« السابقةمتابعة »
v. 24 to v. 28 the adventures of Ulysses are described by nouns, from v. 29 to v. 36 by verbs in the perfect infinitive, all of which occupy the penultimate place in the line. (Verse 30 is spurious, as has been perceived by others; it should give us another adventure, probably that of Aeolus, with a perfect infinitive in the penultimate place.) In this way the sound and the grammar mark off the six first verses from the latter eight. Turning to vv. 1-14 we find that they too divide after v. 6. Verses 5, 6 are a moralizing conclusion to vv. 1-4; uaesane (7) makes a new address to Postumus; tu tamen (7) and illa quidem (9), like uaesane, contrast the persons without naming them as they are named in 1-4. Verse 14 concludes with a moralization like 5, 6.
The whole poem then is to be resolved into a scheme of
6:8, 44, 6:8 || 2.
[I may note that in v. 7 the true reading is intexta (lacerna), preserved by the C MSS.; cf. texitur haec castris quarta lacerna tuis, IV. iii. 18, of the same pair of persons. The phrase Ciconum mons, Ismara Calpe (25) means that the poet rejects the view that Ulysses went to Gibraltar itself, and finds a Calpe among the Ismarians.]
In the light even of this limited analysis we can perceive the possibility of new meaning in such allusions to his own art as Propertius makes in incipe iam angusto uersus includere torno (II. xxxiv. 43), in cur tua praescripto seuecta est pagina gyro (III. iii. 21), or in carminis interea nostri redeamus in orbem (III. ii. 1, old style). The circle or wheel of his art brings the scheme round to its inevitable and measured end: it is perfectly balanced. But before me Robinson Ellis had expressed his belief in such numerical schemes underlying our damaged text of Propertius [Catullus, vol. I. pp. 221, 222], and moreover had detected the strongest piece of internal evidence. Vertumnus, at the close of a now disordered poem (our IV. ii. 57), says:
sex superant uersus (te, qui ad uadimonia curris,
non moror): haec spatiis ultima creta meis.
The understanding reader will know at this point that the scheme is incomplete without a group of eight verses to balance vv. 1-8 of the true text. These are two of them, and six remain.
Robinson Ellis also anticipated me in detecting the numerical scheme of Callimachus's Bath of Pallas, with its triads of tens and twelves. The other evidence which I shall hope later to call in support of this theory would altogether overweight the present essay.1
Let us then finally apply the test to our reconstructed Preface to Elegies, Book IV.: that is, the verses now II. x. 1-26 and IV. i. 67-70, kept in the relative order given by the MSS. [See p. 69.] The subdivisions are in the main marked
1 This part of my theory dates from 1908-9, and Professor Phillimore was at work earlier
upon a similar idea-but from a fundamentally different standpoint.
74 A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TEXT OF PROPERTIVS out for us by the repetition of the significant key-word magnus, with which he flatters his patron here as elsewhere (cf. at magnus Caesar. Sed magnus Caesar in armis, II. vii. 5). It occurs in vv. 6, 12, 20, 21. We are limited further by the quatrain 21-24, after which the subject of Hesiod enters to balance Homer in vv. 1-6. Another quatrain must balance this in the first part of the
The scheme then works itself out thus:
(= 10)+ 4
to the first magnus: subject Homer (Haemonio equo implies Achilles; mei ducis is the second Achilles).
7-10: farewell to works of love.
= = 11, 12,
invocation to his powers, for an epic yet unwritten.
the address and central subject, Augustus and his triumphs. 219-20: the promise and the prayer. This single couplet balancing the former (11, 12), enhances the effect of the central passage; each has magnus in the pentameter to give it weight and distinction.
the abasement (at the fall of the poem's curve).
6=25, 26, IV. i. 67-70. Hesiod is more within his powers; the six verses balance the first six on Homeric themes. Meus equus (70), Heliconian Pegasus, can scarcely soar with toil to the lowlier themes of the last book, with its archaeology and aetiology. Achilles' horses (2) are too swift as yet.
10, 10, 10, subdivided into 6:4, 2:6:2, 4:6, is a well-balanced scheme, in which Augustus occupies the central verse (15), and Rome, the chief subject of Book IV., the last stanza of its prologue.
I ask readers who have patiently followed the threads of this essay to forgive the absence of illustrative pages of my text, and to communicate to me such adverse criticisms as may occur to them. Little by little wise counsellors may help me nearer to the truth; and perhaps I may say, with less guile than Tarpeia,
cras, ut rumor ait, tota purgabitur urbe.
O. L. RICHMOND.
[The Editors regret that they are unable to arrange, at any rate in the present issue, for the appearance of the illustrative pages desired by the writer.]
EURYNOME AND EURYCLEIA IN THE ODYSSEY.
BERGK in his Griechische Literaturgeschichte, Vol. I., pp. 708, 709, 710, 715, and elsewhere, rejected all verses in the Odyssey where reference is made to Eurynome, a servant or attendant in the palace of Odysseus. His comments on p. 715 concerning the first verses of the twentieth book are typical: 'Right at the beginning of this book the appearance of Eurynome shows the activity of the imitator. This very passage proves beyond a doubt that Eurynome had no part in the original poem, and that a later bard arbitrarily used her name instead of the name of Eurycleia, who was the true female attendant in the old form of the Odyssey!
This opinion has been accepted by practically all those who do not regard the poem as the work of a single author. Hennings, in those parts of his Odyssee where he comments on the various verses referring to Eurynome, has uniformly regarded them as later additions. Professor Ludwig Adam in a book, Der Aufbau der Odyssee durch Homer, Wiesbaden, 1911, sums up the arguments and collects the literature, and he is so convinced that Eurynome had no part in the original form of the Odyssey that he devotes an entire chapter to that subject, using the assumption of the spuriousness of this character as one of the main props for his theory in regard to the composition of the poem.
The argument of Bergk and his followers is that Eurycleia alone is needed, that she is all-sufficient as the head of the servants and as guide in the household, while Eurynome is simply a poor and transparent copy of the faithful and trusted Eurycleia, and that she was added by a late and incompetent bard.
A careful study of the Odyssey will show whether Eurycleia was indeed allsufficient, and also whether just such a character as Eurynome was necessary in the palace of Odysseus, and therefore necessary in the Odyssey.
Eurycleia was a woman of great age, for she was a trusted member of the family of Laertes before the birth of Odysseus, since it was she who put the newborn babe on the knees of its grandfather and suggested that the child be named Polyaretus, ПováρηTоs, τ 404; but the hint was not taken by Autolycus, who had already decided to name the boy Odysseus.
The evident confidence reposed in her on that occasion would show that even then she was a mature and experienced woman, and that occasion could hardly have been less than fifty years before the events with which she is connected in the story of the return of Odysseus.
When a son is born to Odysseus he is trusted to the same nurse who cared for his own infancy. Eurycleia is peculiarly the nurse and attendant of Telemachus in the story of the Odyssey. Penelope, as Homer tells us x 427, had not allowed the young man to give orders to the servants, and he never gives them; but Telemachus felt free to command his old nurse, which he does constantly, but he never gives commands to a single other woman servant in the house of his father.
Eurycleia a 428 carried for him the torches which lighted his chamber, and she also prepared his bed for him. She simply continued for the grown-up lad the tasks she had assumed in his infancy, and their relations have scarcely changed. She prepared for him B 345 the wine and provisions which were to be used on his seemingly distant voyage. We can hardly believe that Eurycleia could have made these preparations without long absence from the presence of Penelope, and yet there is nothing to show that this absence was noticed by the queen or her suspicions aroused, neither does Eurycleia show any anxiety lest the queen should miss her.
When the distracted mother definitely learns from another that her son had gone from Ithaca, Eurycleia tells her that she had assisted his going, but had been bound to keep it as a secret, thus proving that the bonds between Penelope and Eurycleia were less strong and less intimate than those between Eurycleia and Telemachus. The very fact that Eurycleia kept from Penelope this important secret shows that they were not especially intimate.
Eurycleia does not reappear until p 31, when she was much the first to catch sight of the returning Telemachus, while Penelope does not see her son until after he has been greeted by his nurse. Here, too, we see that Eurycleia was not a close companion of the queen, and that they were in different parts of the palace. Every reference to Eurycleia shows that she was in no sense a constant or necessary companion of Penelope.
Telemachus 16 orders Eurycleia to restrain the women within the halls while he stores away the weapons of his father, and here also the absence of the old nurse seems to have been unnoticed by Penelope. Telemachus impatiently takes Eurycleia to task for the assumed neglect of the beggar, Odysseus, v 130, he orders her to bolt fast the doors & 380, and to come into the presence of the victorious Odysseus x 395, while Odysseus himself orders her to bring the women before him and to prepare a purifying fire in the hall x 410, 491.
Eurycleia is plainly the especial servant of Telemachus and of Odysseus, since she is the only woman servant to whom the son gives orders, while even the commands of the father while he is in the palace are restricted to her. Only twice in the entire poem does Penelope give orders to Eurycleia, once when on the suggestion of Odysseus she is bidden to wash the beggar's feet, and again where Penelope tells her to prepare her husband's bed 7 357, 177. In neither case does she tell her to do anything for her, so that although she gives the commands they are really for the sake of Odysseus.
When the suitors are slain and the guilty servants punished Odysseus tells
Eurycleia to go and call Penelope. It is to be noticed that she tells the other faithful women first who rushed from their rooms to greet their returning lord before the nurse came into the presence of Penelope x 496.
The number of women servants in the palace of Odysseus was very great: twenty went to the spring for water u 148, while many remained at work in the house, and Eurycleia herself says there are fifty women servants whom we have taught to serve x 421. Evidently Eurycleia is not included in this number.
Even if Homer had named no other female attendant than Eurycleia we must assume that the queen had some servant, some companion of her own, some person so close to her that she would not have kept from her for several days so vital a matter as the departure of her only son; and we are certain that Penelope would not have contented herself with an old woman, however deserving, who had been a member of this same household a full generation before she herself came as a youthful bride. Penelope's twenty years would have been miserable indeed if she had had no closer companion than Eurycleia!
We know that her father sent along with her the male servant, Dolius, & 735, and we feel certain that women attendants were indispensable, not servants merely, but a woman capable of being both her friend and companion, a woman standing in somewhat the same relations with her that Eurycleia stood with both Odysseus and Telemachus.
She had just such a companion in Actoris 228, whom her father had sent with her when she first came to Ithaca, and who alone of the household had shared with Penelope and Odysseus the knowledge of the secret which concerned their marriage bed. The name Actoris is found in no other verse of the Odyssey,1 so that we must assume either that Actoris is a patronymic and that she appears elsewhere under her own name, or that Actoris herself is dead2 and her place has been taken by another. It is impossible to decide in this matter, but I am inclined to believe that Actoris is a patronymic and that her own name is Eurynome.
The thesis which I wish to establish is this: Homer could not have made Penelope rely solely or chiefly on the companionship of a woman who had been the nurse of her husband in his infancy, but must have created for her a companion of her own, a companion whose connection with the household did not depend on the choice of Laertes or of Laertes' son, and that such a companion was Eurynome, whether Eurynome was the name of Actoris or of a successor.
Just as Telemachus confined his commands to Eurycleia alone of the woman servants or attendants, so Penelope, when giving orders for herself or on her own initiative, gives orders to none but Eurynome. Eurycleia, as already shown, did not keep close to Penelope, since she put the young man to bed in a part of the palace remote from his mother; she spent a long time in preparing things for his voyage without the knowledge or suspicions of the queen, and was in another part of the palace when he returned, so that she greeted him before his mother knew that he had come.
Penelope was seated in her own chamber when she hears of the insults heaped
1 So Ebeling in Lexicon Homericum.
2 Suggested by Cauer in note to 228.