Saturday, 17 June 2017

Hector and Andromacha

Short introduction
About time to get back to English, isn't it? This is actually a deviation from my post schedule. This poem was planned for next Saturday, after Thermopylae epigrams and Sappho epigrams. However, knowing there would be a lot of work for the critical note (which is over 8 pages long in Word by the way), I did it early. In the process, I realized Greek Wikisource and its totally random ordering of Sappho had caused me to misplace this poem in the epigrams when it was, in fact, a marriage song, and thus belonged in the Επιθαλάμια section of that link. However, the marriage songs are only due as far ahead as 28/11/2017, and I definitely wasn't letting this hang around so long after all the work I'd done on it. So here goes.
The meter is xx–uu–uu–uu–ux, or the Aeolic dactylic hexapody. The Latin translation keeps the meter intact. The English and Italian translations have rhyming couplets of lines which preserve the stressed-unstressed syllable alternance, i.e., denoting by – a stressed and by u an unstressed syllable, –u–uu–uu–uu–u–. All translations attempt to indicate what we have and what we don't have of what is translated, to remind us that this poem is full of holes that have been filled some way or some other way. In the Greek text, underdots mean the letter is somewhat doubtful, double underdots mean the letter is extremely doubtful to the point of being a near-wild guess, underlines mean the letters are reconstructed but the source papyrus has traces of them, and of course the brackets indicate fill-ins into gaps in the source papyrus. For more info on the sources, see critical note at the bottom.

The poem

Greek
Κυπρο . [         22-24 letters    ]αι .
Κᾶρυξ ἦ̣λ̣θ̣[ε] θ̣ό[ων δυνάμι μ]ε̣λ̣[έων ἔ]θ̣εις
Ἴδαος τάδε κα[ῖν]α [φόρ]εις̣ τ̣άχυ̣ς̣ ἄγγ̣ε̣λος
«[Eἶς ἢ πλείονες ἂπ στίχοι εἶσι, τελεύταος
Τούτων ἐν δὲ τελεύτᾳ ἴσως ἔχεν
     Ἰλίω]
Τᾶς τ᾽ ἄλλας Ἀσίας [τά]δ̣᾽ ἔσ̤αν κλέος̣ ἄφθιτον·
Ἔκτωρ κ‹ο›ἰ συν̣έται̣ρ[ο]ι̣ ἄ̣γοισ᾽ ἐλικώπιδ̣α̣
Θήβας ἐξ ἰέρας Πλακίας τ᾽ ἀπ᾽ [ἀϊ]‹ν›νάω
Ἄβραν Ἀνδρομάχαν ἐνὶ ν̣αῦσιν̣ ἐπ’ ἄλ̣μ̣υρ̣ον
Πόντο̣ν̣· πόλλα δ̣᾽ [ἐλί]γ̣ματα χρύσια κἄμματα
Πορφύρ[ᾱ κά]λα τ’ αὖ τ[ρό]ν̤α̣, πο̣ί̣κ̣ιλ᾽ ἀθύρματα,
Ἀργύρ[α τ᾽] ἀνάριθμα ποτήρια κἀλέφαις.
Ὤς εἲπ̣’· ὀτραλέως δ’ ἀνό̣ρουσε̣ π̤άτ̣[ηρ] φίλος·
Φάμα δ’ ἦ̤λ̤θε κατὰ πτ̣ό̣λιν εὐρύ̣χ[ορο]ν φίλοις·
Ατικ’ Ἰλίαδαι σατίναι[ς] ὐπ’ ἐϋ̣τρόχοις
Ἆγ̣[ο]ν αἰμονίοις̣· ἐπ[έ]β̤αινε̣ δ παῖς ὄχλος
Γ̣υνάι̣κ̣ων τ’ ἄμα π[αρ]θ̤ενί̣κ̣α̣ν τ̣’ ἀ[παλ]οσ̣φ̣ύρω‹ν›·
Χῶρις δ’ αὖ Περάμοιο θύγ̣[α]τρ̤ες [ἐπήϊσαν]
Ἴππ̣[οις] δ̣’ νδρες ὔπαγο‹ν› ὐ̣π’ ἄ̣ρ[ματα, σὺν δ’ ἴ-
Π[άντ]ες ‹ἀ›ί̣[θ]εοι· μεγάλω[σ]τ̣ι δ̤’ [ἴεν μέγας] | σαν]
Δ[ᾶμος], κἀν̣ιόχοι φ[αλάροισι κεκαδμέναις]
Π̣[ώλοις ἔ]ξαγο[ν ἐκ πόλεως τότα τᾶς φίλας.
Στίχοις τυίδε λέγοισιν ἀπέμμεν ἄπαντες αὖ.
[Ὄτα δεῦτ’ ὀχέων ἐπέβαν ἴ]κελοι θέοι[ς
Ἔκτωρ Ἀνδρομάχα τ’, ὄλοι] ἄγνον ἀόλ̣[λεες]
ρ̣μα‹ν›α̤[ι τότα Τρῶες ἔβαι]νον ἐς Ἴλιο[ν],
Αὖ̣λος δ’ ἀ̣δ̣υ̤[μ]έ̣λη[ς κίθαρίς] τ’ ὀνεμ‹ε›ί‹χ›νυ[το]
Καὶ ψ[ό]φο[ς κ]ροτάλ[ων, λιγέ]ως δ’ ἄρα πάρ̣[θενοι]
Ἄειδον μέλος ἄγν[ον, ἴκα]νε δ’ ἐς̣ αἴ[θερα]
Ἄχω θεσπε̣σί̣[α], γέλ̤[ος
Πάντᾳ δ’ ἦς κὰτ ὄδο[ις
Κράτηρες φίαλα̣ι̣ ρ̤ο[. . .] . ε̣δ̣ε̣[. .] . [.] . [
Μύρρα καὶ κασία λίβανό[ς] τ’ ὀνε̣δ̣έχνυτο.̣
Γύναικες δ’ ὀλό̤λυσδ[ο]ν̣ ὄ̣σαι προγενέστερα[ι],
Πάντες δ’ ἄνδρες ἐ̣πήρατον ἴαχον ὄρθιον
Πάον’ ὀνκαλέοντες ἐκάβολον εὐλὐραν,
῎Υμνην δ' Ἔκτορα κἈνδρομάχαν θεοίκελο[ις
Δευτέρῳ τῷ ἔγω λέγον· «Ἂπ στίχοι εἶσι τυίδ’»,
Ἴσως Σάπφικον ἄλλο πόημα ποτῆρχε κῆ.




Italian
Cipro[–uu–uu–uu–ux]
Ven[ne]͜ araldo Ide͜o, [dalle g]a[mbe so]spinto, qui,
Queste nu[ov]e portando, veloce co[rrendo] fu:
Un sol verso͜ o di più quivi mancano, l’ultimo
D’essi forse͜ alla fine aveva:
   di Ilio]
E del resto dell’Asi͜a͜ immortal glori͜a [ques]to fu:
Ettor e͜ i suoi compag[n]i conducono͜ Andomaca 5
Tenera͜ occhi vivaci, da Tebe la Santa e da
Placia che [sempre] scorre, ’n le navi sul salso mar;
Molti a͜ure͜i [bra]cciali, ri[ca]mi ͜hanno da portar
Flore͜i, vesti di porpor[a], ricchi͜ ornamenti, sì,
Coppe͜ argent[ëe] innumerevoli,͜ avori͜o v’è.»
Disse; presto s’alzò il caro pad[re] udendo ciò;
La notizia per l’am[pi]a città dai suoi cari andò;
Le Troiane͜ aggioga[ron]o͜ a͜i rapidi carr[i]͜ allor
Muli subito; tutto il popolo g[i]unse allor,
Anche donne͜ e f[an]ciulle caviglïe te[ne]re, 15
Ed a parte di Prïamo [venner] le figl[ï]e,
Aggiogavano͜ a͜i ca[rri]͜ i cav[alli] gli uomini,
Maritati e non; e magnifico͜ [andavasi
Un gran] p[opol], cocchier’ le g[iovenche po]rtavan
M[olto bene ornate, da cara cittàde͜ allor.] 20 | fu[or]
Tutti dicono͜ a me che qui mancano͜ un verso͜ o più.
[Quando͜ ancora su͜i carri]͜ a d͜è[i] [p]ari [salirono
Ettore ed Andromaca,]͜ insi[eme͜ i Troiani͜ an]dâr
Tutti quanti inver sa]cra Ilïo per salpar,
Flauto dolce nel [c]anto͜ [e la cetra] suonava[no],
Ed insi͜em [c]ampanel[li],͜ e [soä]vi cantavano 5
Canto san[to] le ver[gini],͜ e͜ un eco dolcissim[a]
Fino͜ al ci[elo sal]i͜a, ri[so –uu–ux]
E ’n le vi[͜e]͜ era per tutto [u–uu–ux]
E crateri e fiale [u–uu–ux]
Mirra, cassi͜a͜ ed incens[o] il fuoco accolse͜ in sé. 10
Forte urlava[n]o tutte le donne più vecchï[e,]
Tutti gl’uomini dolce peana gridavano,
Quel che lungi saetta͜ e ben suona chiamavano,
Du͜e divi[ni] lodavano: Ettor e͜ Andromaca. 14
Là dov’io v’ho ridetto: «De͜i versi ci mancan qua»,
Forse͜ un altro poëma di Saffo͜ iniziava là.

Latin
Cȳprŏ[–uu–uu–uu–ux]
Prǣcō [vīrĭbŭ’ c]rūr[ŭm] ĭ’ pūlsŭ’ dĕōr’ ĭĭ[t],
Ĭdǣūs răpĭdūs t’ ĕă nūntĭŭ’ r[ēt]tŭlĭt:
Plūrēs ūnŭ’vĕ vērsŭs ăbēst ĭbĭ, ūltĭmŭs
Īllōrūm pŏtĕ fīn’ hăbŭīssĕ sĭb’
     Īlĭī]
Īmmōrtālĭ’ fŭīt glŏrĭ’ [hō]c cĕtĕr’ Āsĭǣqu’:
Hēctŏr āc cŏmĭt[ē]s pĕrĭgūnt ŏcŭlīs bĕnĕ
Vīvăm Āndŏmăchām tĕnĕrām mărĕ nāvĭbŭs,
Thēbē ēxquĕ săcrā Plăcĭāquĕ [pĕrē]nnĭflu͞a,
Sālātūm; tĕgĭmēntăquĕ pūrpŭr[ĕ’] īntŭ’ sūnt,
[Ār]mīll’ a͞urĕ’, ăcū quŏquĕ flōr’ ĭbĭ [pīc]tă sūnt,
Ārgēnt[e͞i] călĭcēs sĭnĕ nūmĕr’, ĕbūr quŏquĕ.» 10
Dīxīt; cārŭ’ păt[ēr] răpĭdīssĭmŭ’ sūrsĭt ăd,
Cārōs fāmă pĕr ūrb’ ădĭītquĕ pĕrām[plă]m, ăc
Trōjānǣ sŭbĭtō iŭgŭm ādd[ĕr]ĕ cūrrŭŭ[m]
Mūlābūs răpĭdû̄m; pŏpŭlūsqu’ ăd[ĭ]īt tŏtŭs,
V[īr]gĭnēs tĕ[nĕ]rǣ quŏquĕ tālŭm, [ĭērĕquĕ]   15
Fī[l]ĭǣ Prĭămī ălĭ’ āc cĕtĕrī lŏcō,
Ĕqu[ōs] cūr[rŭbŭ’] dārĕ vĭrī, [cŏnĭītquĕ tŭm]
Q[uis]qu’ īn[nū]ptŭs; ĕt [īrĕ lŏ]cō p[ŏpŭlūs] māgnō
[Māgnŭs], ātqu’ ăŭrīg’ ĭb’ ĕ[quōs quĭdĕm ōptŭmē
Ōrnātōs] ăgĕ[r’ ēx, pĕrămāt’ ăb ĕ’ ūrbĕquĕ.] 20
Ōmnēs vērsŭm ăbēssĕ plŭs ūn’ ĭbĭ mī fĕrūnt.
[Cūmquĕ cūrrŭbŭ’ rūrsŭs ĕūnt s]ĭmĭlēs dĕī[s   1
Hēctōr Āndrŏmăchāqu’, ĭbĭ] sānctŭm ăd Īlĭŭm
[Tro͞es ōmnēs cŏnĕ]ūnt ădĕūndŭm ĭn ūn[ĭcā
Tūrbā], tībĭă dūlcĭ[c]ănē[ns]qu’ ĭbĭ cānt[at] ĕt
[T]īntīnnăbŭ[lă] ēt [cĭthăr’], ātquĕ pŭē[llŭlǣ   5
Cănūnt [dūlc]ĕ să[cr’] hȳmnŭm, [ĭē]băt ăd ǣ[thĕrĕm]
Ēchō dūlc[ĭ’] quĭdēm, rĭs[ŭs –uu–ux]
Lŏc’ ōmnīquĕ vĭ[īs uu–uu–ux]
Crātērēs phĭălǣqu’ [uu–uu–ux]
Cāssi͞a mȳrrhăquĕ tūsquĕ tŭm ūssă fŭēr’ ĭbĭ.   10
Clāmāb[ā]t mŭlĭēr sĕnĭō[r] quĭdĕm ōmnĭ’ tŭm,
Ōmnīs vīrquĕ cănēbăt ămābĭlĕm hȳmnŭm, ăd-
Vŏcāns dūlcĕm ĕūm ly̆r’ hăbēntĕm Ăpōllĭnĕm,
Cănūnt Hēctŏr’ ĕt Āndrŏmăchām sĭmĭl[ēs] dĕīs. 14
Ĕg’ ŭbī rĕpĕtī «ĭbĭ dē mĭhĭ vērbă sūnt»,
Fōrsān Sāpphĭcŭm īncĭpĭēbăt ĭb’ ālĭŭm.




English
Cypro[–uu–uu–uu–ux]
Then the herald cam[e] runn[ing, s]ped on [by his mighty l]eg[s],
These n[ew]s [brin]ging Idæ͜us the quick messenger there did come:
[One or more missing lines there are here, and the last one may
With the following two words have ended:
     of Ilïum]
And the rest all of Asia [th]is glory ne’er saw last day:
Hector and all his mate[s] bring Andromacha, lively i’ th’ eye, 5
Tender, on many briny a wave in their ships now, aye,
Off from Thebes, holy city, and Placi͜a that [e’er] doth flow;
Golden [bra]celets they bring very many, and robes alsò,
Purpl[e] robes, flow[er broi]deries, quite rich adornments there,
And with iv’ry innumerous silver[y] cups they bear.» 10
Thus spoke he; the dear fath[er] then quickly did rise t’ his feet;
And the news, through the wi[d]e city spread, did his darlings meet;
And the women of Troy at that moment the mules did t[i]e
To the fast-running chariot[s]; the whole people then c[a]me by,
And the m[a]ids t[end]er-ankled, the women did come alsò, 15
In a separate crowd [did] the dau[g]hters of Priam [go],
And the men to the ca[rts] yoked the hor[ses, and with them came]
A[ll] the young unwed boys; far and [w]ide a [big] p[eople went]
Moving, and all the coachmen [their] s[tallions excelling in
Their adornments d]rov[e out of the dear city they were in.] 20
That some lines here were lost everybody doth say alike.
[As again on the chariots did climb] to the god[s a]like 1
[Hector and his Andromacha, th’ Trojans all] com[pactlỳ
Star]ted out for to sail t’ holy Troy, and melodi͜ouslỳ
Did the flute [a-s]ing, [and the lyre] then its song did sing,
Of [s]mall bel[ls] there was s[o]un[d], and the mai[dens] did [sweet]- 5
Beautiful sacr[èd] hymns, and to th’ æ[ther] there did [arr]ive | ly sing
Echo swee[t] as can be, lau[ghter –uu–ux]
Everywhere in the roa[ds uu–uu–ux]
And some craters and vials [u–uu–ux]
Myrrh and cassi͜a and incens[e] the fire was a-burning then.
All the eldes[t] of women were joyfully [s]houting then, 10
All the men in a loud voice were shouting delightfullỳ
A Pëana, Far-darter, sweet lyre’s playër: calling thee
They did Hector a-praise and Andromacha, th’ god-like [two]. 14
Where again «here some lines have been lost» I did say to you,
There a diffèrent poëm of Sappho may’ve started too



These translations all date (modulo last-minute improvements from today) back to between May 2010 and August 2011, more likely after Christmas 2010, which was probably when I wrote the part of my "Nota Paracritica" (the ancestor of the critical notes of these Sappho posts) concerning this poem. Indeed, that Nota says that, on the «very proficuous» Dec 12 2010, I decided I'd reconstruct the text of all remaining fragments (which I suppose are those discussed after this statement) and then translate them «in bits and starts» during the schoolyear, and this poem is discussed after the statement, so I guess I dealt with the text between Dec 12 2010 and Jan 6 2011 and did the translations later on. Unfortunately I did not take the trouble to date them precisely, and I don't know where to look for any manuscripts of the translations to see if those have dates on them, so this is all I can do in terms of dating. And other Sappho translations will be even less precise, I'm pretty sure.

Critical note
Let’s start from the very bases: sources. What are our sources for this poem / these two poems? Oxyrhynchus papyri. Precisely, the first two sources are the two fragments grouped into P.Oxy. 1232. One of them contains the bulk of the first twenty-some lines and parts of the last circa 6, along with the “Morn is nigh” fragment, and I have an image of it. Then there is another little scrap, which is our second source, and contains what is thought to be the ends of a few lines of the same poem, and I was absolutely unable to find an image online, so that I have only Grenfell and Hunt's raw transcription from "Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. 10". Now with only 1232, there is no apparent reason to do so. P.Oxy. 2076, the other source, gives a reason, since it gives the start of more lines before the second column of the image above, and one in particular links, in my opinion, incredibly nicely to a line on that scrap. Finally, we have P.Oxy. 2076, which I did find an image of. The analysis of all of those is deferred to A few papyri transcribed.
Is that really all? Maybe. Or maybe not. There is this «Απόσπασμα 67» on Greek Wikisource which goes:

πόλλα δ᾽ἀνάριθμα
ποτήρια καλαίφις

Bergk doesn’t have the above poem, probably because at the time of his edition the papyri above had not been unearthed yet, and tells us this is a quote from “Athen. XI”. Damn him for that abbreviation. Luckily he gives the whole quote, so I found the abbreviation means book 11 of Athenaeus’s Deipnosophistæ, “wise ones at dinner” (δεῖπνον, dinner, and σοφισταί). Greek Wikisource interestingly has the passage as:

καὶ Σαπφὼ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ β ἔφη:

πολλὰ δ᾽ ἀνάριθμα ποτήρια
κἀλέφαις.

The “intro” says “And Sappho in book 2 said”. The lone beta is the number 2, and is thus read δευτέρῳ, “second”, “book” being actually implied. It is interesting to see this this way on Greek Wikisource, since in Sappho’s poems the fragment is reported as above, that is with different line division and “καλαίφις”, which is incomprehensible to me and dismissed as “corruptum” (corrupted) by Bergk. I mean, get your shite straight Greek Wikisource. I seem to have found, some time ago, when I worked on Sappho, a French something giving the correction καλαἼφις, with the weird crasis between κάλα, “beautiful”, and Ἴφις, a name. It's a shame I cannot seem to find it again and did not include the link in the "Nota Paracritica" I mentioned above. Besides the weirdness of the crasis, why would Athenaeus quote a subject, an object, and NOT a verb? I mean, he was supposed to have the Alexandrian edition of Sappho at his disposal, so why couldn’t he just quote the verb too? Besides, the consonants of that fit in wonderfully with κἀλέφαις = καὶ ἐλέφαις, “and ivory”, plus the ἀνάριθμα could fit in that «ΑΝ[. . .]θ̣[. .» = «ἀν[άρι]θ[μα», and πόλλα could be from the previous line. All of this seems to definitely warrant interpreting that quote as a corruption of part of this poem, and integrating that line with it. Let’s put everything together, shall we? I’ll denote stuff from this P.Oxy. 1232 with unchanged color, stuff from P.Oxy. 2076 by blue, stuff from the other scrap of P.Oxy. 1232 with pink and the corrupted quote by red, and use the source which has greatest certainty to determine my critical notation, prioritizing black over pink over blue where there are common letters of identical precision on two sources. Where unreadable letters are guessed, I will underline them. Column 1:

Κυπρο . [         22-24 letters     ]αι
Κᾶρυξ ἦ̣λ̣θ̣[ε] θ̣ό[ων δυνάμι μ]ε̣λ̣[έων ἔ]θ̣εις
Ἴδαος τάδε κα[ῖν]α [φόρ]εις̣ τ̣άχυ̣ς̣ ἄγγ̣ε̣λος               ἄν̣ω̣
[That ἄνω, along with the / I did not copy here, indicate an omission of lines written above, meaning we have an unknown number of lost lines here; I don’t know where I got the guess the last lost line ended with Ἰλίω (probably Edmonds and his «excessive eagerness to fill the gaps»), but it pairs up nicely with the genitive starting the following line]
Τᾶς τ' ἄλλας Ἀσίας [τά]δ̣' ἔσ̤αν κλέος̣ ἄφθιτον·
Ἔκτωρ καὶ συν̣έται̣ρ[ο]ι̣ ἄ̣γοισ' ἐλικώπιδ̣α̣
Θήβας ἐξ ἰέρας Πλακίας τ' ἀπ' [ἀϊ]‹ν›νάω
Ἄβραν Ἀνδρομάχαν ἐνὶ ν̣αῦσιν̣ ἐπ’ ἄλ̣μ̣υρ̣ον
Πόντο̣ν̣· πόλλα δ̣' [ἐλί]γ̣ματα χρύσια κἄμματα
Πορφύρ[α κά]λα τ’ αὖ τ[ρό]ν̤α̣, πο̣ί̣κ̣ιλ' ἀθύρματα,
Ἀργύρ[α τ'] ἀνάριθμα ποτήρια κἀλέφαις.
Ὤς εἲπ̣’· ὀτραλέως δ’ ἀνό̣ρουσε̣ π̤άτ̣[ηρ] φίλος·
Φάμα δ’ ἦ̤λ̤θε κατὰ πτ̣ό̣λιν εὐρύ̣χ[ορο]ν φίλοις·
Ατικ’ Ἰλίαδαι σατίναι[ς] ὐπ’ ἐϋ̣τρόχοις̣
Ἆγ̣[ο]ν αἰμονίοις̣· ἐπ[έ]β̤αινε̣ δ παῖς ὄχλος
Γ̣υνάι̣κ̣ων τ’ ἄμα π[αρ]θ̤ενί̣κ̣α̣ν τ̣’ ἀ[παλ]οσ̣φ̣ύρω‹ν›·
Χῶρις δ’ αὖ Περάμοιο θύγ̣[α]τρ̤ες [
Ἴππ̣[οις] δ̣’ νδρες ὔπαγο‹ν› ὐ̣π’ ἄ̣ρ[ματα
Π[άντ]ες ‹ἀ›ί̣[θ]εοι· μεγάλω[σ]τ̣ι δ̤’ [
Δ[ᾶμος], κἀν̣ιόχοι φ[
Π̣[ώλοις ἔ]ξαγο[ν

Column 2:

[                                              ἴ]κελοι θέοι
[                                             ] ἄγνον ἀόλ̣[λεες]
ρ̣ματα̤[ι                                 ]νον ἐς Ἴλιο[ν],
Αὖ̣λος δ’ ἀ̣δ̣υ̤[μ]έ̣λη[ς κίθαρίς] τ’ ὀνεμ‹ε›ί‹χ›νυ[το]
Καὶ ψ[ό]φο[ς κ]ροτάλ[ων, λιγέ]ως δ’ ἄρα πάρ̣[θενοι]
Ἄειδον μέλος ἄγν[ον, ἴκα]νε δ’ ἐς̣ αἴ[θερα]
Ἄχω θεσπε̣σί̣[α], γέλ̤[ος
Πάντᾳ δ’ ἦς κὰτ ὄδο[ις
Κράτηρες φίαλα̣ι̣ ρ̤ο[. . .] . ε̣δ̣ε̣[. .] . [.] . [
Μύρρα καὶ κασία λίβανό[ς] τ’ ὀνε̣δ̣έχνυτο.̣
Γύναικες δ’ ὀλόλυσδ[ο]ν̣ ὄ̣σαι προγενέστερα[ι],
Πάντες δ’ ἄνδρες ἐ̣πήρατον ἴαχον ὄρθιον
Πάον’ ὀνκαλέοντες ἐκάβολον εὐλὐραν,
῎Υμνην δ' Ἔκτορα κἈνδρομάχαν θεοίκελο[ις


Now let’s make some notes:
  • Nobody seems to dare attempt a completion of l. 1; not even Edmonds, who sometimes goes so far as to reconstruct an indirect quotation entirely;
  • Yeah, I know; I said 12 letters and then put only 9 in that lacuna in l. 2; but I couldn’t think of another completion, and anyways I was trying to get to the text I actually translated, which had that completion;
  • Edmonds’ suggestion κοἰ συνέταιροι makes sense, so I will adopt it as an emendation; I mean, I definitely want an article there, right?
  • I chose not to accept the correction of ἰέρας to ἰάρας, because the Aeolic form would be ἶρος, whereas ἴαρος is Doric, and what would a Doric form be doing in an Aeolic poem? Also, I have a feeling there is a poetic influx from epic (e.g. Homer), which would be ionic and have the ε; in any case, there is room for doubt;
  • For comments on [ἀϊ]‹ν›νάω and other stuff, see Grenfell and Hunt’s notes; interestingly, Edmonds doesn’t amend to double the nu, but I’m pretty sure that iota is short: compare ἀϊπάρθενος ἔσσομαι elsewhere in Sappho; short vowel there or long vowel here metri causa? Perhaps, but it sounds a bit far-fetched;
  • The ἔσαν completion is Edmonds’ idea; Campbell and safopoemas have an unreadable letter in place of the sigma; Bibliotheca Augustana completes as τάδε γᾶν κλέος ἄφθιτον, which I fail to understand; Wharton and Bergk don’t have the poem; that form is a non-augmented imperfect; as such, it is strange, but, in the absence of a better alternative, and also because I adopted it when I translated this, I’ll adopt it now;
  • Seen as the papyrus leaves no doubt whatsoever on the ἀθύρματα, it seems pretty weird that some (e.g. Bibliotheca Augustana and Edmonds) have ἀθρήματα instead; not sure if I’m missing some quotation (if so, point it out in the comments), but both terms seem to fit, and I have thus no strong reason to correct the papyrus on this at the moment; UPDATE There is an entry in Hesychius' lexicon which reads «ἀθρήματα· δῶρα πεμπόμενα παρὰ τῶν συγγενῶν ταῖς γαμουμέναις παρθένοις παρὰ Λεσβίοις», «ἀθρήματα: [thus are the] gifts sent by parents to maidens getting married [called] by the Lesbians», aka this is the Lesbian term for dowry; that would suggest to put it in here, but Hesychius only mentions the word, not who used it, much less in which book or poem, and "ornaments" also fits the things called thus, so just Hesychius isn't enough to correct a papyrus which leaves no doubt; the Hesychius entry will sooner or later appear at the rest of Sappho, in the single-word quotes section;
  • >Just as weird it is that Campbell reads πορφύρ[α] καταΰτ[με]να, ποί̣κ̣ι̣λ’ ἀθύρματα, perhaps on the basis of a quotation, again in the Deinosophistæ (book 9 this time), which Greek Wikisource reports in the Deiptnosophistæ with tons of emendations making it almost unrecognizable, and then has in Sappho’s poems the way it usually shows up; this is also in the rest of Sappho, and has an infinite critical note, and it's fr. 1.C.viii; for the moment, let it suffice that καταΰτμενα is an unknown word, so it is much safer to use my reading (and assume perhaps a wrong acute accent on the papyrus, cfr. Grenfell-Hunt) than use Campbell’s and assume an unknown word; by the way, Edmonds reads that quotation as χερρόμακτρα δὲ κὰγ γένυων / πορφύρα καταρταμένα τὰ Τῖμας / εἴς τ’ ἔπεμπψ’ ἀπὺ Φώκαας / δῶρα τίμια, losing that weird word altogether; but we’ll come back to that in the post about this corrupted quotation;
  • You see how nicely the lines from P.Oxy. 2076 (on most occasions where they do) join with the fragments on the spare scrap? That is probably the basis for joining the two papyri; Edmonds probably didn’t have P.Oxy. 2076, and so had to choose what to join the spare scrap with; sadly enough, he made the possibly wrong choice of putting it after the first column and keeping the second column separate; in the process, he reconstructed a ton of words in his “e.g.” (read: I’m doing the frick I want with these lines muahahahahah) style; I actually tried to borrow some of his completions, but I had to tweak them to fit P.Oxy. 2076; but I’ll come back to that below;
  • Not sure if the superscript epsilon in ΟΝ€ΔΙΧΝΥΤΟ was meant as a correction (i.e. ὀνεδίχνυτο -> ὀνεδέχνυτο) or as an addition (resulting in ὀνεδείχνυτο); I’ll go for the choice made by the experts, which is the former;
  • I see no reason whatsoever to assume an error on the part of P.Oxy. 2076 on ὀλόλυσδον and hypothizing an Aeolic form ἐλέλυσδον; this is why I differ from usual in those omicrons; I do keep the σδ because ζ was probably pronounced exactly the same so it might be a phonetic spelling mistake, whereas an omicron for an epsilon definitely is not;
  • No idea what that ΜΙΤ̣I̤ΝΥΔΥ[ from the end of P.Oxy. 2076 was supposed to be; I asked on Latin Stack Exchange though; UPDATE that was one gross misread; on my defence, the alpha is super-slanted and linked to the rho, which makes the pair look a lot like a M, and the epsilon is super-tall and the top is near-invisible, so the bottom looks like a lonely iota, the middle horizontal stroke joins with the phi to form the tau (which was double-underdot probably because of the phi's circle), and the lambda+epsilon are faded and slanted just right to look like NY, so the actual transcription is ] . ΓΑΡ€̣ΦΙΛ̣€̣ΙΔΥ[, or ]. γὰρ ἐ̣φίλ̣ε̣ι δυ[, "because (s)he loved (to do something?)";

Back in the days, I thought of filling up the lacuna with a mention of the lacuna in Aeolic and in the meter of the poem, and even managed to stick in what Bibliotheca Augustana proposes as a possible ending for the last line of the lacuna. However, using the starting vowel of ἴσως, which likely had a digamma up front, to shorten the ᾳ of τελεύτᾳ and then use a digamma on ϝέχεν seems contradictory, so I just dropped that digamma. The filling for the second lacuna came out better. At the end, I added a couplet to explain that between column 1 (actually 2, 1 is "Morn is nigh" - cfr. above) and the merge of extra scrap + column 2 (again, actually 3) + P.Oxy.2076 there might have been a change of poem, meaning these are actually two poems. I’m beginning to think this is the case, but I still don’t want to split the discussion since the two are so intertwined by the P.Oxy. 1232. Let’s look at what we have till now without colors:

Κυπρο . [         22-24 letters     ]αι
Κᾶρυξ ἦ̣λ̣θ̣[ε] θ̣ό[ων δυνάμι μ]ε̣λ̣[έων ἔ]θ̣εις
Ἴδαος τάδε κα[ῖν]α [φόρ]εις̣ τ̣άχυ̣ς̣ ἄγγ̣ε̣λος               ἄν̣ω̣
[Big fat hole]
Τᾶς τ' ἄλλας Ἀσίας [τά]δ̣' ἔσ̤αν κλέος̣ ἄφθιτον·
Ἔκτωρ καὶ συν̣έται̣ρ[ο]ι̣ ἄ̣γοισ' ἐλικώπιδ̣α̣
Θήβας ἐξ ἰέρας Πλακίας τ' ἀπ' [ἀϊ]‹ν›νάω
Ἄβραν Ἀνδρομάχαν ἐνὶ ν̣αῦσιν̣ ἐπ’ ἄλ̣μ̣υρ̣ον
Πόντο̣ν̣· πόλλα δ̣' [ἐλί]γ̣ματα χρύσια κἄμματα
Πορφύρ[α κά]λα τ’ αὖ τ[ρό]ν̤α̣, πο̣ί̣κ̣ιλ' ἀθύρματα,
Ἀργύρ[α τ'] ἀνάριθμα ποτήρια κἀλέφαις.
Ὤς εἲπ̣’· ὀτραλέως δ’ ἀνό̣ρουσε̣ π̤άτ̣[ηρ] φίλος·
Φάμα δ’ ἦ̤λ̤θε κατὰ πτ̣ό̣λιν εὐρύ̣χ[ορο]ν φίλοις·
Ατικ’ Ἰλίαδαι σατίναι[ς] ὐπ’ ἐϋ̣τρόχοις̣
Ἆγ̣[ο]ν αἰμονίοις̣· ἐπ[έ]β̤αινε̣ δ παῖς ὄχλος
Γ̣υνάι̣κ̣ων τ’ ἄμα π[αρ]θ̤ενί̣κ̣α̣ν τ̣’ ἀ[παλ]οσ̣φ̣ύρω‹ν›·
Χῶρις δ’ αὖ Περάμοιο θύγ̣[α]τρ̤ες [
Ἴππ̣[οις] δ̣’ νδρες ὔπαγο‹ν› ὐ̣π’ ἄ̣ρ[ματα
Π[άντ]ες ‹ἀ›ί̣[θ]εοι· μεγάλω[σ]τ̣ι δ̤’ [
Δ[ᾶμος], κἀν̣ιόχοι φ[
Π̣[ώλοις ἔ]ξαγο[ν

Column 2:

[                                              ἴ]κελοι θέοι[ς
[                                             ] ἄγνον ἀόλ̣[λεες]
ρ̣ματα̤[ι                                 ]νον ἐς Ἴλιο[ν],
Αὖ̣λος δ’ ἀ̣δ̣υ̤[μ]έ̣λη[ς κίθαρίς] τ’ ὀνεμ‹ε›ί‹χ›νυ[το]
Καὶ ψ[ό]φο[ς κ]ροτάλ[ων, λιγέ]ως δ’ ἄρα πάρ̣[θενοι]
Ἄειδον μέλος ἄγν[ον, ἴκα]νε δ’ ἐς̣ αἴ[θερα]
Ἄχω θεσπε̣σί̣[α], γέλ̤[ος
Πάντᾳ δ’ ἦς κὰτ ὄδο[ις
Κράτηρες φίαλα̣ι̣ ρ̤ο[. . .] . ε̣δ̣ε̣[. .] . [.] . [
Μύρρα καὶ κασία λίβανό[ς] τ’ ὀνε̣δ̣έχνυτο.̣
Γύναικες δ’ ὀλόλυσδ[ο]ν̣ ὄ̣σαι προγενέστερα[ι],
Πάντες δ’ ἄνδρες ἐ̣πήρατον ἴαχον ὄρθιον
Πάον’ ὀνκαλέοντες ἐκάβολον εὐλὐραν,
῎Υμνην δ' Ἔκτορα κἈνδρομάχαν θεοίκελο[ις

Let’s have a look at Edmonds, shall we? Now, where we have complete lines, we don’t need any inputs any more. But the lines from Χῶρις are missing their ends, so let's see what Edmonds has to say.

Χῶρις δ’ αὖ Περάμοιο θύγατρες [ἐπήϊσαν.]
Ἴππ[οις] δ’ ἄνδρες ὔπαγον ὐπ’ ἄρ[ματα, σὺν δ’ ἴσαν]
Π[άντ]ες ἀΐθεοι· μεγάλωστι δ’ [ἴεν μέγας]
Δ[ᾶμος] κἀνίοχοι φ[αλάροισ]ι̣ [κεκαδμέναις]
Π[ώλοις ἔ]ξαγο[ν. …]
[…………]
[Ὄτα δεῦτ’ ὀχέων ἐπέβαν ἴ]κελοι θέοι[ς]
[Ἔκτωρ Ἀνδρομάχα τε, σύν]αγνον ἀόλ[λεες]
[Τρῶες Τρωΐαδες τ’ ἐρ  ́τεν]νον ἐς Ἴλιο[ν.]


No more completions to be found on Edmonds.
  • For the first part, I just accept the completions as they are, fixing the critical notation from Edmonds’ text to match mine above.
  • Same goes for the first line of part 2.
  • In the second line, though, we find σύναγνον, a word that is not to be found in the huge dictionary I use as a reference, the (here in Italy) very well-known – standard, in fact – Rocci dictionary. I thus have to reject that part of the completion as incomprehensible, and come up with something similar but different. The first thing I came up with was:

    [Ἔκτωρ Ἀνδρομάχα τ’, ὄλοι] ἄγνον ἀόλ̣[λεες]

    What’s wrong with that, you say. Well, nothing at all. Except if Greek Wikisource with its totally random ordering of the poems has placed this after the epigrams and convinced you this must be some sort of epigram. Then it must be an epigram for these two guys, so they must be dead. Now evidently they are well alive in column one of P.Oxy. 1232, which is why I came to think these were two separate poems, a marriage song and an epigram slash funeral account, so I rejected Hector and Andromacha stepping on the chariots and put the first thing I could think of there instead, that is Priam and Hecuba, the rulers of Troy:

    [Ἐκάβα Πέραμος τ’, ὄλοι] ἄγνον ἀόλ̣[λεες]

    coupled with translations to be posted instead of those above:

    [Priamo e la sua sposa, …                                             [Priamus Hecubaqu’…                                             [Priam and his wife, …

    Yeah, «Priam and his wife» doesn't fit the meter, «Hecuba and his Priam» would. This is also why I was like, dafuq are κρόταλα, little rattling bells, doing rattling in the middle of a funeral? But then I realized it’s just Greek Wikisource confusing me, and that this was a marriage song, with lots of joyous stuff: the bells, the flute, the cithara, the wine. So I reverted to the first accepted completion.
  • Speaking of confusion, I originally translated the verb ὀλόλυσδον in Italian as "singhiozzavano", "they were sobbing", because hey, it's supposed to be an epigram, right, so this must be a funeral with sad old ladies sobbing.
  • As for line 3, I obviously have to tamper with it, since it ignores the P.Oxy. 2076 beginning of the line. Let’s see what we have so far:

    ρ̣ματα̤[ι                                ]νον ἐς Ἴλιο[ν],           papyri with critical notation

    [Τρῶες Τρωΐαδες τ’ ἐρ ́τεν]νον ἐς Ἴλιο[ν.]              Edmonds

    My original solution was:

    ὄ̣ρ̣μα‹ν›α̣ι̣ [τότα Τρῶ͜ες συνέβαι]νον ἐς Ἴλιον,

    So a little correction to the papyrus and something copied off Edmonds with great reformulation of his completion. What I do not like about this solution is the synaeresis. It is completely unnecessary: why put a prefix on the verb and force a synaeresis when you can just drop the prefix and the synaeresis and the meaning is basically the same? The reason for the correction to the papyrus is that I could not think of something to make the subject of ὄρμαται, which would be 3rd person singular, whereas a nice infinitive of purpose (in an unusual possibly Aeolic form) fitted perfectly. Indeed, the first thing I thought of was ὄρμαμεν, clearly an infinitive, but then I decided to try to concile that as much as possible with the papyrus.
So let’s look at the final text of the poem:


Κυπρο . [         22-24 letters     ]αι .
Κᾶρυξ ἦ̣λ̣θ̣[ε] θ̣ό[ων δυνάμι μ]ε̣λ̣[έων ἔ]θ̣εις                          2
Ἴδαος τάδε κα[ῖν]α [φόρ]εις̣ τ̣άχυ̣ς̣ ἄγγ̣ε̣λος               ἄν̣ω̣
[Big fat hole]
Τᾶς τ᾽ ἄλλας Ἀσίας [τά]δ̣᾽ ἔσ̤αν κλέος̣ ἄφθιτον·
Ἔκτωρ κ‹ο›ἰ συν̣έται̣ρ[ο]ι̣ ἄ̣γοις᾽ ἐλικώπιδ̣α̣
Θήβας ἐξ ἰέρας Πλακίας τ᾽ ἀπ᾽ [ἀϊ]‹ν›νάω
Ἄβραν Ἀνδρομάχαν ἐνὶ ν̣αῦσιν̣ ἐπ’ ἄλ̣μ̣υρ̣ον
Πόντο̣ν̣· πόλλα δ̣᾽ [ἐλί]γ̣ματα χρύσια κἄμματα
Πορφύρ[α κά]λα τ’ αὖ τ[ρό]ν̤α̣, πο̣ί̣κ̣ιλ᾽ ἀθύρματα,
Ἀργύρ[α τ᾽] ἀνάριθμα ποτήρια κἀλέφαις.
Ὤς εἲπ̣’· ὀτραλέως δ’ ἀνό̣ρουσε̣ π̤άτ̣[ηρ] φίλος·
Φάμα δ’ ἦ̤λ̤θε κατὰ πτ̣ό̣λιν εὐρύ̣χ[ορο]ν φίλοις·
Ατικ’ Ἰλίαδαι σατίναι[ς] ὐπ’ ἐϋ̣τρόχοις̣
Ἆγ̣[ο]ν αἰμονίοις̣· ἐπ[έ]β̤αινε̣ δ παῖς ὄχλος
Γ̣υνάι̣κ̣ων τ’ ἄμα π[αρ]θ̤ενί̣κ̣α̣ν τ̣’ ἀ[παλ]οσ̣φ̣ύρω‹ν›·
Χῶρις δ’ αὖ Περάμοιο θύγ̣[α]τρ̤ες [ἐπήϊσαν]
Ἴππ̣[οις] δ̣’ νδρες ὔπαγο‹ν› ὐ̣π’ ἄ̣ρ[ματα, σὺν δ’ ἴσαν]
Π[άντ]ες ‹ἀ›ί̣[θ]εοι· μεγάλω[σ]τ̣ι δ̤’ [ἴεν μέγας]
Δ[ᾶμος], κἀν̣ιόχοι φ[αλάροισι κεκαδμέναις]
Π̣[ώλοις ἔ]ξαγο[ν. …]

Column 2:

[Ὄτα δεῦτ’ ὀχέων ἐπέβαν ἴ]κελοι θέοι[ς
[Ἔκτωρ Ἀνδρομάχα τ’, ὄλοι] ἄγνον ἀόλ̣[λεες]
ρ̣μα‹ν›α̤[ι τότα Τρῶες ἔβαι]νον ἐς Ἴλιο[ν],
Αὖ̣λος δ’ ἀ̣δ̣υ̤[μ]έ̣λη[ς κίθαρίς] τ’ ὀνεμ‹ε›ί‹χ›νυ[το]
Καὶ ψ[ό]φο[ς κ]ροτάλ[ων, λιγέ]ως δ’ ἄρα πάρ̣[θενοι]
Ἄειδον μέλος ἄγν[ον, ἴκα]νε δ’ ἐς̣ αἴ[θερα]
Ἄχω θεσπε̣σί̣[α], γέλ̤[ος
Πάντᾳ δ’ ἦς κὰτ ὄδο[ις
Κράτηρες φίαλα̣ι̣ ρ̤ο[. . .] . ε̣δ̣ε̣[. .] . [.] . [
Μύρρα καὶ κασία λίβανό[ς] τ’ ὀνε̣δ̣έχνυτο.̣
Γύναικες δ’ ὀλόλυσδ[ο]ν̣ ὄ̣σαι προγενέστερα[ι],
Πάντες δ’ ἄνδρες ἐ̣πήρατον ἴαχον ὄρθιον
Πάον’ ὀνκαλέοντες ἐκάβολον εὐλὐραν,
῎Υμνην δ' Ἔκτορα κἈνδρομάχαν θεοίκελο[ις


Whoa, 8 pages of critical note! What a mess this poem is! But now we’ve tidied it up at last. Wait a minute. Where did I get that completion of the last line of column 1? In my original file, the line reads:

Π̣[ώλοις ἔ]ξαγο[ν ἐκ πόλεως τότα τᾶς φίλας.]

Did I seriously make that up? I didn’t even mention it in my “Paracritical Note”. That’s curious. Well, in the absence of valid alternatives, I’ll go with the thesis that I made it up to have a complete line. It’s also curious to see how my original file has ὄσοι whereas the Paracritical Note has ὄλοι. I prefer the PN version, so I’ll stick to it. The translation should not be affected. Perfect, now the text in my file, modulo what I pointed out, matches the above, which will be the text given for the translation. End of the story. This poem is dealt with. And p. 8 of this thing has been overflowed :). PS I corrected one critical notation mismatch, and there may be more, but I'm fed up of going over this (the Blogger IDE filled it to the brim with BS useless code, and removing all that was a long-ass pain in the A), so be it known that, for matters of critical notation, the papyri transcriptions post is right, and anything different is wrong.

References
Note: these are all the references I ever used for Sappho as of now. I may not have used all of these in the present post.

Related Stack Exchange Posts

No comments:

Post a Comment