Today we radically change meter, but we go back to our friend P.Berol. whence the O Atthis poem was taken, and we have this poem by Sappho, in stanzas of three lines with scheme gl||gl||gld (glyconian, glyconian, glyconian expanded with a dactyl), where Sappho nostalgically evokes her past relationship with her female friend (well, Sappho was a Lesbian after all :) ), whose name is not in the poem anymore.
The title of the post is the title given by Greek Wikisource to this poem, and also its first extant line, which is the poem's second since the first one was torn away from the papyrus. The meter is rendered by stanzas of three lines with scheme -u-uu-u-||-u-uu-u-||-u-uu-uu-u-, with the first two lines rhyming and the last one rhyming between consecutive stanzas. The note is, again, a WIP-spoiler (yep, we're back there: after a no-note post, a WIP-spoiler-note post). [The note has since been added at the end of the post.]
Ll. 16-17 were integrated with a quote from Athenaeus, and Greek Wikisource failed to realize that, reporting the quote as fragment 46, and this poem as an unnumbered fragment between 87 and 90 (yeah, the numbering there is dumb since it skips numbers and allows for unnumbered fragments), so that, as I translated the fragments more or less in GW order, I translated the quote separately, and then the poem. Those separate translations are reported after the poem. These translations are absent from the 16/8/10 file, but the diary says that on 23/8/10 I translated up to fr. 53, so by then those were made, and they appear in the below form (Original Latin, of course) in the printout "SP3" from between 23/8/10 and 6/9/10, so by then the translations were over with. Except I then remade the Latin version. Quoting IAFI, 「27/9/22 morning, as I shave, I think back to this pseudofragment, and start a Latin remake: «Et molles hypothymides / Textas <... tu>». Near the end of the shave, just after reconstructing that lacuna, I think of «Textas <cervice in tua>». At the end of the shave, «Moll'in cervic'habens tua/tibi / Intextas hypothymides». Too bad it's cervīce, which makes this version inmetrical. I then think of «In/Ac cerviceque molle tua» at 11:00, thus landing on the final attempt [reported below as intermediate and] summarized at 11:02. On 1/10/22 at 12:05, as I add this here, I think of «Cervicemque tu' induens (?)», but using the accusative for both the hypothymids and the neck seems incorrect, and the ablative hypothymidibus doesn't fit the other line.」. Then I get a final remake on 5/10/22, going from «In cervice tua erant / Intextæ hypothymides.» at 22:54, to «In cervic' aderant tua» at 22:55, to the final version below at 22:55.
Let's now see the mess that is the history of the main fragment's text and translations:
The title of the post is the title given by Greek Wikisource to this poem, and also its first extant line, which is the poem's second since the first one was torn away from the papyrus. The meter is rendered by stanzas of three lines with scheme -u-uu-u-||-u-uu-u-||-u-uu-uu-u-, with the first two lines rhyming and the last one rhyming between consecutive stanzas. The note is, again, a WIP-spoiler (yep, we're back there: after a no-note post, a WIP-spoiler-note post). [The note has since been added at the end of the post.]
Ll. 16-17 were integrated with a quote from Athenaeus, and Greek Wikisource failed to realize that, reporting the quote as fragment 46, and this poem as an unnumbered fragment between 87 and 90 (yeah, the numbering there is dumb since it skips numbers and allows for unnumbered fragments), so that, as I translated the fragments more or less in GW order, I translated the quote separately, and then the poem. Those separate translations are reported after the poem. These translations are absent from the 16/8/10 file, but the diary says that on 23/8/10 I translated up to fr. 53, so by then those were made, and they appear in the below form (Original Latin, of course) in the printout "SP3" from between 23/8/10 and 6/9/10, so by then the translations were over with. Except I then remade the Latin version. Quoting IAFI, 「27/9/22 morning, as I shave, I think back to this pseudofragment, and start a Latin remake: «Et molles hypothymides / Textas <... tu>». Near the end of the shave, just after reconstructing that lacuna, I think of «Textas <cervice in tua>». At the end of the shave, «Moll'in cervic'habens tua/tibi / Intextas hypothymides». Too bad it's cervīce, which makes this version inmetrical. I then think of «In/Ac cerviceque molle tua» at 11:00, thus landing on the final attempt [reported below as intermediate and] summarized at 11:02. On 1/10/22 at 12:05, as I add this here, I think of «Cervicemque tu' induens (?)», but using the accusative for both the hypothymids and the neck seems incorrect, and the ablative hypothymidibus doesn't fit the other line.」. Then I get a final remake on 5/10/22, going from «In cervice tua erant / Intextæ hypothymides.» at 22:54, to «In cervic' aderant tua» at 22:55, to the final version below at 22:55.
