Some Recently Found Greek Poems: Text and Commentary 9789004083196, 9004083197

Citation preview

SOM E RECEN TLY FOUND GREEK POEM S

M NEM OSYNE BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA BATAVA COLLEGERUNT A. D. LEEMAN

H. W. PLEKET C. J RUIJGH

BIBLIOTHECAE FASCICULOS EDENDOS CURAVIT C. J. RUIJGH, KLASSIER SEMINARIUM, OUDE TURFMARKT 129, AMSTERDAM

S U P P L E M E N T U M N O N A G E S IM U M N O N U M J. M. BREM ER A. M A R I A v a n E R P T A A L M A N K IP S. R . S L IN G S SOM E R ECEN TLY FO U N D G REEK POEM S

SOME RECENTLY FOUND GREEK POEMS TEXT AND COM M ENTARY

BY

J. M . B REM ER A. M A R IA

van

E R P T A A L M A N K IP

S. R . S L I N G S

E .J . B R IL L L E ID E N · N E W Y O R K · K 0 B E N H A V N · K Ö L N 1987

T h e publication of this book was m ad e possible th ro u g h a g ra n t from the N eth erlan d s O rg a n iz atio n for the A d v a n ce m e n t of P u re R esearch (Z .W .O .).

L ibrary o f Congress C a ta lo g in g -in -P u b lic a tio n D ata

Bremer, Jan Maarten. Some recently found Greek poems. (Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum; 99) Includes indexes. 1. Manuscripts, Greek (Papyri) 2. Greek poetry. 3. Archilochus—Manuscripts. I. Erp Taalman Kip, A. Maria van (Anna Maria), 1935. II. Slings, S. R. III. Title. IV. Series. PA3319.A2 1987 88Γ.0Γ08 87-23850 ISBN 90-04-08319-7 (pbk.)

ISSN 0169-8958 ISBN 90 04 08319 7 Copyright 1987 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher t’KiNi ri) in t u f . n k t h f

.r l a n d s

in· k . j . bri i i .

CONTENTS List o f Plates ....................................................................................................

vi

I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................................................

vii

A ) A rchilochus: Poem (s) in iam bic t r i m e t e r s ....................................... B ) A rchilochus: ‘First C ologne E p o d e ’ .................................................... C) A rchilochus: ‘Second C o logne E p o d e ’ (fr. 188).......................... D ) A n o n y m u s: C o m m e n ta r y on Poem (s) o f H i p p o n a x ..................... E) Alcaeus: ‘Aias an d K a s s a n d r a ’ ............................................................ F) Stesichorus: ‘T h e Lille p a p y r u s ’ ..........................................................

1 24 62 70 95 128

B ib lio g ra p h y ........................................................................................................

173

In d ex lo co ru m ................................................................................................... In d ex v e r b o r u m ................................................................................................

175 177

L IST O F PLA TES 1. Archilochus, P. Oxy. 2310, fr. 1. (col. i. 1-39 = A). 2. A rchilochus, P. Colon, inv. 7511 = P. Köln 58. (1-35 = B; 36-40 = C ).

3. H ip p o n a x , P. Oxy. 2176, fr. 1 + 9 (col. i = D I; col. ii = D II). 4. H ip p o n a x , (left) P. Oxy. 2176, fr. 3 + 4 + 5. ( = D III), (right) P. Oxy. 2176, fr. 2 + 8 + u n n u m b e re d fr. + P. Oxy. 1233, fr. 29. ( = ■» 5), 5. Alcaeus, P. Oxy. 2303, a. 6. Alcaeus, P. Colon. 2021. 7. Stesichorus, P. Lille 76 Ai, 76 Aii, 73 i, 73 ii. Inset: Stesichorus, P. Lille 111 C. 8. Stesichorus, P. Lille 76 C i, 76 Cii, 76 B.

Credits P h o to g rap h s for plates 1 , 3 , 4 a n d 5 by courtesy of the Egypt E xploration Society, L o n d o n . P h o to g rap h s for plates 2 an d 6 by courtesy of the In stitu t für A lte rtu m s­ k u n d e, C ologne. P h o to g rap h s for plates 7 an d 8 by courtesy of l ’In stitu t de Papyrologie et d ’Egyptologie de l ’U niversité de Lille III.

IN T R O D U C T IO N G reek literary papyrology has b ro u g h t m a n y new witnesses for texts already know n from m edieval m an u scrip ts; m ore exciting are, of course, the discoveries o f texts hitherto u n k n o w n . T h e re was a golden age u p to a n d a ro u n d 1900 d u rin g which poets e m erg ed in full splendour: A lem an, Bacchylides, to n a m e two of them . M o re than half a cen tu ry later a silver age followed b rin g in g some new plays o f M e n a n d e r, one of th em 100% complete. T h e present period is not yet the iron age: even now im p o rta n t new frag m en ts are being p ro d u c e d by heroic efforts, especially since m u m m y carto n n ag es have beg u n to be ‘d e c o n stru c te d ’ systematically. T h ese new fragm ents deserve the sam e threefold tre a tm e n t as their m ore illustrious predecessors: (1) a first edition, (2) n u m e ro u s suggestions in detail for constitution an d in te rp re ta tio n of the text in scholarly periodicals, (3) the b rin g in g together of these m anifold co n trib u tio n s into a carefully constituted text an d a full c o m m e n tary . T h e au th o rs of the present book hope to have done the third jo b for some substantial new fragm ents of A lcaeus (A. M . van Erp T a a lm a n Kip), A rchilochus and H ip p o n a x (S. R . Slings), Stesichorus (J. M . B rem er). Each of us has seen, a n d c o n trib u te d to, the individual work of each of the two others. Even so, we have asked an d found help in m a n y q u a rte rs. O u r first debt of g ratitu d e is tow ards those colleagues who sent p h o to g rap h s, a n d afterw ards received us an d allowed us to inspect the original papyri at leisure: C . M eillier (Lille) for Stesichorus, J . R e a and R . Coles (O x fo rd ) for Archilochus a n d H ip p o n a x , the staff of the Institut für A lte rtu m s k u n d e (C ologne) for A lcaeus an d A rchilochus. A provisional an d partial draft of o u r w ork was discussed in A m s te r­ d a m on 8-9 M a y 1984; p a rtn e rs in the discussion were R . F ü h re r ( H a m ­ burg), P. P arso n s (O xford), S. L. R a d t (G ro n in g en ), C . J . R u ijg h (A m ste rd a m ). Several o f th eir suggestions have been adopted by us; w h en ev er one of their n am es ap pears in o u r c o m m en taries w ithout a p a g e -n u m b e r, it is u n d ersto o d that the suggestion was given at that occa­ sion. T h e m a n u sc rip t of the c o n trib u tio n s by S. R. Slings was finished in A ugust 1984 (publications that a p p ea re d after this date could be taken into account only occasionally), those of the c o n trib u tio n s by J . M . B rem er a n d A. M . van E rp T a a lm a n K ip were finished in N o v e m b er 1985. P. J . Sijpesteijn read the com plete m a n u sc rip t an d helped us in re m o v in g several mistakes or im précisions. K. A. W o rp assisted two of us m ore especially: his sharp eye an d his experience as a papyrologist has been of great value. T h e F o n d atio n H a r d t p o u r les études classiques gave

B re m er the o p p o rtu n ity of w orking on Stesichorus in J u n e 1985. T h e D u tc h O rg a n iz atio n for the A d v a n ce m e n t of P u re R esearch co n trib u ted funds tow ards the costs of the M a y 1984 m eeting an d also tow ards the costs of the present publication. T h r e e ladies deserve the credit for b rin g ­ ing o u r m an u scrip ts into typescripts: I. Sluiter (A rchilochus, H ip p o n a x ), H . M . de S ch ep p er an d M . P. v.d . Wiel (Stesichorus a n d Alcaeus). M r. H . A. M u ld e r has been very helpful in re m o v in g the worst mistakes from o u r English. Finally, we th a n k the editors of the S u p p le m e n ta M n em o sy n e for receiving o u r book in th e ir series. U niversity of A m ste rd a m , Free U n iv ersity

J . M . B rem er A. M a r ia van E rp T a a lm a n K ip S. R . Slings

A

ARCHILOCHUS

P O E M (S ) IN IA M B I C T R I M E T E R S I treat here the first th irty -n in e lines o f P.Oxy. 2310, fr. 1 col. i. Line 40 is too short to be an iam bic trim eter; it is the title of a new poem c o m ­ m e n cin g in 41 (fr. 25 W .). L ine 42 coincides with a kn o w n frag m en t of A rchilochus, as do lines 5f. of col. ii (fr. 26 W .). T h r e e o th er fragm ents of this roll have been p reserved, b u t n o th in g m u c h can be learn ed from them . A rchilochean a u th o rsh ip of o u r th irty -n in e lines is strongly suggested by these facts, an d also by details of m etre an d diction. T h e circum stance th at the lines are difficult to in terp ret (w h eth er they are taken as b e lo n g ­ ing to one single poem or to m ore) is p ro b ab ly the cause of m istru st or rejection o f th eir auth en ticity by several scholars (A. C o lo n n a , B P E C 7, 1959, 51-53; G io rd a n o ; G allavotti; S. M . M ed ag lia, Note di esegesi archilochea, R o m a 1982, 125-127), a n d given o u r la cu n a ry know ledge of the lyrical lan g u ag e an d A rc h ilo c h u s’ ten d en cy to e x p erim en t w ith it, a rg u m e n ts are easily found once m istru st has arisen (some of m y notes deal implicitly with such a rg u m e n ts). T h e sam e reaction was to be seen tw enty years later w hen the C ologne frag m e n t (B ) was published. T h e roll is w ritten in a h a n d dated by Lobel a b o u t the m iddle of the second cen tu ry A D ; it is roughly of the sam e type as that o f the C ologne A rchilochus, b u t less regular. A c ce n tu a tio n agrees with o u r habits; in a d ­ dition, a grave accent (used in the n o rm a l w ay in 9 μή) can be used to indicate th at the next syllable is a cc en tu ated (9 τετράμηνης, 11 ανόλβειης; even w hen the next syllable is in fact elided: 13 ε'ιμ’). In one case, w here the accent is typical of Ionic, both conventions are com bined: 10 τίθεϋ. P u n c tu a tio n consists of the high po in t only; a sp arin g use is m a d e of apostrophos (there is no scriptio plena)·, the trema is always w ritten on wordinitial iota (10 ϊλ.ον), as well as on 22 νηϊ. Iota adscript is not used (except in corrections or later additions: 19 a n d 21). T h e re is an (illegible) in ­ terlin ear note in 23; of the v a ria n t readings an d corrections, some are in the first h a n d (8·ουσ·; 21 τοι) a n d belong to the paradosis; others are w rit­ ten with a th in n e r pen (as are most accents) a n d slightly cursive— these mostly n orm alize Ionic form s (11 ές to εις 21 εσεαι to εσηι). T h e re is one in trig u in g critical sign in 19 (cf. ad loc.), a n d a forked p a ra g ra p h u s (cf. D, ad II 11-14) u n d e rn e a th col. ii, 11 (p ro b ab ly m a rk in g the b e g in n in g o f a new poem ).

2

A RC H I L O C H U S

I ex am ined the p ap y ru s, with the help of an excellent microscope (this also goes for B - D ), at O x fo rd in O c to b er 1981. W here subsequent editors differ from Lobei, I have almost always found the latter to be right; hence I present m y own deviations from his readings (the m ajor ones are discussed in the notes) with some hesitation, especially because of the b a d preservation of the m aterial. Editors should always be ex­ trem ely cautious in d raw in g conclusions from p h otographs, an d especial­ ly in the case of this w retched papyrus. 1

4

7

10

13

16

19

22 (1)

25 (4)

28 (7)

31 (10)

34 (13)

]..[ ]....[ ]...[

].[..].[ ].[..].[...].[..]v[

] .......... [ · · ] · · [ · · ] ..................... γε · [ ] ......... [· · ] ...................α.έργματ[ ]■[]■[■■]■■*■[■]■;[·■;]■,......... a . ; . . βεω [ ]. [ ] . . β α ......... ε την δ’εγώνταμειβόμ[ην γύνα[ι], φάτιν μέν την προς άνθρώπω[ν κακήν μη τετραμήνης μηδέ(ν)- άμφί δ’ εύφ[ρονέμο'ι μελήσει- θυμόν ιλ . ον τιθεΰ. ες τοΰτο δή τοι τής άνρλβ{ε}(ης δοκ[έω ήκειν; άνήρ τοι δειλός άρ’ εφαινρμην [ ού]δ’ οιός είμ’ έγωύτός ούδ’ οιων απο. έπ]ίσταμαί τοι τον φιλεΰντα μέν φ[ι]λέειν [ τό]ν δ’ εχθρόν έχθ{ρ}αιρειν τε [κα]'ι κακο[ μύ]ρμηξ. λογω . . υν τ [ .............]θείη πάρ[ . πό]λιν δ έ ταύτη[V. . . ] . [ ......... ]πιστρ ε [. . . ]. [ ] . . ]τοι ποτ’ ανδρες εξε[......... ]σαν σύ δέ ν]ϋν ειλες αίχμήιΙν1 κα[ί μέγ’ έ]ξήρα[ο] κ[λ]εος .) ]κείνης οίνασσε και τ[υραν]γίην ε χ ετοι ]π[ο]λ[λοϊ]σι [.]η[. ζ]ηλωτός ά[νθρ]ωπων εσεαι. ] νηΐ συν σ[μ]ικρή μέγαν πόντον περή]σας ήλθες εκ Γορτυνίης ] . . . οτ . . . . πε . εστάθη[γ[ ] και τόδ’ άρπαλ[ί]ζομ[αι ] ] · γυης άφικ[ ]. μοισιν έ . [ ..............]. ς ] χεΐρα και π[αρ]εστ[ά]θη. [ ].ουσας, φ[ο]ρτίωγ δέ μοι μέ[λ]ει ]. ος είτ’ άπώλετο ]ν εστι μηχανή ]λρ. ουτιν’ εύροίμην εγώ εί σ]ε κΰμ’ άλός κατέκλυσεν ].ν χερσ'ιν αϊχμητέων ύπό

[

poem

37 (16)

(s )

in

ia m bic

tr im eter s

3

ή]βην αγλαήν άπ[ώ]λεσας. άν]θεΐ καί σε θε[ός έ]ρ in 207, τοκα instead of πόκα here; the r e d u n d a n t om icron in 213; an d the omission of a sigm a in the next line. 215 ά λ γεσ (σ )ι.. T h e re is no d o u b t that the m etre requires — w; άλγεσι will not do. N ote again the flexibility of m orphology: likewise, H o m e r has βέλεσιν (A 657) besides βέλεσσιν (A 42). δακ ρ υό εντα is metrically suspect. In all o ther verifiable cases of (x)Dxex in this poem (str. 2, 5 a n d ep. 2; thirteen attestations altogether) the syllable betw een D and e is really anceps, i.c. only—an d are attested. I am inclined to accept H a s la m ’s view (1978, 39) that the responsion UO (biceps) is reserved for the p seu d o h ex am eters. N ow would it be possible to scan δακρυόεντα as G allavotti (1977a, 5) referred to Ήλεκτρυώνης, s c a n n e d -------- in H esiod (5 x ); then the has no syllabic value but operates as sem iconsonant. Possible. B arrett suggested to p ro ­ n ounce δακρυόεντα; H a sla m loc.cit. n. 21 : “ this m ay be the a n sw e r’’. O r it m ay not; for there is no o th e r case of οε in Stesichorus. R u ijg h has su g ­ gested to read δακρύεντα, and there are good reasons for doing so: *δακρύεις is the original form, for (i) the n o u n is δάκρυ, δάκρυον being the ‘illegitimate offspring’ o f the plural δάκρυα an d (ii) the suffix was orig in al­ ly -(F )tις, although in later periods one finds (ap art from χαρίεις) only forms on -όεις and -ήεις; see Schw yzer I 527. δ α κ ρ υ(ο )εντα [— . T h is lacu n a has stim ulated the inventiveness of quite a few scholars. I shall deal w ith their suggestions in groups, a cco rd ­ ing to the different syntactical constructions they assum e. T h e re are five who w ant to p u t in a substantive: δακρυόεντα [τ’ έργα Barigazzi e.a. (1) M eillier [τ’ άθλα (2) [τ’ άλγεα Tosi (3) δακρυόεντα [κάδεα Pavese (4) [πότμον Gallavotti (5) S u p p lem en t (1) draw s its plausibility from the parallel with τάδε ... έργα in π 107, discussed above ad 213-217; cp. also Γ 130 and t 295. O n e might object th at this su pplem ent disregards the effect of the d ig a m m a , but that is also the case in 211 (-δας ίδέσθαι) and 228 (καί άστυ). Against (2) one m ight be tem pted to point out that the u n co n tracted άεθλα is n o r­ mal in H o m e r u p to and including P in d a r, but there are a lew cases of άθλ- already in H o m e r (λ 699; Θ 160 etc..). As for (3), one m ight think that we have seen enough instances of this w ord in the few lines of Stesichorus so far; but Tosi lists seven parallels from tragedy (S. A i. 362, 866; El. 235; E. Hel. 195, 365; Or. 1257; Ph. 1495) to prove that by ac­ c u m u la tin g forms of an identical n o u n (κακόν κακώ, πόνον πόνω, άταν

‘t h e

LILLE P A P Y R U S ’

149

άταις etc.) G reek poets express the accu m u latio n of evil. S u p p lem en t (4) is backed by A 445, but by n o th in g else: the c o o rd in atin g particle is re ­ quired for the two adjectives in this line. In (5) G allavotti puts a c o m m a before δακρυόεντα an d one after [πότμον, taking these w ords to be an a p ­ position to ταΰτα .. πολύστονα. A different solution is proposed by R itoôk (in a letter to m e), viz. to read (6) δακρυόεντ’ ά[ελπτα; he points to B. 3,29 as parallel: (ΚροΤσος) ές άελπτον άμαρ/ μολών πολυδάκρυον ούκ εμελλε/ μίμνειν ετι δουλοσύναν κτλ. But there πολυδ. is linked up with δουλ. and άελπτον with άμαρ; also there is the difficulty already noted in (4): this time no less than three u n c o o rd in a ted adjectives. S u p p lem en t (7) δακρυόεντ’ ά[γεΐσαν follows a suggestion of Parsons; πολύστονα δακρυόεντ’ are then adverbial. T h e a d v an ta g e of (7) is that for the first tim e άλγεσσι is assigned a satisfactory syntactic function; in all o ther supplem ents it can only have a vague rôle as ‘c o m ita tiv e ’ dat. For the disregarded d ig a m m a see ad suppl. (1). But there are no o ther instances of passive forms of άγνυμι = ‘c ru s h ’ in a m etap h o rical sen se.— Finally three sugges­ tions with a dative to give some syntactical sy m m etry to the line: δακρυόεντ’ ά[λάστοις B arrett (8) δακρυόεντα [λυγροϊς B arrett (9); again the u n c o m fo rt­ ably free-roam ing dative. δακρυόεντ’ ά[χεσσι Sisti (10), is a bold sophisticated a tte m p t, m e a n t as “ espressione asindetica con s tru ttu ra ch iastica” to m atch the balance of the two following participial constructions. T o o neat and sophisticated to suit Stesichorus. If I had to place a bet, it would be on (1) because of π 107, a n d I w ould put small sum s on (5) a n d (7) as well. 216 π α ίδ α ς έν! μ μ ε γ ά ρ ο ις . A bout the μμ, see ad 207. T h ese three words occur in this o rd e r in Ω 603; γ 354; κ 5, an d with slight variations in γ 401 ; ψ 56. 217 ή. Is it an inexorable d ile m m a here: “ either .. o r ? ” O r a looser connection: “ ra th e r die than see how x or y h a p p e n s ” ? In my com m ent ad 210 (πάσας) I have touched upo n the question what exactly, in S tesich o ru s’ version of the story, T eiresias has foretold. It is possible to fram e a hypothesis as follows: in the passage preceding Io caste’s speech Teiresias has said “ After O e d ip u s ’ parricid e a n d incest it is impossible for his sons to reign over T h eb es; if they insist on doing precisely that, the result is b o u n d to be disastrous, for either their present q u arrel about the succession will becom e worse a n d en d in fratricide, or if that is avoided (i.e. if they stay to g eth er in T h e b e s, sharing royal power), enem ies will com e a n d take the city ” . T h is hypothesis fits the w ording of 216-217 (and explains Io caste’s ‘so lu tio n ’ of 226 ff.: there she offers a ‘te r tiu m ’, an escape from T e ire s ia s ’ dreadful either-or). But it c an n o t be

STESICHORUS

verified or falsified unless new evidence tu rn s up: for (i) the text of this p ap y ru s fragm ent leaves us in the d ark about T e ire s ia s ’ actual words, and (ii) the scanty fragm ents of, a n d testim onia about the epics Oidipodia an d Thebais do not give us any clue about an in tervention by Teiresias at this point of the story. A p a rt from the fragm ents alluded to ju s t now, G. R o b e r t’s massive Oedipus consists entirely of m aterial from the fifth cen tu ry BC an d later. If, how ever, this hypothesis is correct, Stesichorus was the first to p u t the fate of the L abdacid family in a w ider ‘political’ perspective: the choice betw een γένος an d πόλις. F ro m A eschylus’ version of the story only the third play is preserved: there it is Apollo him self who puts the d ile m m a to Laius: ’Απόλλωνος ... είπόντος ...(Λαίον) θνάισκοντα γέννας άτερ σώιζειν πόλιν (T h. 745-749). T eiresias is only m e n tio n ed in passing, b u t not as the private soothsayer of the family: he is the m a n who uses his special knowledge for the benefit of the polis (24-29). T h is sam e ‘political’ preoccupation is clear in S. Ant. 1015 νοσεί πόλις and in E. Ph. 867 νοσεί γάρ ήδε γη πάλαι; he apostrophizes T h eb es: σύ τ ’ ώ τάλαινα ... πόλι, 884. Ε. Ph. provides us with an even m o re specifically striking parallel, viz. betw een C r e o n ’s effort to find a way out of the d ilem m a γένος-πόλις, an d Io caste’s in Stesichorus. In E. Ph. 898 G reon asks Teiresias φράσον πολίταις και πόλει σωτηρίαν. Teiresias answers: σφάξαι Μενοικέα τόνδε δεΓ σ’ ύπερ πάτρας/ σόν παϊδα (913-4). G reo n refuses to listen: ούκ έκλυον ούδ’ ήκουσα. χαιρέτω πόλις (919). T eiresias explains that the γένος o f the Spartoi has to pay for C a d m u s ’ killing of the d rag o n , an d ends by saying: ή γάρ παϊδα σώισον ή πόλιν (952). C r e o n ’s final stance is th at he is fully p re p a red to die himself θνήισκειν έτοιμος πατρίδος έκλυτήριον (969); an d he w ants to get his son out of the co u n try . All taken together his situation and reaction has m uch in co m m o n with Iocaste’s in Stes., including one verbal coincidence: λυτήριον (Stes. 226) an d έκλυτήριον (E. Ph. 969). π ό λ ιν άλοισαν. W e who in o u r life-time have heard ab o u t the sack of Berlin (1945), H a m a (1982) an d Beirut (1984-1985) know that the fall of a city an d the subsequent b e h av io u r of the ‘victors’ a m o u n t to a n ig h t­ m are. In an tiq u ity , too, this was well-known. In the Iliad (I 592-4) Phoenix makes M e le a g e r’s wife explain to h er h u sb an d w hat will h appen if the C u re tes take the city (it is stated in general terms, note the epic τε): κήδε’ δσ’ άνθρώποισι πέλει των άστυ άλώηιανδρας μέν κτείνουσι, πόλιν δέ τε πϋρ άμαθύνει, τέκνα δέ τ ’ άλλοι άγουσι, βαθυζώνους τε γυναίκας. G rim anticipation of victory is voiced by the Greeks: πόλις Πριάμοιο άνακτος/ χερσίν ύφ’ ήμετέρηισιν άλοϋσά τε περθομένη τε (Β 373-4 = Δ 290291; Δ 291 = Ν 816). T h e Iliupersis becam e the su b ject-m atter o f a separate epic in the ‘C y cle ’; it was sung by Stesichorus (rem ains in SLG

