact on scholarly works.
The infinite space available, for instance, is a great opportunity to go beyond the boundaries of a printed book. As Fowler puts it, the WWW “provides ourselves with infinite large margins to our text”. It allows also an interactivity between texts and visual or aural material and could be seen as a kind of virtual museum where the difference between exposed objects and texts tend to disappear. The new commentaries could also be seen as everchanging fluids of information built by layers and layers of (more or less personal) readings and comments, this in opposition to a monumental work aiming at becoming an long-lasting authority in the field. On the other hand, the absence of a “printed” or fixed version raises the question of authorship, of what a document is and of how to refer to it. Finally the huge amount of material that can be displayed on Internet gives more weight to the questions of order and hierarchy helping the reader to find his way in a chaotic variety, but without imposing on him a too ideologized view.
see:
Fowler D., Critisism as Commentary and Commentary as Criticism, in G.W. Most (ed.), Commentaries-Kommentare, Göttingen 1999, 426-442
Goldhill Simon,Wipe Youor Gloss in G.W. Most (ed.), Commentaries-Kommentare, Göttingen 1999, 380-425
McCarty W., A Network with a Tousand Entrances: Commentary in an Electronic Age?, in Gibson R.K./Shuttleworth Kraus Chr. (ed.), The Classical Commentaries, Histories, Practices, Theories, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 2002, 359-402
Shuttleworth Kraus Ch., Introduction: Reading Commentaries/Commentaries as Readings, in Gibson R.K./Shuttleworth Kraus Chr. (ed.), The Classical Commentaries, Histories, Practices, Theories, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 2002, 1-27
The map shows a modern attempt to repeat what Demetrios did in his time: trying to find places in a real landscape fitting the ones mentioned in the Iliad. The present achievement is about both, the Catalogue of the Ships and the Catalogue of the Trojans. Demetrios was more attached to his homeland and focused on the Trojans and their allies.
This internet page is however also a way of mixing information from ancient sources, like Strabo or Demetrios himself, with a modern stage of the places mentioned. The goal of such undertakings seems double. It is a quest of some readers to find the toponyms mentioned in a text in a real landscape and to give therefore more weight to the story. By starting with the places themselves, it helps to better know ancient geographers or scholars by analysing what was available for them.
