![]() ![]() After reading it, I am more inclined to accept that they date back to at least the sixth century, but certainly not that they began with the poet himself nor have I been persuaded that they exhibit any particular artistry, different in kind from that which pervades the compositional techniques of both epics. Before reading the debate, to the extent that I considered the matter (which did not seem of much importance), I thought they were Alexandrian (and certainly later than the Argonautica), not particularly skilful, and not derived from the poet himself. Again, some claim that the book-divisions are carefully and skilfully done, others that they are not some, that they go back to the poet himself, others that they do not. 2.4) that οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἀρίσταρχον were responsible, others think it must be earlier, either Peisistratid or even earlier. reviews the theories as to when this arose: some trust pseudo-Plutarch’s claim ( Vit. It is odd that both Homeric epics are each divided into 24 books according to the 24 letters of the Ionic alphabet. ![]() Extreme overwork prevented me from participating at the time, but it may be useful to review the debate in this forum instead. ![]() Jensen (henceforward J.) and other scholars as to the origin of the Homeric book-divisions, and invited a wide range of responses. The respected Norwegian journal Symbolae Osloenses organised a useful debate between M.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |