We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2012
All editions and translations of Homer's Iliad present the epic as a series of twenty-four segments always marked off in the same places. In this respect the Iliad conforms to, and seems even to originate, a practice in which narratives of any considerable length are almost always presented in marked segments, usually called chapters. Similarly, dramas, except very short ones, usually run as a series of acts whose dimensions are determined in the composition (i.e., not afresh with each performance). Acts may be marked by curtains, intermissions or briefer pauses, or other variations in the performance: in ancient Greek drama the segmentation is unmistakeably marked by the placement of choral lyrics (Arist. Poet. 1452b). It is not exactly clear why the chapter and the act should be so indispensable, but authors and audiences alike know intuitively that they are. Yet many scholars since antiquity have believed that the Iliad and the Odyssey originally lacked marked segmentation, and that the now-familiar presentation was imposed upon them later by someone other than their composer(s). Even today, when few scholars see profit in analyzing the Iliad and Odyssey into earlier and later strata, the so-called 'book divisions’ continue to offer a tempting target for analytic criticism.
1 For theoretical discussion of the function of chapters, see Stevick, P., The Chapter in Fiction. Theories of Narrative Division (Syracuse 1970)Google Scholar.
2 Ancients: [Plu.] Vit. Horn. 2.4 (είσὶ δὲ αύτῶι [i.e. Όμήρωι] ποιήσεις δύο, Ίλίας καί Όδύσσεια, διηιρημένη έκατέρα είς τόν άριθμόν τῶν στοιχείων, ούχ ύπ’ αύτοῦ τοῦ ποιητοῦ άλλ′ ύπό τῶν γραμματικῶν τῶν περί τόν Άρίσταρχον); Eust. 5.32. Moderns: Lachmann, K. (‘die kindische Eintheilung’), Betrachtungen über Homers Ilias3 (Berlin 1874) 93Google Scholar; v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Homerische Untersuchungen (Berlin 1884) 369Google Scholar; Lesky, A., A History of Greek Literature (tr. Willis, J. and de Heer, C., London 1966) 23–4Google Scholar; Broccia, G., La forma poetica dell’ Iliade e la genesi dell’ epos Omerico (Messina 1967) 19Google Scholar; West, S., The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer (Papyrologica Coloniensia 3, Köln 1967) 18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nicolai, W., Kleine und grosse Darstellungseinheiten in der Ilias (Heidelberg 1973) 138–9Google Scholar; Taplin, O., Homeric Soundings (Oxford 1992) 285–93Google Scholar; Janko, R., The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. iv: books 13-16 (Cambridge 1992) 31 n.47Google Scholar; Olson, S.D., Blood and Iron: Stories and Storytelling in Homer's Odyssey (Leiden 1995) 228–39Google Scholar; Richardson, N.J., The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. vi: books 21-24 (Cambridge 1993) 1, 20–1Google Scholar; de Jong, I.J.F., ‘Sunsets and sunrises in Homer and Apollonius of Rhodes: book divisions and beyond’, Dialogos 3 (1996) 21–30Google Scholar; Haslam, M., ‘Homeric papyri and transmission of the text’, in Morris, I. and Powell, B. (eds.), A New Companion to Homer (Leiden 1997) 58Google Scholar. Van Sickle, J., ‘The book-roll and some conventions of the poetic book’, Arethusa 13 (1980) 10–12Google Scholar argues that the composer segmented his epics, but in a way that accommodated varying articulations. Goold, G., ‘The nature of Homeric composition’, ICS 2 (1977) 27–30Google Scholar sees the ‘book divisions’ as an original feature of the Iliad and Odyssey, which he believes were composed in writing in the eighth century. Stanley, K., The Shield of Homer: Narrative Structure in the Iliad (Princeton 1993) 279–93Google Scholar associates the ‘books’ with the sixth century Athenian reform of the Panathenaia, which he deems the formative event of the traditional text. In this sense Stanley too sees the ‘book divisions’ as original. Nagy, G., Poetry as Performance (Cambridge 1996) 110Google Scholar eschews discussion of a ‘composer’ for a five-stage process of textual development; he suggests that the ‘book divisions’ became stabilized as aspects of performance in the fourth stage, the reform of Homeric performance traditions in Athens under Demetrius of Phalerum, 317-307 BC. See further (n.5) below.
3 The terms ‘books’ and ‘book divisions’ are used in quotation marks in this article because they may seem to imply that marked segmentation of the Iliad was limited to the written format, and that it serves to disconnect parts of the text from one another. If uncritically accepted, these assumptions would bias the investigation.
4 See the discussion of S. West (n.2) 18-25; also in Heubeck, A., West, S. and Hainsworth, J.B., A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey. Vol. i: introduction and books i-viii (Oxford 1988) 40 n. 19Google Scholar. West notes the ancient tendency to attribute any innovation in the Homeric text to Aristarchus. Ps.-Plutarch's testimony is also vitiated by his arithmetology (see ch. 145), which attributed to the all-wise Homer a Pythagorean belief in the perfection of odd numbers and the evil of even numbers. The doxographical tradition that spawned Ps.-Plutarch may well have wanted to deny that Homer could have divided his own masterpieces into an even number of parts. On other alleged external evidence, see further below pp. 80-81.
West's argument that the ‘books’ were not the work of Alexandrian scholars also cites the fact that the Homeric ‘books’ are much shorter than those of Apollonius, a plausible norm. West herself suggests that the ‘book divisions’ were an innovation of the ancient publishing industry. However, as she herself points out, a number of preserved papyri contained more than one Homeric ‘book’, a fact which argues strongly against the book trade as the source of the segmentation. West correctly notes that the term ῤαψωδία for a Homeric ‘book’ (e.g. ∑ Il. 9.0 Erbse) indicates that the traditional segmentation was based on rhapsodic performances.
5 Less often, to defend it. The most detailed defence is that of Stanley (n.2) 36-7, 249, and elsewhere; more generally Sheppard, J.T., The Pattern of the Iliad (New York 1966; orig. 1922) 24, 32–3Google Scholar; Mazon, P., Introduction à I'lliade (Paris 1942) 138Google Scholar; Whitman, C.H., Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Cambridge 1958) 283CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goold (n.2) 27-30; cf. Notopoulos, J.A., ‘Studies in early Greek oral poetry’, HSCP 68 (1964) 9–12Google Scholar. For a partial defence see M.M. Willcock, OCD 3 s.v. ‘Homer’: ‘the books do in many cases represent distinct episodes in the plot (e.g. Books 1, 9, 12, 16, 22, 24)’, and de Jong (n.2) 22. Nicolai (n.2) 91-117 analyzes the scenes of the Iliad into 33 ‘Kapitel’ (chapters), finding that about 11 are identical to transmitted ‘books’.
6 Nicolai (n.2) 91-117.
7 Especially Taplin (n.2) 285-93; also Broccia (n.2) 19-66; Richardson (n.2) 1; Haslam (n.2) 58; Olson (n.2) 228-39 (mainly on the Odyssey). The positioning of the ‘divisions’ has also been cited in defence of their authenticity; see Goold (n.2) 27-30, and especially the highly useful study of Stanley (n.2) 249-61. M.W. Edwards has criticized Stanley's conclusions in an unpublished lecture.
8 I plan to examine the segmentation of the Odyssey in a separate publication.
9 Note that the features described are relational, unlike the common characteristics of ‘type scenes’, which are intrinsic to the scenes. Relational and intrinsic characteristics are equally real.
10 On the lack of consequences of this scene, see Owen, E.T., The Story of the Iliad (London 1947) 15.Google Scholar
11 Kirk, G.S.The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. i: books 1-4 (Cambridge 1985) 169 and ad 2.496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Reiteration of this point for each of the passages listed will not be necessary for readers who know the Iliad well. The following observations bear brief mention. (1) Battle scenes that precede ‘book divisions’ often depict a moment of stalemate or temporarily halted progress by the prevailing side: 4.446-544, 13.806-37, 15.726-46, 17.735-761, 21.595-611. In terms of narrative function, scenes like these can easily be distinguished from the androktasia which begins ‘Book 6,’ where the Achaean success against the Trojans causes Helenos to send Hektor to Troy (6.73). (2) In two cases where a ‘book division’ follows a battle scene that depicts an apparently decisive advance (12.442-71, 14.508-22) divine intervention produces a reversal in the scene that immediately follows. (3) Achilles’ androktasia and the general description that follows (20.455-503) do not affect the direction of the battle until after the ‘book division’ at 20.503/21.1, when the narrator states that the rout has reached the river Xanthos. (4) Hektor's boastful speech and the Trojan encampment on the plain (8.489-565) do not affect Agamemnon's panic (beginning at 9.1), which is caused by the Achaean defeats. (5) In the scene preceding the ‘book division’ at 16.867/17.1, the prophecy that Patroklos utters before he dies has no effect upon the narrative that follows, and is not even fulfilled until ‘Book 22’, almost six ‘books’ later.
13 The first marked ‘book beginning’ and the last marked ‘book end’ necessarily each have only one element. Still, the scene that follows the first ‘book’ marker (not counting the proem as a scene) is typical of scenes in that position, and the scene that concludes the epic is typical of scenes that precede marked ‘divisions’.
14 Contra Goold (n.2) 27-30, who stresses the coincidences of ‘book divisions’ with night/dawn, which are much commoner in the Odyssey than in the Iliad. Goold's assertion that at ‘book divisions’ Homer ‘describes the action which he wishes to conclude as having reached a static point’ overlooks the routine occurrence of imperfect verbs in these positions. Cf. also de Jong (n.2). Stanley (n.2) 249-61 focuses upon the shifts in point of view that rhetorically mitigate the effect of interrupted continuity in the narrative.
15 Taplin (n.2) 285-93; Olson (n.2) 228-37 (mainly on the Odyssey); cf. Richardson (n.2) 1. Broccia (n.2) 19-66 emphasizes rhetorical discontinuities.
16 Jensen, M.S., The Homeric Question and the Oral-formulaic Theory (Copenhagen 1980) 88Google Scholar and Fowler, D.P., ‘First thoughts on closure: problems and prospects’, MD 22 (1989) 88, 94Google Scholar. Both treat closure sensitively as a relative phenomenon not necessarily in conflict with continuing narration or larger textual coherence. But their consideration of the Homeric ‘books’ does not give due weight to the role of beginnings. Goold (n.2) 27-30 and Stanley (n.2) 249-61 observe certain rhetorical gestures of both closure and beginning at the Homeric ‘book divisions’, but they overlook or minimize the narrative openness which these gestures palliate.
17 Nicolai (n.2) 94, Van Sickle (n.2) 10.
18 Nicolai (n.2) 96.
19 Referred to, however, by Diomedes at 9.34, and probably alluded to by Diomedes at 14.112-27.
20 Nicolai (n.2) 97.
21 Nicolai (n.2) 102; Taplin (n.2) 290.
22 As Nicolai (n.2) 104 observes.
23 Taplin (n.2) 291-2; Nicolai (n.2) 109.
24 Nicolai (n.2) 88.
25 i.e., he neglects the fundamental distinction between the events of a narrative and their telling, the histoire and the recit (for these terms see Genette, G., Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, tr. Lewin, J.E. [Ithaca 1980] 25–7Google Scholar). The telling of a story frequently reorganizes its events: Homer, for example, narrates in sequence events conceived of as occurring simultaneously (Zielinski, T., Die Behandlung gleichzeitiger Ereignisse im antiken Epos. Philologus Supplementband 8 (Leipzig 1901) 407–49Google Scholar. The cross-cutting narration that sometimes results does more than a ‘book division’ ever could to ‘break up’ continuous sequences of action, like Patroklos’ journey from Nestor's lodging back to Achilles’ (begun in ‘Book 11’, resumed in ‘Book 15’, finally concluded in ‘Book 16’ after another interruption in the telling). Evidently Homer liked the effect of suspended continuity.
26 Cf. the similar terminology of Olson (n.2) 228-39.
27 Also note that the ‘division’ at Odyssey 2/3 comes between coordinated μέν (2.434) and δέ (3.1).
28 Eust. 5.35 expresses a similar view. On the aesthetic functions of the chapter in stories, see Stevick (n.1).
29 On the way chapters allow readers to set their ‘bearings’, see Stevick (n.1) 132.
30 Stevick (n.1) 26, discussing Henry Fielding's rumination on chapters in Joseph Andrews, observes that Fielding seems to have segmented his story to accommodate the perceived attention span of his readers.
31 Stanley (n.2) 249-61 shows that the ‘book divisions’ in the Iliad exactly coincide with points of scene change. In high-consequence scenes the diversionary event usually follows some lines after the point of scene change; only at 5.1 does the diversionary event (Athene's inspiration of Diomedes) occur at the very beginning of the new scene. Thus the reader/audience normally has between 2 (13.2, Zeus leaves the battle) and 77 lines (677, Helenos’ speech) to watch/listen for the diversion. Cues placed immediately before the diversionary moments would probably be less effective.
32 Stanley (n.2) 38-247 has argued that each book of the Iliad has an elegant architecture. This too might be retrospectively appreciated by the reader when a segment marker was reached.
33 Cf. Fowler (n.16) 94 on the need for aurally-received poetry to signal its articulations.
34 West (n.2) 22.
35 E.g. έν Διομήδεος άριστείηι (Herod. 2.116.3). Richardson (n.2) 20 lays much stress upon this fact.
36 Ps.-Plutarch, whose reference to the ‘book divisions’ is cited as evidence of their Alexandrian origin, never uses them for citations either.
37 Cf. Nagy (n.2) 182-6, who traces the canonical ‘divisions’ only as far back as late fourth century Athens.
38 As suggested by Mazon (n.5) 139-40 and West (n.2) 19. Goold, G.P., ‘Homer and the alphabet’, TAPA 91 (1960) 272–91Google Scholar, argued that both the ‘book divisions’ and the alphabetic enumeration were original to the composition.
39 Cf. Richardson, N.J., ‘Literary criticism in the exegetical scholia to the Iliad: a sketch’, CQ NS 30 (1980) 265–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Zenodotus’ calculation of the days of the Iliad (cited by de Jong (n.2) 30) is of dubious relevance, since the traditional ‘book division’ bears only a tenuous relationship to the chronology of the narrative; see further n. 14 above. On the other hand, Zenodotus’ athetesis of the Shield of Achilles (18.483-608; see ∑ Il. 18.483) clearly indicates that he did not appreciate (among other things) its relationship to the ‘book division’ that follows it.