Let's now see the mess that is the history of the main fragment's text and translations:
- First off, the 16/8/10 file shows the text as in the Historical tab below, plus the Latin title «Ac mori quidem exhio», probably made just because it was the title; the last tercet is missing in that file, hence the italics; those lines in the Historical version are from the 2/12 "translations update" file (aka OS7); same goes for l. 1 of Greek;
- The printout from between 23/8 and 6/9 adds a comma at the end of Greek l. 13, annotates the quantities of the missing syllables in l. 15, and shows Historical version ll. 2-4 printed and ll. 5-9 manuscripted;
- The 2/11/10 file doesn't add a thing, so we skip directly to the pritnout from between 2/11 and 12/11 (aka SP4); there, we find:
- Greek l. 1 annotated;
- The manuscript of Latin historical l. 1;
- The annotation changing Latin l. 5 from historical to current;
- The manuscript of Latin historical l. 10;
- The manuscript of Italian historical ll. 1-12;
- The 13/11 file only has Latin historical l. 2 and current ll. 3-12;
- The printout of OS7, split into pieces and sellotaped to SP4, leads the Greek to Historical 2 version, and has annotations «da te men vo» dated 5/12 and «da te via vo'» dated 7/12 on l. 6;
- The Latin manuscript goes on on SP4, in what I assume to be post-OS7 overlays giving two more historical lines;
- We then have another overlay, this time from "OS8" dated 9/12, only overlaying the Greek and Latin first lines, adding the comma to l. 10, planting the typo "obliseri'" in l. 11, and leaving the rest of ll. 1-12 as they are;
- SP4 then has more manuscripts and annotations to offer, which I deem to be post-OS8:
- Greek l. 15 becomes current in annotation;
- Greek l. 23 becomes «ἀπάλαν παρ[^]α[.]όνων» in annotation and then current in annotation to annotation;
- Greek last 3 lines become current in annotation to OS7 overlay;
- Latin says «Ad v18 feci» and then has manuscript of next three historical/current lines; ll. 13-18 first appear in the extra page (see below), where they are current and historical;
- Italian historical ll. 13-end are manuscripted, the only non-current things being:
- The missing comma before "qui" in l. 14;
- L. 17 doesn't have comma before "qui";
- L. 19 has «E di molto» and then overwrites "di" with "con", something lost in the blog;
- L. 21 has "a" as later addition;
- L. 22 has «E su morbidi letti»;
- L. 23 has «anch'oi» (with h);
- L. 25 has two "a" as later additions;
- L. 26 reads «Né a fonte di acqua andai»;
- L. 27 reads «U' non fossi andata di pria con te»;
- L. 30 has "me" and "te" originally as current and then swapped by overwriting;
- English has ll. 1-6 manuscripted in current form, except l. 6 has «I
'llunwilling indeed»; then it says «Ad v27 feci»;
- Then we have an extra page inserted into SP4, where:
- Greek has only ll. 13-end, which are in current form save for 18 ending in period, 26 having ἴρων corrected by annotation, 27 being as before, 29 not having comma at end, and 30 having glýkeai not glýkiai;
- Latin has ll. 13-21 in current form;
- The rest of the Latin is manuscripted in historical form, the non-current things being l. 23 has no comma after comites and desi-/derium in place of cupi-/dinem, 27 forgets the "nos" and is thus inmetrical;
- Italian is complete and current except:
- «E morire invero vo'» (l. 2); this became current in blog times, between making the post and a post save from 29/1/18;
- «da te via andrò» (l.6); this became current in the 5/1/11 file;
- «E su morbidi letti poi,» (l. 22); this became current in the 5/1/11 file;
- «cavati a te» (no comma, typo, l. 24); this became current in an annotation to SP5 (see below);
- U' non fossi andata di pria con te; this became current «at 13:21 on 17/9/21»;
- English is printed up to l. 27 and current save for «I'll unwilling» in l. 6; the last three lines are manuscripted in historical form, the non-current things being that "Nor" is "Ne'er" there, and "so sweet" is just not there for some reason; all of that gets fixed in the 5/1/11 file; well, last stanza is actually current in SP5 (see below);
- Latin and Greek still have to continue, so let's go to the printout from between 9/12 and 21/12:
- Latin l. 2 is annotated to «Mortu'ess'equidem volo»;
- Ll. 10-11 still the same;
- L. 23 is now current;
- L. 27 is made current by annotation, which turns an apparent "Fŭĭt" into "Fu͞it" and adds "nōs" after "quō" to restore the meter;
- The Greek is as in the 5/1/11 file, except l. 9 has "ὤς <τ>ε πεδήπομεν";
- Then we get to the 5/1/11 file, where the non-current things are:
- Greek l. 5 ends in comma;
- L. 6 «Ψάπφ’· ἦ μάν σ’ ἀέκοισ’ ἀπυλιμπάνω».
- L. 7 ends with high dot;
- L. 9 «μέμναισ’, οἶσθα γάρ, ὤς̣ ‹τ›ε πεδήπομεν.»;
- L. 17 has ἀμφ' not ἀμπ';
- L. 18 has "πεποημέναις." not "πεποημμέναις,";
- L. 27 has comma after ἔπλετ';
- L. 29 has no comma at end;
- L. 30 has γλύκεαι not γλύκιαι;
- Latin l. 2 is still «Mortu'ess'equidem volo»; this became current in blog times, between making the post and a post save from 29/1/18;
«[Ἄτθιδ’ οὔποτ’ ἄρ’ ὄ]ψ[ομαι,]
τεθνάκην δ ̓ ἀδόλως θέλω. ἄ με ψισδομένα κατελίμπανεν πόλλα, καὶ τόδ ̓ ἔειπέ [μοι· 5 «ᾤμ ̓ ὠς δεῖνα πεπ[όνθ]αμεν, Ψάπφ̓· ἦ μάν σ’ ἀέκοισ’ ἀπυλιμπάνω.» τὰν δ’ ἔγω τάδ’ ἀμειβόμαν· «χαίροισ’ ἔρχεο κἄμεθεν μέμναισ’, οἶσθα γάρ, ὤς <σ>ε πεδήπομεν. 10 αἰ δὲ μή, ἀλλά σ’ ἔγω θέλω ὄμναισαι [. . .]δ[. . .]θεαι, ...καὶ κάλ’ ἐπάσχομεν· πόλλοις γὰρ στεφάνοις ἴων καὶ βρόδων πλοκίων τ’ ὔμοι 15 και…παρ’ ἔμοι περεθήκαο καὶ πόλλαις ὐπαθύμιδας πλέκταις ἀμφ’ ἀπάλαι δέραι ἀνθέων ἐράτων πεποημέναις. καὶ πόλλωι λιπάρως μύρωι 20 βρενθείωι τε κάλον χρόα ἐξαλείψαο καὶ βασιληίωι, καὶ στρώμναν ἐπὶ μολθάκαν ἀπάλαν... ἐξίης πόθον... 25 κωὔτε τις...οὔτε τι ἶρων οὐδ’ ὐ... ἔπλετ’, ὄπποθεν ἄμμες ἀπέσκομεν· οὐκ ἄλσος [^ ^ εἴ]αρος ὤραι – ^ ^ –] ψόφος [– ^ – ^ ^ – μελα]οίδιαι.
«[Ἄτθιδ’ οὔποτ’ ἄρ’ ὄ]ψ[ομαι,]
τεθνάκην δ᾽ ἀδόλως θέλω». ἄ με ψισδομένα κατελίμπανεν πόλλα, καὶ τόδ᾽ ἔειπέ [μοι· 5 «ᾤμ᾽ ὠς δεῖνα πεπ[όνθ]αμεν, Ψάπφ᾽· ἦ μάν σ’ ἀέκοισ’ ἀπυλιμπάνω.» τὰν δ’ ἔγω τάδ’ ἀμειβόμαν· «χαίροισ’ ἔρχεο κἄμεθεν μέμναισ’, οἶσθα γάρ, ὤς <σ>ε πεδήπομεν. 10 αἰ δὲ μή, ἀλλά σ’ ἔγω θέλω ὄμναισαι [τὰ σὺ λά]θεαι, ὄσ’ [ἄμμες φίλα] καὶ κάλ’ ἐπάσχομεν· πόλλοις γὰρ στεφάνοις ἴων καὶ βρόδων κροκίων τ’ ὔμοι 15 κἀνήτω παρ’ ἔμοι περεθήκαο καὶ πόλλαις ὐπαθύμιδας πλέκταις ἀμφ’ ἀπάλαι δέραι ἀνθέων ἐράτων πεποημέναις. καὶ πόλλωι λιπάρως μύρωι 20 βρενθείωι τε κάλον χρόα ἐξαλείψαο καὶ βασιληίωι, καὶ στρώμναν ἐπὶ μολθάκαν ἀπάλαν... ἐξίης πόθο[ν – ^ ^]ανίδων, 25 κωὔτε τις [λόφος] οὔτε τι ἶρων οὐδ’ ὔ[δατος ρέον] ἔπλετ’, ὄππ[οθεν ἄμ]μες ἀπέσκομεν· οὐκ ἄλσος [^ ^ εἴ]αρος ὤραι – ^ ^ –] ψόφος [– ^ – ^ ^ – μελα]οίδιαι.
«[Ἄτθιδ’ οὔποτ’ ἄρ’ ὄψομαι,]
τεθνάκην δ’ ἀ̣δόλως θέ̣λω». Ἄ με ψισδομένα κατ̤[ε]λί‹μ›πανεν πόλλα, καὶ τόδ' ἔειπέ [μο]ι· «ᾮμ' ὠς δεῖνα πεπ[όνθ]αμεν Ψάπφ' ἦ μάν̣ σ̣' ἀέκοι̣σ̣' ἀ̣πυλιμπάνω» Τὰν δ' ἔγω τάδ' ἀμειβ̣ό̣μαν «Χαίροισ' ἔρχεο κἄ̣με̣θεν μέμναισ̤'· οἶσθ[α] γὰρ ὤς ‹σ›' ἐπεδήπομεν. Αἰ δὲ μή,͜ ἀλλά σ' ἔγω θέλω ὄ̣μναισαι (τὰ σὺ λ[ά]θεαι) ὄ̣‹σ›' ἄ[μ]μες φ[ίλα] καὶ κάλ' ἐ̣πάσχομεν· πό̤[λλοις γὰρ στεφάν]οις ἴων καὶ [βρόδων κρ]ο̣κίων τ̣' ὔμοι κ̣ά̣ρ̣ᾳ [σῷ] πὰρ ἔμοι π‹ε›ρεθήκα‹ο›, καὶ πόλλαις ὐπαθύμιδας πλέκταις ἀμπ' ἀπάλᾳ δέρᾳ ἀνθέων ἐ̣ρ[άτων] πεποημμέ̣ναις, καὶ πόλλῳ̣ λ̣[ιπάρ]ως μύρῳ βρενθείῳ τ[ε κάλον] ‹χρόα› ἐξαλείψαο κα[ὶ βα]σιληΐῳ, καὶ στρώμν̤[αν ἐ]πὶ μολθάκαν ἀπάλαν πὰρ [ὀπ]αυόν̣ων̤ ἐξίης̣ πόθο̣[ν αἶψα νε]ανίδ̣ων, κωὔτε τις [λόφος οὔ]τ̣ε τι ἶρον οὔδ' ὔ[δατος ῤέ]ον̤ ἔπλετ' ὄππ̣[ποθεν ἄμ]μες ἀπ̣έσκομεν, οὔκ ἄλσος τ[ι πὰρ εἴ]αρος [ὤραις πλήροέ τις] ψόφος, [ἀλλ' ἄμμεων γλύκιαι μ]ελαοίδιαι».
«[Mai più Attide rivedrò]
E morire invero vo’» Ella molto piangendo da me via andò, Queste cose poi disse a me: «Quanto abbiamo sofferto, ahimè! 5 Saffo, inver controvoglia da te via andrò». Io risposi a lei così: «Va’, sta’ bene, e ricordati, Deh, di me, quanto ben t’ho voluto, sai. Volentier ti ricorderò 10 Quel che tu scorderai, se no: Bella e cara la nostra vit’era assai. D’ viole molte ghirlande, sì, E di rose e di crochi, qui, Presso a me, [sul tuo capo] ponevi tu. E͜ intrecciate ipotimidi Sul tuo tenero collo, qui, Molte, d’ fiori amati, ponevi tu, E zioso unguento, adatto a un re, Il bel corpo splendente facevi a te, E su morbidi letti po͜i Presso ten’re compagne, anch’ oi, Presto d’ vergini voglia cavavi a te, Né a collina né a tempio mai Né a fonte di acqua andai U' non fossi andata di pria con te, Né ma͜i bosco riempivasi, Pri]mavera vicina, di] Chiasso, ma d’ co]ri dolci di
«[Mai più Attide rivedrò.]
Esser morta davver io vo’». Ella molto piangendo da me vi͜a͜ andò, Queste cose po͜i disse ͜[a me]: «Quanto͜ abbiamo so[ffe]rto, a͜h͜imè! Saffo;͜ inver controvoglia da te vi͜a vo». I͜o risposi a le͜i così: «Va’, sta’ bene,͜ e ricordati, Deh, di me: quanto ben t’ho voluto, sa͜i. Volentier ti ricorderò 10 [Quel che tu] scordera͜i, se no: Bella͜ e [cara] la nostra vit’era assa͜i. D’ viole molte ghirlande, sì, E di ro[se͜ e di cro]chi, qui, Presso͜ a me, [sul tu͜o capo] ponevi tu E͜ intrecciate ipotimidi Sul tuo tenero collo, qui, Molte, d’ fiori a[mati], ponevi tu, E di molto ͜[abbondante] pre- zioso͜ unguento, adatto͜ a͜ un re, [Il bel corpo] splendente facevi͜ a te, E su͜ un morbido letto po͜i, Presso ten’re [co]m[p]agne,͜ anc’ o͜i, [Presto d’ verg]ini voglia cavavi͜ a te, Né ͜[a collina] né ͜[a tempio] ma͜i Né [a specchio di acqua] anda͜i Ov'io non fossi͜ andata gi͜à pri͜a con te, Né ma͜i bosco [riempivasi, Pri]mavera [vicina, di] Chiasso, [ma d’ co]ri [dolci di me͜ e di te]. Κἀπάλαις ὐπαθύμιδας πλέκταις ἀμπ' ἀπάλᾳ δέρᾳ. Sul mol collo͜ ipotimidi Intrecciate e morbide. |
Atthid' haud spici' umquam, ac
Mōrtŭ’ ēssĕ quĭd' ēxhĭō. Mūltās flēns lăcrĭmās ĕă īvĭt ābs Mēquĕ, dīxĭt ĕt hōccĕ mī: «O me, quam mala passæ nos, Sapph’, invit’ ego te quidem abs eo.» Dixiqu’ ips’ ego hæcc' ĕī: «Valens ique, meiqu Memento, scis enim, volui bene Sive non, ego te volo Qu’ ōblīscērĭ’, rĕcūlt’ hăbeas Quāntă [cārăquĕ] pūlchrăquĕ vīxĭmus; [Cōrō]nās vĭŏlār’ ĕnĭm Ēt rŏ[sû̄mquĕ crŏ]cû̄mquĕ mū[l- tās tŭō căpĭtī] făcĭēns ĕrās, Īntēxtās hy̆pŏthȳmĭdēs Mūltās mōll’ hŭmĕrōquĕ, fāc- tās c[ārō] tĭbĭ flōr’, ădĕrānt quĭdĕm. Unguentoque regal’ adun gebas [corpu’] tibi preti- oso [pulchrum], erat quoque multum id, Lecto molle super, prope Teneras [co]m[i]tes, desi- deri͞um [vir]ginum abs [rapide] iaci͞ens Eras tu, neque [colli’] nec Templum, [fons] neque [ver’ aquæ] Fuit qu[o] quid’ adire vitārimus, Nec nemus [prop’ horas v]eris Rumor [plenum habebat, at Dulces nostr’] in ĕis resonant [ch]ori.
«[Ātthĭd’ ha͞ud spĕcĭ’ ūmquăm,] ăc
Mōrtŭ’ ēssĕ quĭdēm vŏlō. Mūltās flēns lăcrĭmās ĕă īvĭt ābs Mēquĕ, dīxĭt ĕt hōccĕ [mī]: «P[āss]ǣ quām mălă, mē!, sŭmŭs, Sāpph’; īnvīt’ ĕgŏ tē quĭdĕm ābs ĕō.» Dīxīqu’ īps’ ĕgŏ hǣc ĕī: «Vālēns īquĕ, mĕīquĕ tū Mēmēntō, scĭs ĕnīm, vŏlŭī bĕnĕ. Sīvĕ nōn, ĕgŏ tū vŏlō ([Qu’ ōblī]scērĭ’) rĕcūlt’ hăbe͞as Quāntă [cārăquĕ] pūlchrăquĕ vīxĭmŭs; [Cōrō]nās vĭŏlār’ ĕnĭm Ēt rŏ[sû̄mquĕ crŏ]cû̄mquĕ mū[l- tās tŭō căpĭtī] făcĭēns ĕrās, Īntēxtās hy̆pŏthȳmĭdēs Mūltās mōll’ hŭmĕrōquĕ, fāc- tās c[ārō] tĭbĭ flōr’, ădĕrānt quĭdĕm. Ūnguēntōquĕ rĕgāl’ ădūng- gēbās [cōrpŭ’] tĭbī prĕtĭ- ōsō [pūlchrŭm], ĕrāt quŏquĕ mūltŭm ĭd, Lēctō mōllĕ sŭpēr, prŏpĕ Tĕnĕrās cŏmĭtēs, cŭpĭ- dĭnēm [vīr]gĭnŭm ābs [răpĭdē] iăci͞ens Ĕrās tū, nĕquĕ [cōllĭ’] nĕc Tēmplūm, [fōns] nĕquĕ [vēr’ ăquǣ] Fu͞it, qu[ō n]ōs quĭd’ ădīrĕ vĭtārĭmŭs, Nēc nĕmūs [prŏp’ hŏrās v]ĕrĭs Rūmōr [plēnŭm hăbēbăt, ăt Dūlcēs nōstr’ ĭn ĕīs rĕsŏnānt ch]ŏrī. «[Atthis never again I’ll see,] I in sooth wish I dead could be». And with many a tear me she did forsake, Then she told [me]: «Poor me! Alas, We have su[ffe]red so great a mass, Sappho: thee I unwilling indeed forsake». This in answering her I said: «Go, farewell, and of me be led Mem’ry with thee: how much I thee loved, you know. And, if not, shall I willinglỳ Thee remind ([which] will go from [thee]) Through how much [nice] and good [we] indeed did go. Many violet-garlands you, And of [cro]cus and ro[ses] too, Having made, [on your tender head] placed by me, Hypothymids indeed a lot ’Round your tender neck you did put, Interwoven from flowers so d[ear] to thee, With much ointment [abundantlỳ], Precious, regal indeed, to thee [That so beautiful body] anointedst thou, And upon a soft bed you lay By your tender [gi]r[l-fri]ènds, away Sending th’ longing [for virg]ins [’twixt now and now], Neither [hill] nor [a temple] nor [Water pool] that I’ve known before Was there, far from the which we would keep our feet, Nor [through] little wood, [near being s]pring, [There did echo a] noisy thing, [But through’t echoed our cho]ruses, [oh, so sweet].
Īntēxtās hy̆pŏthȳmĭdēs
Mōllēs mōllĕquĕ cērvīcĕ.
Īn cērvīcĕquĕ mōll' hăbēns
Īntēxtās hy̆pŏthȳmĭdēs
Īntēxtǣqu' hy̆pŏthȳmĭdēs
Īn cērvīc' ădĕrānt tŭā. Plaited soft hypothymides Place you round the soft neck of yours. |
Critical note
First, the timeline. At the level of Bergk, we only have a quotation, and a "pseudoquotation". The former is Bergk 51, from Athenaeus's Deipnosophistai (for a change), book XV, reported by Bergk as saying «Ἐκάλουν δὲ καὶ οἷς περιεδέοντο τὸν τράχηλον στεφάνους ὑποθυμιάδας. Καὶ Σαπφώ· καὶ πολλαῖς ὑποθυμιάδας πλέκταις ἄντια παλαιδέραι». Now, the intro is "Garlands tied around the neck were also called "hypothymiads". And Sappho [says]". The quotation itself is ll. 16-17 in a rather corrupted state. The obvious corrections are applying barytonesis to πολλαῖς to get πόλλαις and correcting ὑποθυμιάδας to ὐπαθύμιδας, to a) get the meter working (glyconians here), b) apply Aeolic psylosis, c) recall that Aeolic has ὑπὰ for ὑπὸ. The second line is pretty badly garbled, and indeed there are two options: Bergk's ἀμπ' ἀπάλᾳ δέρᾳ, closer to the tradition, proposed by "Schweighaeuserus" (which I assume is a Latinized, umlaut-e form of Schweighäuser), and ἀντ' ἀπαλᾶν δεράν, which if read as ἀντ' ἀπάλαν δέραν for barytonesis is closer to the tradition for the ἀντ', but farther from it for the plural, and besides, ἀντὶ meas "face to face", so "hypothymids against the neck" when Athenaeus just said "tied around the neck"? Come on: surely it's ἀμφὶ, or ἀμπ' if we elide it and apply some weird psilosis to it. That kind of psilosis is weird because it does not stem from "ignoring a spiritus asper", since the phi is in the root preposition, but is justified (I assume) by guessing that the τι in the tradition stems from a misinterpreted π. Why Bergk decided to change καὶ πόλλαις to κἀπάλαις is beyond me. I mean, yeah, same adjective in the next line, but that ain't enough to alter the tradition when it makes perfect sense, is it now? Anyways, this gives exactly Greek Wikisource's fragment 46, which I assume stems from Bergk's edition, maybe through a number of intermediate transmission vehicles. Why Greek Wikisource failed to realize that this is blatantly a quote from the big poem, which GW has, is beyond me. All I can say is that I realized it after getting to the big poem, which was after fr. 46 (it was unnumbered between 87 and 90), meaning I translated 46 and then came to the unnumbered one and was like "Why the deformed quotation way before this poem?". The pseudoquotation is again from Athenaeus, and again from book XV, and is Bergk 55. Athenaeus says «Σαπφὼ δὲ ὁμοῦ μέμνηται τοῦ τε βασιλείου καὶ τοῦ βρενθείου, λέγουσα οὕτως· βρενθείω βασιληΐω», thus in codices, while "vulgo" has βρενθίῳ βασιλείῳ. While it is clear that Athenaeus referred here to ll. 20-21, this is not a direct quote, as the next source clearly reveals βασιληΐῳ in l. 21, and βρενθείῳ in l. 20, whereas the quote makes it seem like the same line had both. Already by Edmond's time, P.Berol. 9722 had emerged, and its fol[ium] 2 contained a lot of the poem. This papyrus (or rather parchment) is discussed at the transcriptions post, where the following text, combined with the quotation, is given:
Τεθνάκην δ' ἀ̣δόλω̣ς θέ̣λω
Ἄ με ψισδομένα κατ̤[ε]λί‹μ›πανεν
πόλλα, καὶ τόδ' ἔειπέ [μο]ι
ᾮμ' ὠς δεῖνα πεπ[όνθ]αμεν
Ψάπφ' ἦ μάν̣ σ̣' ἀέκοι̣σ̣' ἀ̣π{.}υλιμπάνω 5
Τάνδ' ἔγω τάδ' ἀμειβ̣ό̣μαν
Χαίροισ' ἔρχεο κἄ̣με̣θεν
μέμναισ̤' οἶ{ι}σθ[α] γὰρ ὤς ‹σ›' ἐπεδήπομεν
α̣ἰ δὲ μὴ ἀλλά σ' ἔγω θέλω
ὄ̣μναισαι τὰ σὺ λ[ά]θεαι 10
ὄ̣‹σ›' ἄ[μ]μες φ[ίλα] καὶ κάλ' ἐ̣πάσχομεν
πο̤[ 10 letters ]οις ἴω
καὶ [ 9 letters κρ]ο̣κίων τ̣' ὔμοι
κ̣ά̣ρ̣ᾳ [ 9 letters ] πὰρ ἔμοι π‹ε›ρεθήκα‹ο›
καὶ π̣ό[λλαις ὐπα]θ̣ύμιδας 15
πλέκ[ταις ἀμφ' ἀ]πάλᾳ δέρᾳ
ἀνθέων ἐ̣ . [ 5 letters ] πεποημμέ̣ναις
καὶ πόλλῳ̣ λ̣[ιπάρ]ως μύρῳ
βρενθείῳ . [ 6 letters ] . . . . νν̣ . .
ἐξαλείψαο κα[ὶ βα]σιληΐῳ 20
καὶ στρώμν̤[αν ἐ]πὶ μολθάκαν
ἀπάλαν πα . [ 6 letters ] . . . ν̣ων̤
ἐξίης̣ πόθο̣[ν 6 letters ] . νίδ̣ων
κωὔτε τις [ 5 letters οὔ]τ̣ε τι {τ̣ι̣}
ἶρον οὔδ' ὐ[ 7 letters ] . ν̤ 25
ἔπλετ' ὄππ̣[ποθεν ἄμ]μες ἀπ̣έσκομεν
οὔκ ἄλσος . [ 8 letters ] . ρος
[ 20 letters ] ψόφος
[ 18 letters μ]ελαοίδιαι
From Edmonds' text, it seems the image I have includes a fragment which was found between Edmonds and Lobel-Page, and joined to P.Berol. Indeed, the image of P.Berol. shows hints of several possible joint lines. If there was another scrap, it would explain why Edmonds seems to ignore the line endings on some lines in the second half of the poem. I relegated this here because I don't have any certainty that the "Lobel Σ.μ. p. 79" mentioned by Campbell as a source for this actually gave those ends. Edmonds' text has missing line endings from l. 21 to its end, and it omits ll. 25-30 for some reason. It exhibits a not-too-careful critical notation, and some reading creativity. Anyways, «then came I to gaze upon this», as I said in another post with a spoiler in the critical note. So here is your spoiler with what I wrote in the Paracritical Note.
Note that I have tacitly corrected a couple of blatant mistakes in the text above. Let us see where I got my fillings from.
The last thing to note is that, in Voigt's critical note to l. 19, there is a suggestion of [τε κόμαν or ῥύ[δο]ν at line end, and that made me think of βρενθείῳ τ[ε κόμαν] κάλαν {ν̣ . .} as a possibility, which fits the traces in the papyrus. I can't do that here because of the translations, but I will adopt this reading for the all-Sappho posts.
Τεθνάκην δ' ἀ̣δόλω̣ς θέ̣λω
Ἄ με ψισδομένα κατ̤[ε]λί‹μ›πανεν
πόλλα, καὶ τόδ' ἔειπέ [μο]ι
ᾮμ' ὠς δεῖνα πεπ[όνθ]αμεν
Ψάπφ' ἦ μάν̣ σ̣' ἀέκοι̣σ̣' ἀ̣π{.}υλιμπάνω 5
Τάνδ' ἔγω τάδ' ἀμειβ̣ό̣μαν
Χαίροισ' ἔρχεο κἄ̣με̣θεν
μέμναισ̤' οἶ{ι}σθ[α] γὰρ ὤς ‹σ›' ἐπεδήπομεν
α̣ἰ δὲ μὴ ἀλλά σ' ἔγω θέλω
ὄ̣μναισαι τὰ σὺ λ[ά]θεαι 10
ὄ̣‹σ›' ἄ[μ]μες φ[ίλα] καὶ κάλ' ἐ̣πάσχομεν
πο̤[ 10 letters ]οις ἴω
καὶ [ 9 letters κρ]ο̣κίων τ̣' ὔμοι
κ̣ά̣ρ̣ᾳ [ 9 letters ] πὰρ ἔμοι π‹ε›ρεθήκα‹ο›
καὶ π̣ό[λλαις ὐπα]θ̣ύμιδας 15
πλέκ[ταις ἀμφ' ἀ]πάλᾳ δέρᾳ
ἀνθέων ἐ̣ . [ 5 letters ] πεποημμέ̣ναις
καὶ πόλλῳ̣ λ̣[ιπάρ]ως μύρῳ
βρενθείῳ . [ 6 letters ] . . . . νν̣ . .
