CUP (2020) h/b 532 pp £120 (ISBN 9781107012042)
Number 62, as usual in the ‘Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries’ series, ‘is directed at researchers and advanced students’ who are seeking clarification of points of detail or ‘an unfolding interpretation of the whole composition’. There is a challenging observation that, in comparison with a commentary* of similar size, ‘there are differences of opinion or emphasis in the majority of lines’. Difficulty of interpretation leaves plenty of scope for a variety of approach. The text itself presents many problems and T. has re-examined the manuscripts, (listed on p.74 n.130). Although T. thinks ‘this is a conservative edition’ he is sometimes bold and clever, as with the difficult end of line 82 where his conjecture (ἄγκαλα as a dual form) has much to commend it.
T. does not aspire to elegance in his translation facing the Greek text, nor does he pursue equivalent wordplay in English, but his intention is for it to be ‘a preliminary point of orientation towards’ interpretation.
The commentary occupies by far the largest part of the book with entries that discuss a comprehensive range of issues. The uncertain meanings of individual words receive attention, sometimes in considerable detail, as in the case of τέρθρον (line 322) for which T. chooses the translation ‘threshold’ though his qualification ‘perhaps would suit’ is appropriate for the semantic range he traces.
Discussion is both detailed and wide-ranging. For example line 296 (τλήμονα γαστρὸς ἔριθον, ἀτάσθαλον ἀγγελιώτην, T.’s translation ‘the stubborn dogsbody of the belly, an insolent message man’) might remain obscure without a little guidance. M.L. West’s Loeb has a succinct explanatory note: ‘A fart’. Whereas T. offers not only ‘possible readings’ such as signalling contempt, attempting to disgust or simply an infant’s needing to expel wind, but also comments on the bathetic humour of breaking divine wind. And there’s more—a footnote refers to other highlights of crepitation, such as Amasis’ (un)diplomatic fart (Herodotus 2.162). There are 654 footnotes to the notes, an indication of the conglomeration of detail contained in this section of the volume. This is decidedly a book for the experienced scholar, not the tyro!
One idiosyncratic approach in his commentary to which T. draws attention (p. viii-ix) is his preference for drawing together ‘the threads of particular passages’ after rather than before discussion of details. These are not the principal divisions of the poem, but sub-sections such as Hermes’ address to the tortoise. These sections are first marked with a subheading of line numbers (in the case of Hermes’ speech to the tortoise, 30-8). Notes to the speech then cover a variety of topics, amongst which are textual matters, word meanings, the tortoise’s journey from mountainside to civilization, even the agoraphobia of tortoises! The summary note that follows is signalled by the lemma ‘30-8 Hermes to the Tortoise’. There, for example, aspects of the language of Hermes (which ‘obviously outstrips his age’) and Hermes’ ambition are discussed. Perhaps the tortoise is a ticket to Olympus (with the help of Apollo).
This rich commentary makes a significant contribution to the scholarship on the Hymn to Hermes, including its text, humour, social context (with a focus on charis) and later influence, but the poet remains elusive: T. sees ‘no convincing sign of the poet’s homeland and affiliation’. T. does, however, find Olympia an attractive possible venue for performance.
Bring back Homeric Hymns instead of the ‘festival of kitsch’ as a Guardian headline labelled the closing ceremony of Tokyo 2020!
* Vergados, A (2013) The Homeric Hymn to Hermes: Introduction, Text and Commentary (Berlin)
Alan Beale