‘t h e

LILLE P A P Y R U S ’

151

88-132). In tragedy w om en tell about the horrors of this night in E. Hec. 905-951 a n d 'Fro. 51 1-567; C ly ta e m n e s tra sadistically elaborates on this them e in A. Ag. 320-337. Cf. also the chorus of A. Th. (w om en again!): 321-368. 2 1 8 -2 2 4 At this point of the c o m m e n ta ry it is possible and useful to take in the im pact of what Iocaste has said so far an d how that is related to w hat she is going to say. In fact one could c o m p are the three p arts of h e r speech to the m ovem ents of a sonata: A n d a n te con m oto, A dagio funebre, Allegro vivace. In the first p art (as far back as we can read it: 201-210) she resists the im pact of T c ire s ia s ’ words: “ Do not add to my so rro w — the u n fo rtu n ate conflict between m y sons need not be definitive and irrem e d ia b le — I still hope that w hat you have said will not come tr u e ” . In the second part (211-217) she almost su rren d ers to the p ro ­ phecy: “ I f it is really inevitable that I shall see m y sons killed by each other, then I w ant to die right now, before these tearful events hap p en : m y sons killed— if not, then T h e b e s sacked!” In the third (218-231) she pulls herself together, addresses her sons a n d puts them on to a course of action which will, so she p ersuades herself to think, be a way out of the evil fate foretold by T . , if only Zeus will save us, dy n asty and city, an d postpone evil until later (here I anticipate the result o f a discussion to be held ad 228). From a psychological point of view, this ρήσις is a splendid piece; especially how at the n a d ir of despair (217-218) she swit­ ches from the m in o r into the m a jo r key. She overcomes the depressing effect of w hat religious a u th o rity has told her by the sheer vitality of her m aternal hope and initiative (see co m m , ad 224). 216 ά λ λ ’ ά γ ε occurs a b o u t one h u n d re d times in H o m e r, invariably as the first dactyl of the hex am eter; always followed by an im perative of the second person, singular or plural, or by an ad hortative subjunctive of the first person plural. T h is will be of im p o rtan ce when wc have to a p ­ preciate the sup p lem en ts suggested for the end of this verse (cf. ad φίλα). έμοΐς μύθοις. In H o m e r μϋθος (and μυθέομαι) refer to speech which is not per se n arrativ e; in fact it very often is exhortatory: c.g. ήρχον εγώ μυθοιο, κελεύων υμμ’ αμ ’ έπεσθαι Λ 781, cf. als Γ 86-91. T h e result o f such a speech is έπείθετο μύθωι A 33; cf. A 273: Y 295 etc. T h e cases of μϋθος = n arrativ e discourse arc rare: A 643; ψ 301. φ ίλα I — X. Six suggestions have been put forward five o f which can be discarded; the re m a in in g one seems to be a palmaria. T h e follow­ ing discussion is partly indebted to M a lto m in i’s excellent p a p er (1977). 1) φίλα [νεύσατε κράτα G argiulo 2) φίλα [τέρματα κείσθω Gallavotti 3) φίλα [νϋν φρονέοιτε Barigazzi

STESICHORUS

4) φίλα [εΐόετε θυμώι Pavese 5) φίλα [εί'δετε μήδεα Sisti 6) φίλα [τέκνα, πίθεσθε W est + M alto m in i A gainst (1)-(5) can be objected that in G reek som eone (or som ething) is always called φιλος(-ν) to a person,φίλα φρονεΐν (etc.) τινί; in these five s u p ­ plem ents, how ever, the κράτα, τέρματα, μήδεα a n d the content of φρονεΐν resp. είδέναι are φίλα to μύθοις. T h e co m m e n t given above on the norm al follow-up of άλλ’ αγε (subjunctive 1st ps. plural, or im perative 2nd p e r­ son sing, or plural) rules out (2), (3), and also (4) and (5) for εί'δετε can only be taken as a subjunctive. T h e re are also m ore specific objections. A gainst (1) it can be pointed out that νεύω in the sense of ‘to a sse n t’ is norm ally intransitive; in the few cases w here the verb is followed by an accusative (or acc. cum inf.), this acc. refers to the object (or course of action) to which assent is given, cf. Θ 246, Hy.Dem. 445 = 463; in the only H o m e ric case of νεύειν κεφάλας T e le m a ch u s wishes that the Suitors will b e n d /d ro p their heads ju st as the b eaten beggar Irus is d oing then (σ 237). T his is certainly not what Iocaste w ants her sons to d o . — As for (2), its inventor claims that it is ‘c o n firm e d ’ by τέλος in the next line. But τέρμαΦ τέλος, see W aa n d e rs; a n d his su p p lem en t would m ake Iocaste say: “ I now really w ant to end m y speech!” In fact, she does not w ant to en d it at all. If the pro p o n en ts of (4) an d (5), also perhaps of (3) take their text not to m ean that Iocaste exhorts her sons to have thoughts (etc.) φίλα tow ards her own w ords, but that she w ants them to be m ore kindly disposed towards each other, that supposition is in ap p ro p riate, because Io caste’s exhortation is not at all in ten d ed to kindle such reciprocal love in P. an d E. O n the co n trary , she seems to know very well th at they will not a n d c an n o t agree; all she w ants is to get the one at a safe distance from the oth er (τον δ’ άπίμεν).— So (1) up to an d including (5) will not do. O f the ‘p a lm a ry ’ supplem ent the second word was suggested by West to the Lille editors; M alto m in i com pleted it by filling in τέκνα. His a r g u ­ m ent for τέκνα was that in tragedy one finds four instances o f a vocative παΐ (παΐδες) used in com b in atio n with (few or no words in betw een) τέκνον (τέκνα): A. Cho. 264-5, 896; S. Tr. 61, E. Hec. 171 (parodied by Ar. Nub. 1165); Tosi added S. Ph. 260, E. Cycl. 590. In all cases the a d d ed vocative gives additional pathos (an d in some cases persuasiveness) to w hat the speaker is going to say .— M eillier (1978b 36), accepting the su pplem ent suggested by W est and M alto m in i, em phasizes that τέκνα refers to the relation between herself an d her two children, while παΐδες refers to the relation betw een the father an d his sons: it is from him that, Recording to the fu n d am en tal organization o f society, property passes to his sons. 219 τά ιδ ε γά ρ ... προφ α[ίνω : tragedy offers some parallels for this way of in tro d u cin g a suggestion: A. Eum. 45 τήιδε γάρ τρανώς έρώ, S. El. 643

‘t h e

LILLE P A P Y R U S ’

153

τήιδε γάρ κάγώ φράσω, Tr. 554 τήιδ’ ύμΐν φράσω, Ε. Hipp. 379 τήιδ’ άθρητέον τόδε. ύμ ΐν. In A n ch o r 1977 and in Parsons 1977, υμιν was em en d e d into ϋμ(μ )ιν. It is true that in 224 the p a p y ru s has υμμι; but there the Lesbian (an d epic) form is useful, for —