ἐξαλείψαο κα[ὶ βα]σιληΐῳ 20
καὶ στρώμν̤[αν ἐ]πὶ μολθάκαν
ἀπάλαν πα . [ 6 letters ] . . . ν̣ων̤
ἐξίης̣ πόθο̣[ν 6 letters ] . νίδ̣ων
κωὔτε τις [ 5 letters οὔ]τ̣ε τι {τ̣ι̣}
ἶρον οὔδ' ὐ[ 7 letters ] . ν̤ 25
ἔπλετ' ὄππ̣[ποθεν ἄμ]μες ἀπ̣έσκομεν
οὔκ ἄλσος . [ 8 letters ] . ρος
[ 20 letters ] ψόφος
[ 18 letters μ]ελαοίδιαι
From Edmonds' text, it seems the image I have includes a fragment which was found between Edmonds and Lobel-Page, and joined to P.Berol. Indeed, the image of P.Berol. shows hints of several possible joint lines. If there was another scrap, it would explain why Edmonds seems to ignore the line endings on some lines in the second half of the poem. I relegated this here because I don't have any certainty that the "Lobel Σ.μ. p. 79" mentioned by Campbell as a source for this actually gave those ends. Edmonds' text has missing line endings from l. 21 to its end, and it omits ll. 25-30 for some reason. It exhibits a not-too-careful critical notation, and some reading creativity. Anyways, «then came I to gaze upon this», as I said in another post with a spoiler in the critical note. So here is your spoiler with what I wrote in the Paracritical Note.
Note that I have tacitly corrected a couple of blatant mistakes in the text above. Let us see where I got my fillings from.
- L. 1 is straight-up invented by Edmonds, who not only invented the line, but also the psi he says is visible in the papyrus.
- From there to l. 10, everything is pretty much standard.
- The underlined letters in l. 11 are the result of fitting a completion found on, I assume, Greek Wikisource to the vestiges in the papyrus. It may have stemmed from Edmonds originally.
- Same goes for l. 12.
- Ll. 13-14 are completed this way by Campbell too.
- L. 15 is the result of fitting a completion found on Rosati's Scrittori di Grecia Antica to the papyrus, realizing that it was possible to have a rho at the start (cfr. transcriptions post).
- Ll. 19 and 21 are standard.
- L. 20 is from GW I guess, and is rendered impossible by the papyrus, but I had to stick with it because it's what I translated.
- Ll. 16-17 are integrated with Athenaeus's quotation.
- L. 18 is completed as in GW (I assume). Other options are ἔ[κατον] and ἔ[βαλες], the last one being Campbell's.
- L. 22 is standard.
- L. 23 is from GW I suppose.
- L. 24 is just the straightforward πόθο[ν, the very reasonable and papyrus-text-suggested νε]ανίδων, and a guessed filler for the missing two syllables, again from GW I suppose.
- The following stanza has a funny story. None of my sources completed it, except for the horrid safopoemas, which had it as:
χωΰτε τις[λόγος οδ]τε τι Τρον ούδ' ύ[δατος ρ6χ]
ϊπλετ' όπ π [όθεν Εμ]
μες άπέσχομεν
Amending this Gibberish in a natural way leads to:
κωὔτε τις [λόγος οὔ]τε τι
ἶρον ούδ' ὔ[δατος †ρ6χ†]
ἔπλετ' ὄππ[όθεν ἄμ]μες άπέσκομεν
The translation in safopoemas reads:
Y no hubo colina profana | And there was no profane hill
o sagrada, ni fuentes de aguas | Or sacred, nor springs of water
a donde no hayamos ido | Where we haven't gone to
This suggests λόγος may be a typo / OCR error / whatever for λόφος, "crest of a hill" according to Perseus's Greek Word Study Tool. The word ρ6χ does't immediately suggest any recostruction that matches "springs". I don't know exactly what I did, but eventually ῤέον, "running", presented itself, interpreted as "running body" or "stream": close enough. Coming back to this, I thought of ῥόος, same meaning. It appears, however, that Voigt knew the origins of these completions. Specifically, the supposed λόφος is probably the χόρος (oh my OCR…) proposed by Diehl in a work of his, whereas the supposed ῤέον/ῤόος is Edmonds' work, when in an article he wrote he proposed ῤόα, same meaning. I kept my guesses because that is what I translated, but the double-underdot nu in the papyrus is a (not too strong) argument in favor of ῤέον. - The last stanza is my own phantasy, except maybe for εἴαρος and μελαοίδιαι. While I know I'm not the first to propose the latter, I don't know if anyone thought of the former.
The last thing to note is that, in Voigt's critical note to l. 19, there is a suggestion of [τε κόμαν or ῥύ[δο]ν at line end, and that made me think of βρενθείῳ τ[ε κόμαν] κάλαν {ν̣ . .} as a possibility, which fits the traces in the papyrus. I can't do that here because of the translations, but I will adopt this reading for the all-Sappho posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment