![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
spellcoats.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
queensthiefIn A Conspiracy of Kings, Sophos makes a couple of references to a poetic work called The Eponymiad. I'm sure everyone and their mom thought of The Iliad immediately. So I got curious. Just what is The Eponymiad? Googling "Eponymiad" doesn't turn up any related results, of course, since the work doesn't even exist. So I did a little research (on Wikipedia, naturally. Where else?).
Please note that this little not-essay uses the words "presumably" and "possibly" way too often.
First, the etymology of Iliad from Etymonline.com:
Okay, cool. So we know "Iliad" is basically a misnomer, but obviously Megan has to go with the flow here, since nobody would pick up on something called The Eponymias.
Next, the etymology of eponym from the same website:
Very clear. We know what eponymous means (Eugenides is the eponymous Queen's Thief of this series, Attolis and Attolia are the eponymous monarchs of Attolia, etc.). So as a compound, Eponym + -iad makes sense, presuming that -iad is some sort of root à la -holic.Yay for morphological misanalysis! Following the etymological pattern established by Iliad, we can back-form what would presumably be the original Greek form of Eponymiad (and so help me god, I am not a Classics scholar, so this is probably entirely wrong, BUT):
Of course, since that's only following the example set by one word and I know jack about Latin/Greek noun declension, it's entirely probably wrong. And following common sense, it's unlikely there's someone or someplace with the name "Eponymon" because its meaning would be too bizarre. The word implies that the eponymous something-or-other is named after something else, and in this sense we have no idea what the something is, unless we consider "Eponym(ion)" in its equivalent layman's English sense, "self-titled." E.g., "poem of the self-titled." Not quite so weird, though still highly bizarre, especially for what is presumably supposed to be an antiquated epic poem possibly derived from oral tradition.
But! I discovered something else interesting.
According to Wikipedia, Athens had an office/title known as the eponymous archon. Aha, I say! Now, first and foremost, what is an archon?
The archon was the chief magistrate in many Greek cities, but in Athens there was a council of archons which comprised a form of executive government. So sayeth Wiki.
Now, back to the eponymous archon. In ancient Greece, the eponymous archon was the highest magistrate in Athens. Archons of Athens served a term of one year which took the name of that particular archon (e.g., 594 BC was named for Solon).
In other words, the Athenians followed a practice much of the rest of the world has liked to practice at some point or another: naming time periods after prominent political leaders. Europe used to do it (...in the Seventh Year of his Reign, H.R.M. Blahblahblah...), modern societies do it jocularly (the Victorian Era, the Edwardian Era, etc.), Japan does it (Meiji, Showa, Heisei).
But then it gets more interesting: From the late eighth century BC, there were three archons, the archon eponymous, the polemarch (replaced in 501 BC by ten strategoi), and the archon basileus (the ceremonial remnant of the Athenian monarchy).
Wait, what was that about a basileus? Oho, we may be on to something!
So, in short, I've drawn two conclusions! The Eponymiad could be:
1. "poem of the self-titled," some sort of epic work about someone or something or someplace who/that is self-titled, or
2. something poeticizing some sort of historical event around the concept of the eponymous archon, which I think is much more likely.
Of course, I am probably entirely wrong about this, and I am at best an amateur linguist, but I had fun with it nonetheless.
¹ "Gen." is shorthand for "genitive," one of the many noun cases codified in ancient grammars. The layman's term is "possessive," though the genitive is by no means restricted to that specific grammar function. So Illiadis could be "the Iliad's" or "of the Iliad."
² Presumably the first noted historical usage of this word, or the conjectured date when the word entered the English lexicon.
Please note that this little not-essay uses the words "presumably" and "possibly" way too often.
First, the etymology of Iliad from Etymonline.com:
Iliad
from L. Illias (gen.¹ Illiadis), from Gk. Ilias poiesis "poem of Ilion" (Troy).
Okay, cool. So we know "Iliad" is basically a misnomer, but obviously Megan has to go with the flow here, since nobody would pick up on something called The Eponymias.
Next, the etymology of eponym from the same website:
eponym
1846², from Gk. eponymos “given as a name,” from epi “upon” + onoma (see name). One whose name becomes that of a place, a people, an era, an institution, etc.
Very clear. We know what eponymous means (Eugenides is the eponymous Queen's Thief of this series, Attolis and Attolia are the eponymous monarchs of Attolia, etc.). So as a compound, Eponym + -iad makes sense, presuming that -iad is some sort of root à la -holic.
Eponymiad
L. Eponymias (gen. Eponymiadis), from Gk. Eponymias poiesis "poem of Eponymion"
Of course, since that's only following the example set by one word and I know jack about Latin/Greek noun declension, it's entirely probably wrong. And following common sense, it's unlikely there's someone or someplace with the name "Eponymon" because its meaning would be too bizarre. The word implies that the eponymous something-or-other is named after something else, and in this sense we have no idea what the something is, unless we consider "Eponym(ion)" in its equivalent layman's English sense, "self-titled." E.g., "poem of the self-titled." Not quite so weird, though still highly bizarre, especially for what is presumably supposed to be an antiquated epic poem possibly derived from oral tradition.
But! I discovered something else interesting.
According to Wikipedia, Athens had an office/title known as the eponymous archon. Aha, I say! Now, first and foremost, what is an archon?
The archon was the chief magistrate in many Greek cities, but in Athens there was a council of archons which comprised a form of executive government. So sayeth Wiki.
Now, back to the eponymous archon. In ancient Greece, the eponymous archon was the highest magistrate in Athens. Archons of Athens served a term of one year which took the name of that particular archon (e.g., 594 BC was named for Solon).
In other words, the Athenians followed a practice much of the rest of the world has liked to practice at some point or another: naming time periods after prominent political leaders. Europe used to do it (...in the Seventh Year of his Reign, H.R.M. Blahblahblah...), modern societies do it jocularly (the Victorian Era, the Edwardian Era, etc.), Japan does it (Meiji, Showa, Heisei).
But then it gets more interesting: From the late eighth century BC, there were three archons, the archon eponymous, the polemarch (replaced in 501 BC by ten strategoi), and the archon basileus (the ceremonial remnant of the Athenian monarchy).
Wait, what was that about a basileus? Oho, we may be on to something!
So, in short, I've drawn two conclusions! The Eponymiad could be:
1. "poem of the self-titled," some sort of epic work about someone or something or someplace who/that is self-titled, or
2. something poeticizing some sort of historical event around the concept of the eponymous archon, which I think is much more likely.
Of course, I am probably entirely wrong about this, and I am at best an amateur linguist, but I had fun with it nonetheless.
¹ "Gen." is shorthand for "genitive," one of the many noun cases codified in ancient grammars. The layman's term is "possessive," though the genitive is by no means restricted to that specific grammar function. So Illiadis could be "the Iliad's" or "of the Iliad."
² Presumably the first noted historical usage of this word, or the conjectured date when the word entered the English lexicon.
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 03:32 am (UTC)*of course I learned this like a day ago but shhhhhhhhhh who's counting
**of course she says she doesn't care about this being cut and actually would prefer it not to be cut but she's not the one writing the comment***
***maybe I should just cut her out of the comment altogether****
****but I've already spent so much time on typing all this up*****
*****heck this comment****** could probably use a cut itself
******anyway I did find the post itself very interesting, and thought the archon basileus was pretty much jackpot and clapped with glee when I saw it
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 03:34 am (UTC)Or cut you.
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 03:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 4/12/10 03:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 4/12/10 04:01 am (UTC)I also find it fascinating that the archon basileus is the ceremonial remnant of the Athenian monarchy. Athens was... some sort of government that I'm too tired to look up right now (I think), so maybe that's what the three countries are moving toward becoming--solidifying into one state to drive off the Medes. Probably not in their lifetime, but Gen may be planning (pfft, MAY BE planning) on the effects that an invading force will have a unifying effect on the population. And given how much people are disliking the monarchy now (or, at least him), they do seem to gradually be losing power.
I'm sure Bunny will be happy, given how much the arts were respected in Athens. :3
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 04:36 am (UTC)What you said about invaders as a unifying force, however, is a possibility, although I hope it doesn't work out the way it did in Greece. When the Persians invaded Greece in the (aptly named) Persian Wars, the many greek city-states (the greek word is "polis") were forced to unite. The leader was Athens, which created what it called the Delian League. The League was many of the city-states united under Athens. They allied themselves with the Hellenic and Peloponesian Leagues (other groups of city-states), led by Corinth and Sparta respectively. The three leagues allied and fought back the Persians. All fine and dandy, right? Not so. Afterwards Athens gained more and more power, and the Peloponesian League went to war with them. Sparta's Peloponesian League won, but all of Greece was weakened and was eventually invaded.
Didn't work out for the Greeks.
*totally didn't write a paper on the Peloponesian War for history class*
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 11:53 am (UTC)Yikes. Well, it doesn't have to work out EXACTLY like history, right? ^^;
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 02:53 pm (UTC)And you have to keep in mind the perspective of the barons. For the Attolians, they have a queen--emphasis on that, a female monarch--who is ruling over them in her own right, and then they get a king from a backwater country whose every action that they can see is unregal and inept. Not to mention what they say in KoA about how an Eddisian queen would be unobjectionable, but they got an Eddisian king instead, which is Not Cool. For the Sounisians, they have different expectations than the Attolians for how a king behaves, and Sophos doesn't meet those any more than Gen meets his own.
As for democracy, from what we do know of Attolia and Sounis, they're more likely (particularly Sounis) to become aristocratic oligarchies before they become democracies.
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 05:17 pm (UTC)Yeah, I think oligarchies would definitely be a more sure bet than democracies.
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 02:43 pm (UTC)I have no doubt the three countries are on their way to becoming one state. Sophos , so it's likely Sounis will eventually be completely absorbed by Attolia. Of course, it's also possible that a couple generations down the road--long enough for --Sophos's decendents will urge a return to complete autonomy. But a lot of Sophos's arguments to his barons sounded like the sort you would hear from a pro-unification movement (same language, same culture, shared history, etc.).
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 05:21 pm (UTC)I'm a language student myself (though not linguistics because I think my brain would kill itself). Just Japanese. :3
So then that leads to the question, will the three countries unite under Eugenides rule (which SEEMED to be what the ending of KoA was hinting at--the annux and all (ruling over Sophos and Eddis respectively)--though that might be more in figurative than literal), or is he setting it all up for future generations?
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 05:20 am (UTC)A couple of notes (and I apologize for being a complete pedant about this; let it also be said that my theory has been that the "Eponymiad" is an in-joke by MWT:
mostall epics are eponymous with the name of an important place or character! So the Eponymiad is a sort of universalized epic about "someone worthy of being in an epic.")1. Thinking about MWT & Greek, "archaic" in the Attolia books is not the same as Greek -- some words and roots match (e.g. "Sophos" = "wisdom", "ere" ~ "eros" = love); others don't (e.g. a lot of the other words in the prayer to the great goddess don't actually correspond directly to Greek). So the meaning of a Greek word used in MWT does not necessarily correspond to the meaning that it has within MWT's universe.
2. "Self-titled" as a meaning for "eponymiad" does not mean "giving oneself a name" but "deriving one's name from (oneself)": what I am trying to distinguish is that there is no agency inherent in the process the word describes.
3. (This is the important one, maybe): the suffix -ias, -iadis, is essentially a patronymic suffix that has turned into a general adjectival one: Ilias poesis = "the poem derived-from --> about Ilium". Now, "the poem about [the] Eponymous [person place of thing]" would be the Eponymas poesis or the "Eponymad. What does that little "i(ota)" do? You're right that it probably means that we're talking about the poem about Eponymion. That suffix -ion, however, is quite possibly a diminutive, particularly if we take it to refer to a person: "the poem about little Eponymos."
[Now: I would suspect, again, that MWT is simply playing off of "Iliad" and similar and that she may not have consciously stuck that "i" in. Which doesn't mean that we can't talk about it, of course.]
3. Some more information about some of the terms you found: When we are talking about "since the 8th century b.c.e," we are essentially talking about "since the earliest point for which we can make conjectures about Athenian history." The three rulers (archon is the participle of the Greek word archeo; it means, roughly "the man in charge") were the executives of democratic Athens: the polemarch(on) ("the man in charge of war") would have been charge of the military, and the archon basileus would have fulfilled the religious and ritual tasks that the king would originally have performed. This was a problem that ancient democracies and republics had: if you don't have a king anymore, who will take care of the ritual space that a king represents for his people? (The Romans had to do similar fudging with "regal" priesthoods to take care of this.) Note, however, that the archon eponymous was not the archon basileus.
4. Some notes about the terms anax and basileus. In MWT, there is a clear distinction between basileus = archaic word for king and anax = king of kings. In classical Greek (which would be archaic from the Byzantine perspective of MWT's world) basileus is simply the word for king (hereditary monarch, as opposed to tyrranos, a non-hereditary monarch who may have just shown up with an army but is not necessarily a bad ruler). The kings of Sparta are called basileus, and whom we would call the Mede Emperor, the King of the Persians, was called the megas basileus (the great king).
(w)anax, on the other hand, is an older word, mostly known to us from Homer. There, it is a general word, used pretty equivalently to basileus of the various Greek officers; it is also used of gods. On the other hand, only Agamemnon is called anax andron (the king of men).
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 02:33 pm (UTC)"Eponymiad" is an in-joke by MWT:
mostall epics are eponymous with the name of an important place or characterThat hadn't even occurred to me, but it makes so much sense (Iliad/Ilion, Odyssey/Odysseus)!
I knew I'd be making huge mistakes considering my knowledge of the classical languages is pretty much nil, but clearly the biggest one I made was assuming Archaic = Classic. But that it doesn't is also very commonsensical, because the different cultures using the language have developed differently. They've experienced--not completely different linguistic environments, but different enough for everything to not be equal.
Note, however, that the archon eponymous was not the archon basileus.
I didn't mean to say that it was. Rather, I meant that there's been such emphasis put on that little word (basileus), that its connection with "eponymous" seemed significant to me.
Tyrranos would be the source of the Latin tyrant? Or do they simply come from the same PIE root?
I wish I could respond to everything you said, but unfortunately I can't muster up much more than, "Wow, that's really interesting!"
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 04:30 pm (UTC)Wait: I see that you probably meant Archaic (=MWT archaic) and Classical (=classical Greek from our world). I do agree that they are as similar as MWT wants them to be in any given instance, particularly with respect to vocabulary. So if she ever finds it useful for the Eponymiad to have something to do with a particular instance of eponymy, I'm sure it will!
The thing to really look at, which I, unfortunately, don't know enough to look at, would be Byzantine Greek, and the different way that it used classical words. I know that by that time, it had imported a number of political terms from Latin: what did basileus mean then?
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 12:27 pm (UTC)I haven't gotten the book yet, but from reading the online preview (and with reference to the Iliad etc.), I've given myself the impression that the Eponymiad is a satirical mock epic.
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 4/12/10 03:20 pm (UTC)Anyway, all hail the linguist!
no subject
Date: 4/12/10 09:19 pm (UTC)Insofar as it had an in-text meaning, I saw it as a sort of "Catalog of Kings", a chronicle of the various great rulers who had lent their names to their respective eras, with a precis of their mighty deeds. This seemed like the sort of thing that young scholars like Sophos might be set to memorize, and that would make an entertaining bedtime serial story for the farm slaves.
(by the way, are the allusions "Watsonian" and "Doylist" interpretations common in this fandom? If so, the first explanation would be a Doylist one, the second a Watsonian one. Ricardienne's interesting take manages, most intriguingly, to combine the two...)
no subject
Date: 4/13/10 01:53 am (UTC)Good lord you guys are smart!
Date: 4/14/10 02:52 am (UTC)needs to study more!
Date: 4/22/10 12:49 am (UTC)