Tuesday, 1 August 2017

Sappho and her brother: two prayers

Today I bring you two poems. The first one, "Cypris and Nereids", is a prayer to see her brother come home and "behave". The second one is another prayer, and the only stanza we can reasonably discuss is the last one, which is a curse to Doricha, the woman who seduced her brother Charaxus.
Both are from Oxyrhynchus papyri. The first one will have a very long critical note. The second one, not so long, but it will be lacking the necessary info from (presumably) Lobel-Page, which I unfortunately left in another home.
They are both in Sapphic stanzas, rendered in the usual way. The translations and the Note's discussion appear to date back to after Dec 30 2010.
Stanza 4 of the first poem had its text changed as I rediscussed the poem, and I retranslated that stanza. I also have two versions of the last stanza due to this weird micro-scrap of papyrus usually placed in this poem. I retranslated that stanza too, but I give the text as was before, seen as I challenge the idea that the scrap in question belongs here, and the completion I came up with including that scrap was (IMHO) awful. The alternate translations will be given at the end of the critical note. I made a slight change to stanza 2 in Latin while preparing the draft for this on Jul 16, 2017.
Concerning the curse, my original file had a completely lost stanza 1, which is a hypothesis I simply doffed.
Notice how the translations of poem 1 keep the rhythm of the Sapphic stanzas, whereas those of poem 2 only do in the last stanza. Perhaps that was an attempt to render the inmetricality of one completion (l. 7)? Who knows.

Cypris and Nereids

Greek

Κύπρι καὶ] Ν̤ηρήϊδε̣ς, ἀβλάβη[ν μοι
Τὸν κασί]γνητον δ[ό]τε τυί̤δ' ἴ̤κε̤σ̣θα[ι
Κὤσσα ϝο]ι θύμῳ κε̤ θέλη γένεσθαι
τε]λέσθην·

Ὄσσα δὲ πρ]ό̣σθ' ἄμβροτε πάντα̤ λῦσ[αι,
Καὶ φίλοισ]ι ϝοῖσι χάραν γένεσθαι
Κὠνίαν ἔ]χ̤θροισι, γ̣ένοιτο δ' ἄμμι
Πῆμά τι μ]ήδεις

Τὰν κασιγ]νήταν̣ δὲ [θ]έλοι πόη̤σθα[ι
Ἔμμορον] τίμας, [ὀν]ίαν δὲ λύγραν
Ἐκλύοιτ'] ὄτ̣οισι [πάρ]οιθ' ἀχε̣ύων
Κἆμον ἐδά]μνα

Κῆρ, ὀνείδισ]μ̤' εἰσαΐω[ν], τ̣ὸ κ' ἐγ χρῷ
Κέρρε πόλ]λ' ἐ̤παγ[ορί]ᾳ πολίτ̤αν
Καὶ βρόχυ ζ]άλε̣ı̣π̤[ον ὄ]νηκε δ' αὖτ' οὐ
μά]κρω

Ἀλλ' ἄκοθσ]ον, αἴ κ[ε, θέα, μέλεσ]σ̤ι
Σοὶ φρέν' ἴαι]ν[ο]ν, σὺ [δὲ,] Κ̤ύπ̤[ρ]ι, τ[αἶ]να
Νύκτι πάντα κατθε]μέν̣α, κακ̣αν[θε'
Ἄμμιν ἀλάλκο]ις̤

Italian

[Cipride͜ e] Nereïdi,͜ indenn[e͜ a me]
Date che ͜[il frat]ello ritorn[i] qui,
[Ciò di cu͜i] in cuore disì͜o gli è,
[Tutto͜ av]verate,

[Ciò che pr]i͜a sbagliò, possa rimediare,
[Agli͜ amic]i gioia fi͜a, possa fare
[Tristi]͜ i suoi [n]emici; noi [rattristare]
Ni͜un possa, fate;

[Sua sor]ella voglia po͜i onora[re],
Da sue pene [possasi liberare]
Donde prima oppresso, [oppr]esso fare
[Anche͜ il mio cuore]

Solito͜ era, [biasim]o͜ udend[o], nato
Ché dai cittadini era ac[cusa]to,
[Per un po’ s]pari[to], poi [ri]tornato
[Dopo br]evi͜ ore.

[Ma m’ascol]ta, [de͜a], se [co’ can]ti [’l cuore
T’addolciv]o,͜ o Cip[r]ide, tu, l’o[rr]ore
[Tutto sepp]ellendo [con notte,] fi[ore]
Malo͜ [a noi togl]i.
Latin

[Cȳprĭ’] Nēre͞idēs[quĕ, mĭh’] ād[dĭ]t’ hūccĕ
[Frā]tĕr īndēmnī[s] rĕdĕā[tqu’ ĕt] ōmni͞a
Cōrdĕ [quǣ] vĕlīt [sĭb]ĭ fīĕr’, [ōmni͞a]
E͞i fŏrĕ pōssīnt,

Ēt [pr]ĭūs [qu'] ērrāvĭt ĭ’ cūnctă pōssīt
Sōlvĕr’, [ēt] ga͞udi͞um fĭĕrī [ămīcī]s,
[N]ōn ămīcīs [pœ̄năquĕ], nōsquĕ [n]ūllŭs
Āffĭcĭāt [dāmn’];

Ēt [sŏrō]rĕm [āffĭcĕr’] īll’ hŏnōrĕ
[ādv]ĕlīt, pœ̄nīs [fĭĕrīquĕ lībĕr]
Sīt pŏt’ īs [dū]rīs, quĭbŭs īs [sŏl]ēbăt
[Vīnc]ĕrĕ [mīquĕ

[Cōrdă, rēprēnsi͞on]ĕm hăbē[ns], ăd āltŭm
Cōr quŏd īvīt [vōlnŭs] ŏb ūrbĭ’ vē[rb]ă,
[Ēt brĕv’ ābs] ĭē[ns r]ĕdĭīt [quĭdēm] nōn
Tēmpŏrĕ [mā]gn[ō].

Mē [sĕd a͞ud]ī, sī, [dĕă, pēctŭ’ dūlci͞us
Tu͞um făci͞ebām cāntŭbŭ’], Cȳp[r]ĭ’, f[œ̄]dă
[Ōmnĭ’ ōbscūrīs t]ĕgĕ, [nōsquĕ lōngē
Pōn]ĕ [ăb] ǣgr[īs].

English

[Cypris and] Nere͜ids, home unscath[ed to me]
Grant I may [my bro]ther returnin[g] see,
[Of whate’er] in ’s heart there a wish may be,
[All ye fu]lfil,

May he make amends [f’r any pa]st mistake,
May he [all his frien]ds very cheerful make
[And his e]n’mies [sad]; may from no-one take
Our heart [sad chill];

[And his sis]ter may he desire to make
Honou[red], from ’s sharp pains [may the way out take]
By which first oppressèd, [oppre]ssed to make
[My] heart [alsò]

He did use, a-being [reproache]d, which thing
In the flesh [him hurt], for ac[cus]ing him
Cit’zens were, [l]ef[t little, i’ th’ followìng
Short] back did go.

[But you list]en, [Goddess], if, [singing, I
Sweeten]ed [e’er your heart], you, o Cypris, [by
Night all] ho[rr]ors [cov]èring, bad thi[ngs, aye,]
[Make from us f]ar.



The Curse

Greek

. . . . . ]α̣ μάκαι[ρα. . . . .
. . . . . ]εὐπλο.[. . . . .
. . . . .κ]ρ̣ᾶτος κα[ὶ . . . .
. . . . . ]

[ὄσσα δὲ πρ]όσθ’ [ἄμ]βροτε κῆ[ν’ ἔλυσεν]
. . . . . ]αταις̣ [ἀ]ν̣εμ̣[. . . . .
[ἔσλᾳ σὺν] τ̣ύχᾳ λίμ̣[]ε̣νος κλ[. . . . .
. . . . . ].[. . . . .

[Κύ]πρι, κα[ί σ]ε πι[κροτάτ]α̣ν ἐπεύ[ροι
μη]δὲ καυχάσ[α]ιτο τόδ’ ἐννέ[ποισα
Δ]ωρίχα, τὸ δεύ[τ]ερον ὠς πόθε[ννον
εἰς] ἔρον ἦλθε.

Italian

[–u–x–uu–] bëa[ta
–u–x–uu–u–x
– del c]apo͜ e [–uu–u–x
–uu–x

A] ci[͜ò che pr]i͜a [sb]agli͜ò, [ha rimedi͜ato
–u–x] vent[uu–u–x
Con] fortuna [bu͜ona,] d’un p[o]rto [–x
–uu–x

Ci]pride, le͜i ti trov[i]͜ am[ar]a͜ [assai]!
Fa’ che [D]orica [n]on si vant[i] mai
Ch’amor desid[erato su͜o] tu fai
Se[c]onda volta.
Latin

[–u–x–uu–] bĕā[tă
–u–x–uu–u–x
–u–u– c]ăpĭtīsqu’ ĕt [–x
–uu–x ]

[Quǣquĕ pr]i͞us [ēr]rāvĭt, ĕ’ īpsĕ [sōlvĭt
–u–x] vēnt[uu–u–x
Bōnā] fōrtūnā [uu–u] p[ō]rtūs
[–uu–x

[Cȳ]prĭs, [ādmŏd’] īnvĕn[ĭāt t’] ăm[ār]ăm,
[D]ōrĭch’, ūmquăm [ha͞]ud glŏrĭ[ē]tŭr īllă
Cūm sĭb’ ōptā[t’ āt]tĭgĕrīt t’ ămōrĕm
Ī[t]ĕrŭm īllă.

English

[–u–u–xx–u] happy
[–u–x–uu–u–x
–u of the h]ead an[d u–u–x
–uu–x

For all his pa]st [mi]stakes he’s [made amends
–u–u] wind[uu–u–x
With good] luck [u–] of a h[a]rbour [–x
–uu–x

Cy]pris, [may] she thee [very] bit[ter] find!
[M]ay [D]oricha [ne’er] boast [having] in mind
And mouth that she des[irèd] love doth find
A se[c]ond time.



Critical note to "Cypris and Nereids"

Again, let’s look at the sources. There are three sources for this poem. One is P.Oxy. 7, a piece of papyrus containing most of the endings of the lines of this poems, with a few lacunæ here and there, especially in the last stanza we have. The second source, apparently not universally accepted, is P.Oxy.2289 fr. 6. Now, P.Oxy.2289 consists of several fragments, of which an image can be found here, some of which contain only a handful of letters. The one we are interested in is the very small fr. 6. Inline transcription: «O̤Υ / €Ο / ΚΥΠ̣». I’m sure you can see why it is not universally accepted: how can we be sure that those 7 letters actually belong to this poem, when (as we shall see) two are not at all present in the other source, three are partially visible in the other papyrus, one of those being half-cut in this one, and the remaining two are barely visible? I had no idea this even existed when I translated the poem, which is why the above text and translations do not include it, besides me challenging the hypothesis this belongs here. I will, at the end of the note, propose a completion including this thing and give new translations. Both of those are discussed at the usual trascriptions post. Below, I report the partially restored text of P.Oxy. 7 on the left, and its combination with the above 2289 fr. 6 on the right. The mark where the letters from the P.Oxy. 2289 scrap would go in the text.

] Ν̤ηρήϊδε̣ς, ἀβλάβη[ν
κασί]γνητον δ[ό]τε τυί̤δ' ἴ̤κε̤σ̣θα[ι
] . θύμῳ κε̤ θέλη γένεσθαι
τε]λέσθην·
πρ]ό̣σθ' ἄμβροτε πάντα̤ λῦσ[αι
]ι ϝοῖσι χάραν γένεσθαι
ἔ]χ̤θροισι, γ̣ένοιτο δ' ἄμμι
μ]ήδεις
κασιγ]νήταν̣ δὲ [θ]έλοι πόη̤σθα[ι
] τίμας, [ὀν]ίαν δὲ λύγραν
] ὄτ̣οισι [πάρ]οιθ' ἀχε̣ύων
] . να
]μ̤' εἰσαΐω[ν], τ̣ὸ κ' ἐγ χρῷ
] . ἐ̤παγ[ . . . ]ᾳ πολίτ̤αν
] . λε̣ı̣π̤[. ν ὄ]νηκε δ' αὖτ' οὐ
μά]κρω
]ον, αἴ κ[ε . . . . . . . . ]σ̤ι
] . [ . ]ν, σὺ [δὲ,] Κ̤ύπ̤[ρ]ι, . [ . . . ]ΝΑ
] . εν̣α κακ̣αν[[
]ις̤
] Ν̤ηρήϊδε̣ς, ἀβλάβη[ν
κασί]γνητον δ[ό]τε τυί̤δ' ἴ̤κε̤σ̣θα[ι
] . θύμῳ κε̤ θέλη γένεσθαι
τε]λέσθην·
πρ]ό̣σθ' ἄμβροτε πάντα̤ λῦσ[αι
]ι ϝοῖσι χάραν γένεσθαι
ἔ]χ̤θροισι, γ̣ένοιτο δ' ἄμμι
μ]ήδεις
κασιγ]νήταν̣ δὲ [θ]έλοι πόη̤σθα[ι
] τίμας, [ὀν]ίαν δὲ λύγραν
] ὄτ̣οισι [πάρ]οιθ' ἀχε̣ύων
] . να
]μ̤' εἰσαΐω[ν], τ̣ὸ κ' ἐγ χρῷ
] . ἐ̤παγ[ . . . ]ᾳ πολίτ̤αν
] . λε̣ı̣π̤[. ν ὄ]νηκε δ' αὖτ' οὐ
μά]κρω
]ον αἰ κ[λ]έο[ς . . . . . ]σ̤ι
] . [ . ]ν, σὺ [δὲ,] Κύπ̣[ρ]ι, . [ . . . ]ΝΑ
] . εν̣α κακ̣αν[[
]ις̤

Right here, we have to discuss this line by line, because in some cases everyone has their own version, so let’s compare all versions and choose our favorite. The sources I compare are Bibliotheca Augustana (BA), The Complete Poems of Sappho (TCPOS), safopoemas, Campbell, Edmonds, the «brilliant restoration» by Blass present in the Grenfell-Hunt book, Diehl, Carson, and in fixing this note for the draft I add these guys as well.

  1. For the end, only Blass proposes ἔ-, with -μον in the following line; all others choose μοι, and to have an article τὸν in the next line; I avoid a word split between lines, thus rejecting Blass; as for the start, most references go with Κύπρι καὶ Νηρήϊδες, save for the three which propose an epithet; Diehl proposes Πότνιαι, “divine”, Blass proposes Ὦ φίλαι, “o dear”, and Edmonds proposes Χρύσιαι, “golden”; he also notes “epithet uncertain; Κύπρι καὶ is too long”; now I do not agree with this “too long” statement; indeed, see my completion of the first stanza’s line starts on the papyrus:

    P.Oxy. 7 line completion
    it appears that the last line is too long, but he says nothing of that; so I’m going with Κύπρι καὶ; it is possible to quick fix the translation with Edmonds’ epithet, though, as «A͞urĕǣ Nērēĭdĕs, […]», «Auree Nereidi, […]», and «O ye gold Nereids, […]»;
  2. Besides the first syllable, already discussed above (-μον for Blass, τὸν for all others), this is uncontroversial;
  3. Edmonds alone starts this with κἀ μὲν, where all others (me included) start with κὤσσα; as for the next word, I’ll definitely want a digamma, seen as we have ϝοῖσι shortly after; so I reject TCPOS’s οἰ and Edmonds’ and Diehl’s ᾦ; between Blass’ ϝῷ and other references’ ϝοι, I choose the latter, because, seen as subscript iotas here are generally not adscripted, choosing a solution with one would make the line a letter too short, as you can imagine from seeing the above completions;
  4. Blass and Edmonds here start with ταῦτα, but I prefer to follow all others with πάντα, so we have “all” clearly said (not part of the things, but all of them) and we avoid the “these things” recalling what was mentioned above, which I do not like in this context, for some reason;
  5. This is uncontroversial, one of its kind in this poem;
  6. Here again, I reject TCPOS’ no-digamma version, because this time the digamma is clearly visible in the papyrus; as for the first word, I prefer Edmonds’ TCPOS’ and Carson’s καὶ to the others’ ὠς, because instead of starting a subordinate clause I’d rather have a coordinating conjunction to proceed with this list of things Sappho wishes about his brother;
  7. Besides Carson not completing and Edmonds inventing καὶ δύαν, everyone goes for κὠνίαν; the meaning is the same, but I follow the most, also because I have already seen ὀνία in the Hymn to Aphrodite;
  8. Each reference has its own version here, more or less: BA has πῆμά τι μήδεις, TCPOS μήκετι μήδεις, safopoemas Blass Diehl μήποτα μήδεις, Campbell πῆμ’ ἔτι μήδεις, Edmonds δύσκλεα μήδεις, and Carson almost doesn’t complete and reads ...μ]ήδ’ εἶς; most of those versions assume a noun to be implied for what “no-one” should become for “us” (i.e. Sappho); I do not like this, hence I reject TCPOS, safopoemas, Blass and Diehl; between the others, I think I’ll go with Edmonds, because this way we have “dishonor” here and “may he make his sister honorable” in the next stanza; “suffering” (πῆμα) is, of course, also supportable; I would, however, definitely reject the ἔτι of Campbell’s suggestion, which sounds out of place to me; so either Edmonds or BA; these guys only discuss this line, and discard this because «the forms οὐδείς and μηδείς of Attic are normally written as two words in Sappho», but that can easily be fixed, and why not just make an exception here? I keep my original choice, i.e. BA;
  9. Everyone has τὰν except for Blass’ ϝὰν; now I understand the urge for a possessive pronoun, but we have τὸν κασίγνητον in the previous stanza, so I’ll keep the similarity and go for τὰν κασιγνήταν; seems I had a different opinion back in the days; however, the translations wouldn’t change, so I will change the Greek to suit my present opinion;
  10. Apart from Carson not completing and Blass reading κὠλίγας, everyone here completes to ἔμμορον, and I follow the trend;
  11. Blass and Diehl have ἐκλάθοιτ’, Edmonds is creative as usual and gives καὶ λόγοις, Campbell safopoemas and Carson don’t complete, BA and TCPOS read ἐκλύοιτ’; I prefer the last option to the no-completion, because I always prefer completing for the translation’s sake, and to the first one because… whatever, it’s what I chose back in the days :); here is a quote from the Nota Paracritica: «Per l’11 decisamente preferisco B.A.: perché chiedere che si dimentichi? Forse perché non le ricordi più a lei, tormentandola col ricordo e tormentando sé? Meglio che finiscano, dato che magari non sono ancora finite e lui è ancora innamorato di quella “cagna schifosa” nominata nella versione Edmonds, che scarto perché preferisco altre versioni.», that is «for [line] 11 I decidedly prefer BA: why ask for him to forget? Maybe so that he no longer reminds her, tormenting her with the memory and tormenting himself? Better make them end, since they maybe aren’t over yet and he is still in love with that “disgusting bitch” mentioned in Edmonds’ version [which reads "σὺ δὲ, κύν' ἐρέμνα", "and you, disgusting she-dog" in l. 2 of the last stanza], which I discard because I prefer other versions.»; err, wait; λανθάνω doesn’t mean “forget”, but “escape”; now I see why Blass and Diehl completed like that; the meaning doesn’t change much; let me see the translations; yeah whatever, they are roughly equivalent, no point changing the Greek now;
  12. Here we have BA and TCPOS with τὦμον, safopoemas with θῦμον, Campbell and Carson with no completion, Edmonds with ἄμμον and Blass and Diehl with κἆμον; I don’t find Edmond’s plurale maiestatis opportune here, and I prefer Blass and Diehl’s version with “also” (καὶ), because clearly the brother’s heart was also oppressed by the ὀνίαν λύγραν mentioned before; I reject θῦμον since it’s a guess which seems to vouch for a continuation in the following stanza and isn’t coupled to one (safopoemas doesn’t complete the next line); one could use safopoemas and start the next stanza with ἄμμ’, but boo, plurale maiestatis, rejected :); maybe μοι, though an enclitic as the first syllable of a line is terrible;
  13. Blass TCPOS Diehl κῆρ, ὀνέιδισμ’, Edmonds κῆρ, ὄνειδος, Campbell safopoemas BA Carson no completion; I follow Blass because of my double-underdot M before ϹΑΪωΝ; by choosing a completion, I also choose to split as κ’ ἐν χρῷ instead of leaving it as κέγχρω as the non-completers do;
  14. Blass Diehl κέρρον ἦλλ’ ἐπ’ ἀγλαΐᾳ πολίταν, «sharp, took [it i.e. the heart] in the feast of the citizens», Edmonds κέρρε, ἀλλ’ ἐπ’ ἀγλαΐᾳ πολίταν, «took [it], but in the feast of the citizens», safopoemas κέρρον ἦλλ’ ἐπαγορίᾳ πολίταν, «sharp, took [it] because of the citizens’ accusation», BA Campbell ]λ’ ἐπαγορίᾳ πολίταν, «] because of the citizens’ accusation», TCPOS κέρρε πόλλ’ ἐπ’ ἀγλαΐᾳ πολίταν, «wounded it a lot in the feast of the citizens», Carson no completion; back in the days, I chose to have an ἀγλαΐᾳ, interpreting this passage as a reference to the brother having been prohibited from participating in a religious feast, which made Sappho’s and her brother’s pain even worse because everyone else was happy in the feast; I have no idea why I interpreted it that way; perhaps I had something in my hands that said he had indeed been prohibited from participating in a feast, or perhaps I just tried to make sense of GH's "literal" verse translation's «to shun the festal throng» and ended up with that; anyways, I rejected safopoemas, and between the other completions with ἀγλαΐᾳ I chose TCPOS, because «great pain… wounded it a lot» sounded like a good match; ἦλλ’ would be εἶλ(εν), “took away”; I chose to follow safopoemas for ἐπαγορίᾳ, keeping the “wounded a lot”, and tweaked the translations accordingly; the original translations (with original chosen text) will be placed at the end of this note; that δ’ leaves me perplexed though; let’s ignore the apostrophe in the papyrus like Edmonds, and suppose a hyper-aeolic δαὖτ’ = δηὖτ’; actually, one could read that as δ(ὲ) αὖτ(ο) referring to the reproach mentioned before as "it"; since I don't want to modify the translations now, I'll leave that that way here and change it in the all-Sappho posts;
  15. BA Campbell Carson no completion, TCPOS Diehl καὶ βρόχυ ζάλειπον ὄνηκε δ’ αὔτ’ οὐ, Edmonds is now completely different from everyone else so I just ignore him from now on, safopoemas ]αλλως[...ο]νδρεδ’ αυτ’ ου, Blass καὶ βρόχυ ζάλειπον ἄνηκε δ᾽αὔτ’ οὐ; safopoemas is messing with the papyrus, no idea what it was meant to be, but I cannot get anything out if it; the others are all the same (save for Edmonds), except for that ἄνηκε in Blass, which I reject as “less Aeolic” than ὄνηκε; it did, however, get ἄλλως right, which is at the moment only justified by a reading note in the transcriptions post, but will be proved right by P.GC., discovered after I did my translation work;
  16. Campbell BA Carson no completion, safopoemas TCPOS Diehl μὰν διὰ μάκρω, Blass κεν διὰ μάκρω; I do not see the need for a potential particle here, so I go for an emphasis particle like safopoemas and company;
  17. Here is the time to talk about the 4-letter scrap from P.Oxy. 2289; only BA Campbell and Carson accept it; back in the days, I had no idea it even existed; if we accept it, we must add the εο to the first line of the last stanza (which we are discussing now), and my old completion (from Diehl and TCPOS, apparently) is rendered impossible; below, I will give a completion with the scrap accepted, and translations for it; as for other sources, BA Campbell and Carson don’t even split οναικ, Blass has that split as ον αἴ κ[ε, safopoemas completes it like me except for stopping at θέα, and Edmonds… well, he has his own phantasies in this stanza :); thinking back on it, though, that completion clearly misplaces the εο, putting it too close to the end, whereas it should sit above Κύπρι; whatever; it's probably wrong anyway, says P.GC.;
  18. OK guys; I have no idea why everyone reads this line differently in the papyrus, but I simply fail to see λυγ[ ]ρε[ ]να; I mean, look at this possible completion:

    P.Oxy. 7 end completion
    is it really not plausible? OK, it’s a bit wide on ταἶνα and a bit compressed on δὲ, but why is the latter universally accepted as a completion and the former simply left unconsidered? I mean, the only source with something similar is TCPOS, in the others I’m lucky to find κυπρ instead of λυγρ! Anyways, that’s what I went with back in the days, and that’s what I confirm now;
  19. The image above completes this line too, in part; again, mostly everyone sees a theta in that papyrus, but I simply can’t, and how in the world are you going to fit εν in that one-letter gap with a half M still to trace? And no, you cannot move the bit of papyrus to the right (as I thought back in the days): zoom into the image and see how that bit is connected to the rest below! Why, to support the ταἶνα you can move the scrap with να to the left, but not this one to the right for that εν to fit! So with my own reading of the papyrus text, I confirm my old choice to almost follow TCPOS (and Diehl btw), except κάκαν would have to be feminine and πᾶρ’ is πῆρος, masculine or neuter, so I complete this my own way by taking a “suggestion” from Edmonds ῥῖνα πρὸς γάᾳ θεμένα κάκανθην, and completing to κακάνθεα; well, actually, I originally completed that way with a synaeresis on the last two vowels, but why not just elide the last one, since the next line starts with ἄμμι? So here goes: νύκτι πάντα κατθεμένα κακάνθε’;
  20. Now, it is possible to see something that looks either like a sigma, or like an epsilon, or like a fold in the papyrus; I chose to interpret it as a double-underdot sigma for the sake of the completion, which comes from TCPOS and Diehl, and which I amend to ἄμμιν ἀλάλκοις to avoid the hiatus which the epenthetic -ν I am adding to ἄμμιν avoids.

That being said, here is the text:

Κύπρι καὶ] Ν̤ηρήϊδε̣ς, ἀβλάβη[ν μοι
Τὸν κασί]γνητον δ[ό]τε τυί̤δ' ἴ̤κε̤σ̣θα[ι
Κὤσσα ϝο]ι θύμῳ κε̤ θέλη γένεσθαι
τε]λέσθην·

Ὄσσα δὲ πρ]ό̣σθ' ἄμβροτε πάντα̤ λῦσ[αι,
Καὶ φίλοισ]ι ϝοῖσι χάραν γένεσθαι
Κὠνίαν ἔ]χ̤θροισι, γ̣ένοιτο δ' ἄμμι
Πῆμά τι μ]ήδεις

Τὰν κασιγ]νήταν̣ δὲ [θ]έλοι πόη̤σθα[ι
Ἔμμορον] τίμας, [ὀν]ίαν δὲ λύγραν
Ἐκλύοιτ'] ὄτ̣οισι [πάρ]οιθ' ἀχε̣ύων
Κἆμον ἐδά]μνα

Κῆρ, ὀνείδισ]μ̤' εἰσαΐω[ν], τ̣ὸ κ' ἐγ χρῷ
Κέρρε πόλ]λ' ἐ̤παγ[ορί]ᾳ πολίτ̤αν
Καὶ βρόχυ ζ]άλε̣ı̣π̤[ον ὄ]νηκε δ' αὖτ' οὐ
μά]κρω

Ἀλλ' ἄκοθσ]ον, αἴ κ[ε, θέα, μέλεσ]σ̤ι
Σοὶ φρέν' ἴαι]ν[ο]ν, σὺ [δὲ,] Κ̤ύπ̤[ρ]ι, τ[αἶ]να
Νύκτι πάντα κατθε]μέν̣α, κακ̣αν[θε'
Ἄμμιν ἀλάλκο]ις̤

Differences of opinions between present-day me and back-in-the-days me:
  • I now prefer Edmonds’ δύσκλεα μήδεις to the previously accepted πῆμά τι μήδεις from BA; or do I? I’m having doubts; actually, that accusative sounds out of place there; scratch this out: BA rules :);
  • I now prefer ἐκλάθοιτ’ to ἐκλύοιτ’ because I cleared up the meaning of the former; no point talking about this any more;
  • I prefer ἐπαγορίᾳ to the then-chosen ἐπ’ ἀγλαΐᾳ because it doesn’t force a “hysterology” (from ὕστερον, "behind", meant as a calque of Italian “dietrologia”); I changed the translations accordingly; time to give you the original translations:

[κῆρ, ὀνείδισμ’] εἰσαΐω[ν], τ̣ὸ κ’ ἐγ χρῷ
[κέρρε πόλ]λ̣' ἐπ’ ἀγ̣[λαΐ]ᾳ πολί̣τ̣αν
15 [καὶ βράχυ ζά]λει[πον ὀ]νῆκε δαῦτ' οὐ
[μὰν διὰ μά]κρο[ν.

Solito͜ era, [biasim]o͜ udendo, [gito
A ferir] nel vivo, per proïbito
Dì festivo, [gito] per [po’], rigito
[Dopo] brevi͜ ore.
[Cōrdă, rēprēnsi͞onĕm] hăbē[ns], ăd āltŭm
Cōr quŏd īvīt [vōlnŭs] ŏb ūrbĭ’ fē[stă]m,
[Ēt brĕv’ ābs] ĭē[ns r]ĕdĭīt [quĭdēm] nōn
Tēmpŏrĕ [mā]gn[ō].

He did use, a-being [reproache]d, which thing
In the flesh [did hurt him], prohibitìng
Him the feast, [l]ef[t little, i’ th’ followìng
Short] back did go.

  • Problem: P.Oxy. 2289.

Below is my completion of the last stanza that takes P.Oxy. 2289 into account. It is not satisfactory because firstly τέοισιν is not Aeloic AFAIK, and secondly φρέσιν is actually φρένεσσιν in Aeolic, but that's the only thing I could come up with. Hopefully someone will have better fantasy than me. I won't bother adapting the critical notation to the revised version of the transcription of P.Oxy. 7.
Ἀλλ’ ἄκουσ]ον, αἴ κ[ε, θέα, τ]έο[ι]σι
ἦν ἐνὶ φρέσι]ν, σὺ [δὲ], Κ̤ύπ̤[ρ]ι, τ[αἶ]ν̤α
νύκτι πάντα κατθ]εμέν̣α κακ̣άν[θε’
ἄμμιν ἀλάλκο]ις̤.

[Ma m’ascol]ta, [de͜a], se [giammai nel cuore
io] t[i fui], o Cip[r]ide, tu, l’o[rr]ore
[Tutto sep]pel[len]do [con notte,] fi[ore]
Malo͜ [a noi to]gli.
Mē [sĕd a͞ud]ī, sī, [dĕă, s’ ōlĭm īpsa
Īntŭ’ cōrd’ ĕrām tĭbĭ], Cȳp[r]ĭ’, f[œ̄]dă
[Ōmnĭ’ ōbscūrīs t]ĕg[ĕ, nōsquĕ lōngē
Pōn]ĕ [ăb] ǣgr[īs].

[But you list]en, [Goddess], if, [ever I
in y]o[ur hear abode], you, o Cypris, [by
Night all] ho[rr]ors [co]vè[ri]ng, bad thi[ngs, aye,]
[Make from us f]ar.

Then P.GC. came along, and messed with the text. That is also discussed at the transcriptions post. In case anyone is curious, here is the combined text, with the colors from above and the P.GC. text in yellow:

Πότνιαι Νηρήϊδε̣ς, ἀβλάβη[ν
Τὸν̣ κ̣ασίγνητον δ[ό]τε τυί̤δ' ἴ̤κε̤σ̣θα[ι
Κὤττι ϝῷ θύμῳ κε̤ θέλη γένεσθαι
Κῆνο τελέσθην·
Ὄσσα δ̤ὲ π[ρ]ό̣σθ' ἄμβροτε πάντα̤ λῦσ[αι
Καὶ φίλ̣οισι ϝοῖσι χάραν γένεσθαι
Κὠνίαν ἔχ̤θροισι, γ̣ένοιτο δ' ἄμμι
Μ̣ή̣δαμα μήδεις
Τὰ̣ν̣ κασιγνήταν̣ δὲ [θ]έλοι πόη̤σθα[ι
Μέ]σδονο[ς] τίμας, [ὀν]ίαν δὲ λύγραν
Ἐκλύ]ο[ιτ'] ὄτ̣οισι [πάρ]οιθ' ἀχε̣ύων
] . να
]μ̤' εἰσαΐω[ν], τ̣ὸ κ' ἐγ χρῷ
. . ]μ[] . ἐ̤παγ[ . . . ]ᾳ πολίτ̤αν
Ὤ̣ς̣ ποτ' οὐ̣[κ ἄ]λλω̣ς̣, [ἐσύ]νηκε δ' αὖτ' οὐ
δεν διὰ μ[ά]κρω
Καί τι μ[λλ]ον αἰ κ[λ]έο[ς . . . . . ]σ̤ι
Γ]ν̣ώσε̣τ[αι φέ]ρ[η]ν, σὺ [δὲ,] Κύπ̤[ρ]ι σ[έμ]να,
Ο̣ὐκ ὄ̤ν̤ε[κτον καττθε]μέν̣α κάκ̣αν [ὔβ-
ριν,      ]ι

Critical note to the curse

Now the sources Campbell gives for this are P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 1 and 3. If you compare GH's transcription of the papyrus (fr. 1, I'll talk about fr. 3 later) and Campbell's text, you see the following changes:

  • In l. 2, a completely illegible letter becomes an uncertain epsilon, and a high dot appears;
  • In l. 5, the eta of κῆνα loses its underdot;
  • The ι̣ε. at l. 6 becomes ν̣εμ̣;
  • L. 7 turns from .νοσα̣λ̣ to ε̣νοσκλ, with an illegible letter becoming an uncertain epsilon, the last lambda losing its underdot and the penultimate letter turing from uncertain alpha to certain kappa;
  • In l. 8, the uncertain rho becomes completely illegible;
  • In l. 9, the alpha, iota and rho ending the three groups of letters in the papyrus lose their underdots;
  • In l. 10, the α̣ν̣ in καυχάσαντο becomes [α]ι, the alpha suddenly disappearing into a lacuna and the uncertain nu becoming a certain iota and changing the word to καυχάσαιτο.

As for fr. 3, the ν̣ι̣ in the third and last line of said fragment turns to the λιμ̣ at l. 7 of Campbell's fragment. For added clarity, here are the two texts side by side:

]α̣ μάκαι̣[ρα
] . υπλο.ν̣[
] . ατοσκα[
]

[ὄσσα δὲ πρ]όσθ' [ἄμ]βροτε κῆ̣[να λῦσαι,
]αταισ̣[]ι̣ε . [].
[] τ̣ύχᾳ ν̣ι̣[] . νοσα̣λ̣[
]ρ̣[

[Κύ]πρι κα̣[ί σ]ε πι̣[κροτ´ ]α̣ν ἐπευρ̣[
[. . .]δε καυχάσα̣ν̣το τόδ' ἐννε[
[Δω]ρίχα τὸ δεύ[τ]ερον ὠς πόθε[ννον
Εἰς] ἔρον ἦλθε
]α̣ μάκαι̣[ρα
]ε̣υπλο . ·[
] . ατοσκα[
]

[ὄσσα δὲ πρ]όσθ' [ἄμ]βροτε κῆ[να λῦσαι,
]αταισ̣[]ν̣εμ̣[].
[] τ̣ύχᾳ λίμ̣[]ε̣νοσ κλ[
] . [

[Κύ]πρι κα[ί σ]ε πι[κροτάτ]α̣ν ἐπεύρ[οι
[μη]δὲ καυχάσ[α̣]ιτο τόδ' ἐννέ[ποισα
[Δω]ρίχα τὸ δεύ[τ]ερον ὠς πόθε[ννον
Εἰς] ἔρον ἦλθε


All of this must be the result of something that happened between P.Oxy. vol. X, available online, and Campbell, and I suspect this thing is called Lobel-Page. I was convinced it must be due to P.Oxy. vol. XXI, but I now have scans of the relevant pages, and nope, nothing from that volume got into this poem. Therefore, I strongly suspect that, like in Gongyla, a new transcription of the papyrus was made and got into LP, and then into everyone else. Unfortunately, I left my LP in another house, so I cannot check, and Voigt and Campbell don't give clues about this. I so wish I had the image to comment on this….
The change in l. 9 caused a total reinterpretation of the stanza, which GH complete exactly like Edmonds, whereas Campbell completes to a different effect, all because of that nu becoming a iota. The Note seems not to even mention this poem, so I have no idea why I chose Campbell back in the days. Laziness because Greek Wikisource had that? Didn't see Edmonds or GH yet? Nah, the latter couldn't be, seen as this translation is after Christmas 2010 and I already had GH for Hector and Andromacha that Christmas. Anyways, till I get ahold of my LP or otherwise understand what happened, I cannot say anything sensible about what version to choose. Except maybe if GH's notes say anything about this, let's see. For l. 2, the notes say «The first letter is apparently either α or ε», so either can be chosen as uncertain reading, and I speculate Campbell did what I would do: ευ as a prefix, and then the rest of some adjective, perhaps εὔπλοος, "well-sailing"? But nothing else is to be found in those notes. Let's see fr. 3 in them. The note for fragments 2 & 3: «These small pieces have been placed together here on account of certain similarities in the appearance of their versos and that of the first column of Fr. i ; but the resemblance may be misleading.». I guess fr. 2 not in this mix because it didn't stick well enough with the column, both in terms of convincing supplements and of physical joints, whereas fr. 3 kind of does (there are some problems with room for letters, where joining to form λίμενος in l. 7 doesn't allow [ἄμ] to fit in l. 5).


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.

No comments:

Post a Comment