Saturday, 13 January 2018

I wish to visit the underworld

This of today is the last poem from P.Berol., and probably the last one to have a WIP-spoiler critical note. [The note has since been added at the end of the post.] It links to the preceding poem both because they are both from P.Berol. (and the same P.Berol. at that) and because in both poems someone wishes to be dead / die. It links to "O Atthis" by papyrus but also by meter, so I redirect you over there for details on that. Let's get to it!


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
του[x–uu–u–u–x] 3

ἦρ’ α[– xx–uu–ux]
δηρατ . [uu–ux]
Γογγύλα τ’ [ἔφατ’ “Οὔ τι πᾷ τάδ’ ἔγνως,] 6

ἦ τι σᾶμ’ ἔθε[λες δόμεναι τέαις]
παῖσι;” “Μάλιστ’”· [μειβον· Ἔρ-]
μα‹ι›ς̣ γ’ ἔσηλθ᾽ ἔπο[ρος Δίος· τάδ᾿ αὔτῳ] 9

εἶπ̣ο‹ν›· “ὦ δέσποτ᾽ ἐ[πτατόνω λύρας
ο] μὰ γὰρ μακάραν [θέαν
ο]ὔδεν ἄδομ᾽ ἔπαρθ᾽ ἀγαν [ἐπ᾿ ὄλβῳ,] 12

κατθάνην δ᾽ ἴμερός τις [χει με καὶ]
λωτίνοις δροσόεντας [ὄ-]
χ[θ]οις̣ ἴδην Ἀχερ[οντος –u–x 15

κὰ]δ δ᾽ ἐ‹ς› Ἀ͜ίδα [δόμον βάμεν ἔς τ’ ἴδην
νέκρο]ι‹ς› δε̣ύ̣ομ[αι –ux]
. . μή τι[ς –uu–u–u–x]”. 18



[–u–xx–uu–ux
xx–uu–ux
xx–uu–u–u–x 3

–u–xx–uu–ux
xx–uu–ux
Disse] Gongila: [“Nol pote͜i saper tu,] 6

O [mostrar] segno, [alle tu͜e] figli͜e [dar
Prova͜ intendi?”] “Sì” di[ssi.͜ A dar]
Venne Er[mes] di Ze͜us [messaggi͜o͜ a noï;] 9

Dissi͜ allor: “Della lira] tu gran Signor,
Della Li͜eta [De͜a] ’n nome, or
I͜o [n]on godo di ser portata ͜[a gioï 12

Gra[nde], ma di morir desideri͜o [m’ha
E veder d’Acher[onte] la
[R]i[v]a ricca di loto e rugiadosa, 15

[E d’andar giù] nell’A[de, e costì mirar]
Preg[o i morti u–ux]
Ché nessun [uu–u–u–x] 18
[–u–xx–uu–ux
xx–uu–ux
xx–uu–u–u–x 3

–u–xx–uu–ux
xx–uu–ux
Fātă] Gōngy̆lă: [“Nūll’ ĕ’ ēxscĭīstī,] 6

A͞ut vŏl[ēbās] sīgn’ [ēss’ ălĭquōd tŭīs]
Fīlĭīs?” “Quĭdĕm!” īp[să. Hēr-]
mēs vēnīt [Iŏvĭ’] nūn[tĭūs; t’ ĕī hǣc] 9

Dīx’ ĕg’: “Ō dŏmĭn’ hēp[tătŏnī ly̆rǣ]
Pēr Bĕāt’ ĕquĭdēm [dĕăm
N]īl ga͞ude͞o nĭmĭū[m] lĕvār’ [ăd āltăm 12

Lǣtĭti͞am], cŭp[ĭō]qu’ ălĭquīd mŏrī
Ēt [r]ī[p]ās Ăchĕr[ōntĭ’] plē-
nās lōt’ āspĭcĕr’ ātquĕ rōrĕ, 15

[Dē]qu’ ăd Hād[īs dŏm’ īrĕ vĭdērĕquĕ
Mōrtŭōs] prĕcŏ[r –ux]
Nĕquĭs [–uu–u–u–x]”. 18



[–u–xx–uu–ux
xx–uu–ux
xx–uu–u–u–x 3

–u–xx–uu–ux
xx–uu–ux
Then said] Gongyla: [“That you ne’er could know,] 6

Or unto [your sweet] daughters [did you mean to
Make] a sign?” “Yes”, I sa[id.] And to
Us came [Her]mes, [Jove’s minister; to him 9

This] I spoke: “Lord of those sev[en strings unbroke,]
By th’ [Goddess] sadness ne’er doth choke,
I [d]on’t like to be brought to too [much joy,] 12

But to die wish [hath seized me by and by],
And the lotus-full [b]a[n]ks to hi
Of the Acher[on –u–u–

And to go down] in Ha[de’s home] I pra[y, below,
And set eyes on the dead u–]
So that noone [u–u–u–] 18




Critical note

The timeline is easy: there is only one source, P.Berol. 9722, found by the time of Edmonds but not by that of Bergk. The text on fol. 4 is:

Του[
ἦ̣ρ' ἀ[
δήρατ . [
Γογγύλα . [
ἤ τι σᾶμ' ἔθε[λες 5
παῖσι μάλιστα . [ Ἔρ-
μαις̣ γ' ἔσηλθ' ἔπο̣[ρος
εἶ̣π̣ο‹ν› ὦ δέσποτ' ἐ[
[Ο] μὰ γὰρ μακά{ι}ραν [θέαν
[Ο]ὖδεν ἄδομ' ἔπα̣ρθ' ἄγαν [ 10
κατθάνην δ' ἴμερός τις . [
λωτίνοις δροσό̣εντας [ὄ-
χ[θ]οις̣ ἴδην Ἀχ̣ερ̣[
[κὰ]δ δ' ἐ‹ς› Αἴδα [
[ . ]ιν δε̣ύ̣ομ̣[ 15
. . μή τι [

as I discuss in the transcriptions post. And it's already spoiler time!



The story of my text is also pretty simple. The original text I translated had lines 9-15 straight out of "the doc", the preceding part taken from Bibliotheca Augustana for critical notation, Edmonds for content, and "the doc" for meter, so it was BA's critical notation and Edmonds' content made to fit the meter of "the doc", which was clearly explained as cr+gl||gl||phal, whereas Edmonds and BA both had metrical Gibberish in my eyes, and finally, the last stanza was presumably BA's notation with (this is for certain) my own completion. The present text combines the old text with the critical notation of the papyrus transcription I did. Some parts of said transcriptions contradict the matching ones in my old text, and that is where the angle-bracket corrections come in. Dropping the completions, the text is agreed upon by Lobel-Page and Campbell and Voigt, except for some critical notation details and the fact Campbell reads l. 10 as ο]ὖδεν ἄδομ' ἔπερθα γᾶ[ς ἔοισα, with that epsilon for alpha for which cfr. the transcription post. Also, I may have pushed faint vestige reading to another level. In any case, I will stop here, and leave any other comment to my Lobel-Page vs. Voigt vs. Campbell comparison, prepared for the morbidly curious. I will just note that, again, I didn't bother adjusting the critical notation in the translation, because in any case the adjustments would be minor (also, I'm damn lazy :) ).

No comments:

Post a Comment