previous next

[126] It is impossible to explain with any confidence the phrase ἀπὸ δρυὸς οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ πέτρης. It recurs, with variations, several times in Greek, but not in a way to throw much light on the present passage. The other instances are Od. 19.163 “οὐ γὰρ ἀπὸ δρυός ἐσσι παλαιφάτου οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ πέτρης”: quoted by Plato Apol. 34D “καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ τοῦ Ὁμήρου, οὐδ᾽ ἐγὼ ἀπὸ δρυὸς οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ πέτρης πέφυκα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων”: Rep. 544D “ἢ οἴει ἐκ δρυός ποθεν ἢ ἐκ τέτρας τὰς πολιτείας γίγνεσθαι”: Hesiod Theog. 35 “ἀλλὰ τίη μοι ταῦτα περὶ δρῦν ἢ περὶ πέτρην”: Platt (J. P. xix. 48) adds ad Att. xiii. 28, Ovid Ars Am. ii. 541, and Nonnus xlviii. 504 “τίς δρυῒ μῦθον ἔλεξε . . καὶ εἰς γάμον ἤγαγε πέτρην”. It seems that there must have been some familiar connexion between the two words which permitted them to be used together in various contexts by some virtue of allusiveness now lost. How common this is with proverbial expressions in ordinary conversation hardly needs to be pointed out. A homely analogy may be found in the phrase ‘cock and bull,’ the French coq-à-l'âne, which starting from some old witch-story of the turning of a cock into a bull originally implied aimless discursiveness, but is now used to express gross incredibility. So the phrase here used seems to mean idle talk; in “τ” and Plato it refers to mythical origin, the line in Hesiod sharing both connotations; it ends in Nonnus with the idea of inexorability (cf. our ‘stocks and stones’ with the same sense, and also with that of idolatry). All may naturally spring from some primitive folk-tale of the origin of mankind from stones or trees. We might here put “ἀπὸ δρυὸς οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ πέτρης” in inverted commas, croon him the tale ‘from oak or tree. ’ In any case we must not seek in the words a rustic background to the lovers' seat — such an idea is neither Epic nor Greek. Cook B. in C. R. xv. 322 (where a review of previous attempted explanations is given) seeks a more definite reference in “ὀαριζέμεναι”, which he holds to be properly used not only of lovers' dalliance, but of the boastful challenge of the warrior, beginning commonly with a proclamation of his ancestry, so that there is no ‘grim irony’ or oxymoron in the “πολέμου ὀαριστύς”, but the straightforward ‘challenge of battle’ (13.291, 17.228). Cook therefore explains that it will be no use for Hector to face Achilles with boasts of his fabulous ancestry ‘from stock or stone,’ and translates ‘by no means now may one parley with him (of descent) from stock or stone, as lad and lass, lad and lass parley each with the other.’ But this is very harsh, and the mention of ‘lad and lass’ seems expressly to exclude any martial connotation.

The Iliad, edited, with apparatus criticus, prolegomena, notes, and appendices. Walter Leaf. London. Macmillan. 1900.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide References (7 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (7):
    • Hesiod, Theogony, 35
    • Homer, Iliad, 13.291
    • Homer, Iliad, 17.228
    • Homer, Odyssey, 19.163
    • Plato, Republic, 544
    • Plato, Apology, 34d
    • Ovid, Ars Amatoria, 2
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: