NEW POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM A NEGLECTED WITNESS OF PS.-TRYPHO'S DE TROPIS: CALLIMACHUS, PS.-HESIOD, PS.-SIMONIDES

Abstract

A treatise on rhetorical tropes is attributed in manuscripts to the first-century grammarian Trypho: this article considers for the first time a fifteenth-century manuscript of this work (Leiden, BPG 74G), which turns out to be the only complete witness of its hitherto unknown original version; this version (very fragmentarily transmitted by a fifth-century papyrus scrap) is also partly found in another fifteenth-century manuscript now kept in Olomouc (M 79). Four interesting poetic fragments are quoted in this newly discovered, fuller version of Ps.-Trypho's De Tropis: some lines from Callimachus’ fifth and fourth Iambi (23–9 and 90–2 respectively: a radically new light is shed by this new witness on the parallel papyrus fragments carrying Callimachus’ text), an epigram dubiously attributed to Simonides (FGE 44 Page, probably to be dated to the Hellenistic period: the text can be now restored to its complete form), and some enigmatic lines of “Hesiod”'s Wedding of Keyx, which the new witness finally makes fully understandable.

0. INTRODUCTION

Recentiores, non deteriores. This is the story of a hitherto neglected Greek manuscript of philosophical and rhetorical content, which was copied as late as the High Renaissance, and happens to be our only witness for a fuller version of four poetic fragments, on whose wording and meaning it casts an entirely new light.

M.L. West's edition of the rhetorical treatise On Tropes ascribed in the manuscript tradition to the first-century grammarian Trypho¹ was based on just eight out of the twenty-one extant medieval codices and on one papyrus (the fifth-century P.Vindob. 29332),² which West, following an insight by Paul Maas,³ believed to carry the very same work handed down by the medieval witnesses. A closer analysis of the entire manuscript tradition, carried out by M.G. Sandri for a new edition of the ancient Greek and Byzantine treatises on tropes, now reveals the special importance of MS Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek BPG 74 G (here Z), a codex from the collection of the eighteenth-century traveller Antonios Triphilis.⁴ This manuscript is familiar to students of ancient mathematics and philosophy as a witness of Aristotle's Physics (fols. 67–144) and of Nicomachus of Gerasa's Eisagoge (fols. 4–48, together with John Philoponus’ commentary on it, fols. 52–65): its last folia, however, have a different character, and include (Ps.-)Manuel Chrysoloras's On Anomalous Verbs (fols. 150–7)⁵ and (Ps.-)Trypho's On Tropes (fols. 145–9v). The scribes are not identified, but watermarks throughout the codex consistently point to the first decades of the sixteenth century.⁶

The paths of the manuscript transmission of the texts Περὶ Τρόπων are very complicated; hence we shall leave to another occasion a more thorough consideration of the contribution made by this manuscript to our knowledge of the treatise ascribed to Trypho (‘Trypho II’). Here it will suffice to say that the Leidensis preserves the original form of this treatise, while the rest of the manuscript tradition, embracing twenty codices dated between the late thirteenth and the early eighteenth centuries, carries an epitomized (and sometimes adapted) version. The lost archetype of this shorter version (which itself gave rise to two different families) we shall call α.

As the lone witness of the fuller version of the Περὶ Τρόπων, the Leidensis is of paramount importance for the constitution of the text. In this paper, we shall focus exclusively on four out of five non-Homeric literary quotations appearing in Ps.-Trypho's text:⁷ not only do these offer entirely new (and sound) readings for hotly debated poetical fragments of ‘Hesiod’, ‘Simonides’ and Callimachus, but comparison of the manuscript's readings with papyri containing the same lines (whether the papyri transmit the original poetic works or, in one case, the text of Ps.-Trypho himself) guarantees that the new readings cannot derive from conjectural activity. We shall present each of the four relevant passages in the order of Ps.-Trypho's treatise, with an apparatus criticus; we shall then discuss the impact of this new witness on the text of the fragments concerned.

1. ALLEGORY IN CALLIMACHUS’ IAMBI (5.23–9)

§1. Ἀλληγορία μὲν οὖν ἐστι φράσις ἕτερον μέν τι κυρίως δηλοῦσα, ἑτέρου δὲ ἔννοιαν παριστῶσα. τότε δὲ καταχρῶνται δεόντως τῇ ἀλληγορίᾳ, ὅταν ἢ δι’ εὐλάβειαν ἢ δι’ αἰσχύνην μὴ δύνωνται φανερῶς ἀπαγγεῖλαι τὸ πρᾶγμα, ὃν τρόπον παρὰ Καλλιμάχῳ ἐν Ἰάμβοις αZ

τὸ πῦρ δὲ τὠνέκαυσας, ἄχρις οὐ πολλῇ

πρόσω κεχώρηκεν φλογί,

ἀλλ’ ἀτρεμίζει κἠπὶ τὴν τέφρην οἰχνεῖ,

κοίμησον· ἴσχε δὲ δρόμου

μαργῶντας ἵππους, μηδὲ δευτέραν κάμψῃς

μή τοι περὶ νύσσῃ δίφρον

ἄξωσιν, ἐκ δὲ κύμβαχος κυβιστήσῃς. αZyCa^Π (Callim. Ia. 5.23–9)

ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οὐ κυρίως εἴρηται· οὔτε γὰρ περὶ πυρὸς οὔτε περὶ ἱπποδρομίας ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ αἰδούμενος ἐκδήλως εἰπεῖν ὅ βούλεται, ἐχρήσατο τῇ ἀλληγορίᾳ. αZ

MSS Tryphonis: Z = Leidensis BPG 74G; α = consensus codicum praeter Z

ll. 5–11 tradunt etiam Ca^Π = P.S.I. 1216; y = Par. gr. 2558, fol. 160v (vide ZPE 213 [2020], 23–7); laudat Choer. = Choerobosci de tropis, pp. 244–56 Spengel

1 κυρίως Z (iam post Stroux add. West): om. α

3 μὴ Z: οὐ α    τὸ πρᾶγμα Ζ, non praeb. α

5 δὲ τὠνέκαυσας Pfeiffer: δετόανέκαυσας Ca^Π: δὲ τ᾽ ἀνέκαυσας Choer.: δ᾽ ἀ[.]ὼν (δ᾽ ἑκὼν fort. voluit) ἐκκαύσας y: δ᾽ ἔκαυσας Z: ὅπερ (vel ὅτε) ἀνέκαυσας (vel ἐνέκαυσας) α

ἄχρις οὐ Pf.: άχρισου Ca^Π (ἄχρις εὗ olim Pf., Terzaghi, ἄχρι σευ Norsa/Vitelli): ἄχρις οὗ Zy et Choer. MSS aliquot: ἕως (vel ἔρος) οὗ Choer. cett. MSS: om. α πολλῇ πρόσω Ca^Πy: πρόσω πολλῇ Z: πολλὴν (sed πολλὰ Laur. 87.10) πρόσω α

6 κεχώρηκεν Ca^Π: κεχώρηκε Zy Choer. (et Laur. 87.10): κέχρηκε vel κέχρηται (cum πολλὴν … φλόγα) α φλογί Zy Choer.: φλόγι Ca^Π: φλόγα α

7 om. α Choer.   ἀτρεμίζει Ca^Πy (ατρεμιζε a.c. Ca^Π): ἔτι ἀτρέμοι Z   κηιπιτην Ca^Π, corr. Norsa/Vitelli: κῃπὶ (sc. καὶ εἰ ἐπί) τὴν Pf.: καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν Z: κἤπιος y  ο̣ἰ̣[χ]ν̣εῖ Ca^Π (suppl. Norsa/Vitelli): οἰ[κ]εῖ (sive οἴ[κ]ει) Parsons: οἴκοι Z: εἰ[ ̣]ὴ (ex οἰ[ ̣]ὴ corr.) y: ὀκνεῖ Most per litteras

8 κοίμησον Ca^ΠZ: κοιμίσων y: om. α Choer.   δρόμου Zy Choer. (et Pal. gr. 360): δρόμ[ Ca^Π: δρόμον α

9 μαργῶντας ἵππους Ca^ΠZy Choer. (et Laur. 87.10): μαργοῦντας ἵππους vel μαργοῦντος ἵππου α, qui reliqua om.  μηδὲ Ca^Π: μὴ δὲ Zy: μὴ Choer.  δευτέρ[η]ν̣ suppl. edd. in Ca^Π

10 τι Choer. (praeter MS Pal. gr. 40 τοι)  περί Ca^Π Z: παρά y Choer.

11 ἄξωσιν post corr. (ἄγωσιν vel ἄγρωσιν scripserat) y   κυβιστήσῃς y Choer. et (]τήσῃς) Ca^Π: κυβιστηθείς Z

12 μὲν οὖν Ζ: γὰρ α   οὔτε pr. Z (et Olomuc. M 79): οὐ α   περὶ ambo om. α (prius iam addiderat Walz), praebet Z

13 εἰπεῖν ὅ βούλεται, ἐχρήσατο τῇ ἀλληγορίᾳ Z: ἤλεγξε τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς θρασύτητος α: <εἰπεῖν, διὰ τῆς ἀλληγορίας> ἤλεγξε τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς θρασύτητος ci. West

Allegory is an expression that indicates something in its proper sense, but also presents the meaning of something else. Writers use allegory appropriately when either for reasons of prudence or of decency they refrain from reporting the matter openly, as does Callimachus in his Iambi:

The fire you have lit up, before it has

spread forward with big flames,

but keeps quiet and rests among the embers,

extinguish it: hold back from the race

the raging horses, and don't make a second turn

lest they should crash your chariot

around the turning-post, and headfirst you fall.

These things, however, are not said in their proper sense. In fact, the discourse is not about fire or horse-races, but he uses an allegory, as if ashamed to declare openly what he wants to say.

This fragment has already been discussed in a recent essay after discovering that it is attested (in a much fuller form than in the known manuscripts of Ps.-Trypho and Choeroboscus) in the margins of MS Par. gr. 2558 (y).⁸ While we refer to that article for the discussion of the readings offered by the Parisinus, we emphasize here only a few textual aspects.

The contribution made by Z to the text of Ps.-Trypho is clear (lines 1, 3, 12, 13: the manuscript also admirably confirms conjectures by Walz and West). As for Callimachus’ fragment, the improvements on the text of α, mostly in accordance with the second-century papyrus P.S.I. 1216, are manifold and conspicuous (for example the very existence of lines 7 and 9–11 = Callim. 25 and 17–29; the readings in line 8 = Callim. 26). Aside from orthographical issues (line 5 = Callim. 23 ἄχρις οὗ; line 7 = Callim. 25 καὶ ἐπὶ without the crasis—but Ps.-Trypho must have had κἠπί, see y's κἤπιος) and one word-order blunder (line 5 πρόσω πολλῇ), Z has faulty readings in line 5 = Callim. 23 δ᾽ ἔκαυσας, line 7 = Callim. 25 ἔτι ἀτρέμοι, and line 11 = Callim. 29 κυβιστηθείς (the former two metrically untenable). The issue of line 7 = Callim. 25 οἴκοι is more delicate, as the papyrus traces are uncertain, and the commonly accepted οἰχνεῖ has been restored by Norsa and Vitelli from ο̣ἰ̣[ ̣]ν̣εῖ in the papyrus, while Par. gr. 2558 has εἰ[.]ὴ (corrected from οἰ[ ̣]ὴ): Parsons's conjecture οἰκεῖ, though slightly problematic syntactically, should be carefully considered.

More importantly, the existence of Z now confirms that—as surmised in the aforementioned paper—the quotation in MS y does indeed derive from a lost manuscript witness carrying the fuller version of Ps.-Trypho's treatise on tropes.

2. TRANSPOSITION IN ‘SIMONIDES’ (FGE 44 PAGE = 105 S SIDER)

§5. Ὑπερβατόν ἐστι φράσις ἀνὰ μέσον τι τῶν ἑξῆς ἔχουσα. γίνονται δὲ τὰ ὑπερβατὰ ἐν εἴδεσι δυσίν, ἤτοι ἐν λέξει ἢ ἐν λόγῳ. […] ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ ἐν συλλαβαῖς ὑπερβατὰ πεποιήκασιν, ὡς καὶ Σιμωνίδης ἐν ἐπιγράμμασιν⋅

Ἑρμῆν τόνδ’ ἀνέθη Δημήτριος Ὀρθιάδου κεν

ἐν προθύροις Δήμη στῆθί τε καὶ μάθε τρος, Zα  ([Sim.] FGE 44 Page =  105 S Sider)

ἄλλοσε προσυπερβιβάσας τοῦ τε “ἀνέθηκεν” καὶ τοῦ “Δήμητρος” τὴν τελευταίαν συλλαβήν. τὸ γὰρ ἑξῆς οὕτως ἀποδίδοται⋅ Ἑρμῆν τόνδ’ ἀνέθηκεν Δημήτριος Ὀρθιάδου· ἐν προθύροις Δήμητρος στῆθί τε καὶ μάθε. ΠZ

MSS Tryphonis: Π = P.Vindob. 29332 (lacunosa); Z = Leidensis BPG 74G; α = consensus codicum praeter Z

1 τι τῶν Z et Marc. gr. 512: τῶν (vel τὰ vel τὸ) α

2 ἤτοι ἐν λέξει ἢ ἐν λόγῳ Z: εἴτε ἐν λέξει, εἴτε ἐν λόγῳ (fere idem coniecerat West) Marc. gr. 512: ἢ ἐν λόγῳ, ἢ ἐν λέξει Barocc. 72: εἴτε ἐν λέξει nec plura α

4–5 Ἑρμῆν τόνδ’ … μάθε τρος post Headlam (qui usque ad προθύροις correxerat) scripsimus: Ἑρμῆν τόνδ’ ὃς ἀνέθηκε Δημήτρϊ, ὄρθια δ’ οὐκ ἐν προθύροις⋅ Δήμητερ στῆθι τε καὶ μάθε Z: Ἑρμῆν τόνδ’ ἀνέθηκε Δημήτριος, ὄρθια δ’ οὐκ ἐν προθύροις, ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐκ ὄρθια δέ α: Ἑρμῆν τόνδ’ ἀνέθηκε Σύρος Δημήτριος, οὐκ εὖ⋅ ὄρθια δ’ οὐ Δήμητρ’ ἔπρεπεν ἐν προθύροις West

6–8 ἄλ\λ/οθε [προ]ϲ̣υπερβ̣[ιβάσας τοῦ τε ἀνέθηκεν καὶ τ]ο̣ῦ̣ Δ̣ή̣μη̣τ̣ρος τὴν̣ τ̣ε̣λευταία̣[ν συλλαβήν. τὸ] γ̣ὰ̣ρ ἑξ̣ῆ̣ς οὕ̣τ̣ω̣[ς ἀπ]ο̣δίδοται⋅ [Ἑρμῆν τόνδ]ε ἀνέθη̣κ̣εν Δη[μή]τ̣ρ̣ιος Ὀρθιά[δου ἐν προθ]ύροις Δήμητρος σ[τῆθι τ]ε̣ καὶ μάθε̣ Π; e MS Z lacunas supplevimus (et ἄλλοσε ipsi correximus, τοῦ τε ex τοῦ δὲ corr. L. Ruggeri per litteras): προσυπερβιβάσας τοῦ δὲ ἀνέθηκε καὶ τῆς Δήμητρος τὴν τελευταίαν συλλαβήν. τὸ γὰρ ἑξῆς οὕτως ἀποδίδοται⋅ Ἑρμῆν τόνδ’ ἀνέθηκε Δημήτριος ὄρθια δ’ οὐκ ἐν προθύροις Δήμητρος στῆθι τε καὶ μάθε Z

Transposition is an expression that presents in the midst some parts of what should follow. Transpositions arise in two forms, either in a word or in a phrase. […] Some have made transpositions also in syllables, as Simonides in his epigrams:

Demetrios, son of Orthiades, dedicat–this herm–ed

in the entrance of the temple of Deme–stand still and learn–ter!

transposing the last syllable of anéthēken and Dēmḗtēr elsewhere. In fact, the sequence must be understood this way: ‘Demetrios the son of Orthiades has dedicated [anéthēken] this herm in the entrance of the temple of Demeter [Dḗmētros]: stand still and learn!’.

This section on hyperbaton is of the utmost importance for the tradition of Ps.-Trypho's treatise, since the verbatim overlap with the Leidensis now confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that the fifth-century Vienna papyrus is indeed, as Paul Maas had understood, a witness of the very same treatise handed down in the medieval codices. The final part of the paragraph, carrying the exegesis of the epigram, is preserved only in the papyrus and in the Leidensis, which rules out the possibility that the scribe of the codex (or his model) could have restored it by way of conjecture.

As for the wording of the lines of ‘Simonides’, MS Z now yields the actual quotation from the epigram, not only its paraphrase in ‘regular’ Greek prose (after τὸ γὰρ ἑξῆς οὕτως ἀποδίδοται), which was the only partly readable section in the Vienna papyrus. The reference to the transposition of the τελευταία συλλαβή proves that the hyperbaton here at stake did involve syllables, and that Headlam⁹ was therefore on the right path in assuming that the key feature of the first line, however normalized in the manuscript transmission, was the splitting of ἀνέθη–κεν; accordingly, we assume, the second transposition must concern the splitting of Δήμη–τρος.

This is at least how Ps.-Trypho appears to present matters. Some may assume (with Page) a deeper corruption,¹⁰ and others may even believe that these lines were made up ad hoc by some grammarian.¹¹ However, we believe that the authenticity of such an unusual wordplay (where tmesis occurs both times at the caesura and projects the last syllable at line-end, with a subtle game of symmetry) should be seriously considered: ‘Simonidean’ virtuoso pieces are attested (see, for example, FGE 684–5 = CEG 430 with the notorious enjambement Ἀριστο- | γείτων), and precise parallels for similar mots fragmentés, though absent from the corpus of extant Greek lyric, can be found in archaic Latin poetry.¹² While the corpus of ‘Simonidean’ epigrams offers a limited number of votive pieces,¹³ and while the link between Hermes and Demeter (or Demeter's shrine) is unclear (a pun can easily be imagined with the donor's name), one may assume that the wit in the distich could lie precisely in the bold transposition of syllables (a hyperbaton not imposed on the poet by metrical constrictions with the proper names involved). Thus the final exhortation to ‘stay still and learn’ apparently proceeds from a careful study of the conventions of Greek sepulchral epigrams, urging the passer-by to avoid superficiality, and to pause and pay attention to the stylistic peculiarity for which this epigram stands out, if he wants to learn the names of the donor and the goddess.

3. MOCK-MODESTY IN CALLIMACHUS’ IAMBI (4.90–2)

§17. Ἀστεϊσμὸς δέ ἐστι φράσις διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων τὸ κρεῖττον ἠθικῶς ἐμφαίνουσα, οἷον εἴ τις πλούσιος ὢν πένης εἶναι λέγει, καὶ ὁ τεχνίτης ἄτεχνος, καὶ ὁ ἀγαθὸς φαῦλος, αUZ ὡς παρὰ Καλλιμάχῳ ἐν Ἰάμβοις τὰ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐλαίας λεγόμενα⋅ UZ

ἐγὼ δὲ φαύλη τ’ εἰμί κοὔτ’ ἔμ’ οἱ μάντεις

οὔθ’ οἱ θύται φορεῦσιν, οὐδ’ ἐπὶ φλιῆς

ἕστηκα· μή με κερτομεῖτε τὴν φαύλην. UZCa^Π (Callim. Ia. 4.90–2)

κατασκευάζει γὰρ αὐτὴν ὡς ἔστι τῆς δάφνης βελτίων τῷ ἑαυτὴν ἀστεϊζομένην φαύλην προσαγορεύεσθαι. UZ ἔνιοι δὲ τὸν ἀστεϊσμὸν ὡρίσαντο προσποίησιν τῆς ἀληθείας. αUZ

MSS Tryphonis: Z = Leidensis BPG 74G; U = Olomucensis M 79; α = consensus cett. codicum praeter UZ

ll. 4–6 in Callimachi iambo IV praebet etiam Ca^Π = P.Oxy. 1011, fol. IV^v

2 καὶ ὁ τεχνίτης ἄτεχνος, καὶ ὁ ἀγαθὸς φαῦλος α: καὶ ὁ ἀγαθὸς φαῦλος, καὶ ὁ τεχνίτης ἄτεχνος UZ (sed articulos omittit Z)   ὡς Z: καὶ U

4 [ἐγὼ δὲ φαύλη τ᾽ εἰμ] in lac. Ca^Π   κοὔτ’ ἐμ’ οἱ Z: κοὔτεμοι U   μάντεις UCa^Π: μάντϊς Z

5 [οὔθ᾽ οἱ θύται φορεῦσι] in lac. Ca^Π   οὐδ’ UZ: οὔτ’ Ca^Π   φλιῆς U^a.c.ZCa^Π: φλοιῆς U^p.c.

6 [ἕστηκα μή με κερ] in lac. Ca^Π   ἕστηκα Z: ἔσται καὶ U   κερτομεῖτε Z: κερτόμει U φαύλ̣ην (non δάφνην, ut olim legebatur) etiam Ca^Π

7 τῆς δάφνης βελτίων U: τῆς (ex τῇ corr.) δάφνης βελτίωνϊ [sic] Z   τῷ ἑαυτὴν Z: αὐτὴν γὰρ U

8 εἶναι post προσποίησιν praeb. α

Mock-modesty [asteismos] is an expression that gracefully shows what is better through the contrary, as when somebody, albeit being rich, claims he is poor, or the expert unexpert, or the valuable mediocre: as in the words of the olive in Callimachus’ Iambi:

I am mediocre, neither the soothsayers

nor the sacrificers carry me, nor do I stand

on the threshold. Don't sneer at me, as being mediocre. [Callim. Ia. 4.90–2]

He presents her as better than the laurel by having her call herself ‘mediocre’ by way of mock-modesty. Some define the asteismos as a dissimulation of reality.

The manuscript tradition is here clear and easy to analyse: the example from Callimachus’ Iambi has simply been omitted in all witnesses except the Leidensis Z and a second manuscript, an Olomucensis that, like the Leidensis, has not yet been collated and that we shall call U, which otherwise largely agrees with the rest of the tradition (α, see above §0).¹⁴ In the parallel section on asteismos of the other treatise Περὶ Τρόπων ascribed to Trypho (‘Trypho I’, page 206.16 Sp.),¹⁵ we do find a reference to a Callimachean line (fr. 93b Schneider = Iamb. 4, fr. 194.13 Pf. †ἐγὼ φαύλη πάντων τῶν δένδρων εἰμί†), which despite its evidently corrupt form has been inserted by Pfeiffer (followed by all subsequent editors) in the large lacuna after line 12 of the fourth Iambus.

Callimachus’ fourth Iambus revolves around the controversy between an olive and a laurel.¹⁶ The first of the three lines quoted in MSS ZU most probably represents a more correct form of the same line as quoted in the Περὶ Τρόπων ascribed to ‘Trypho I’ (†ἐγὼ φαύλη πάντων τῶν δένδρων εἰμί†, which we think must be a paraphrase of the original verse): despite the absence of any reference to ‘all the trees’ in the line of ZU, and despite the seemingly ‘poetic’ use of the positive φαύλη used for the superlative φαυλοτάτη, it is unlikely that the olive should resort to such an asteismos twice in the same iambus, in virtually the same terms;¹⁷ indeed, one of the witnesses of Trypho I's treatise, the important MS Marc. gr. 512,¹⁸ carries this quotation as ἐγὼ δὲ φαύλη τέ εἰμι, which is precisely the incipit of the line as it features in Trypho II's fuller version.¹⁹ The new find thus suggests that what is quoted by Ps.-Trypho (both I and II) as an outstanding example of mock-modesty is not a claim made by the olive in its opening speech, of which so little is extant,²⁰ but rather the concluding outburst of the long tirade (lines 46–92) by which the olive rebuts the laurel's arrogant speech (lines 18–43).

This state of affairs is supported by manuscript evidence from across the centuries. Lines 90–2 of fr. 194 appear in current editions in the following form:

] ̣ικουτεκ̣οι μάντεις

]ν οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ φλιῆς

φ]ημι τὴν δάφνην

But M.G. Sandri's new inspection of P.Oxy. 1011 has shown that these lines actually read:²¹

]μ̣ί κοὔτ’ ἔμ’ οἱ μ[ά]ντεις

]ν̣, οὔτ’ ἐπὶ φλιῆς

]τομεῖτε τ̣ὴ̣ν φαύλ̣ην

This is fully compatible with the lines as quoted by the Leidensis and the Olomucensis, apart from the trivial oscillation between οὔτ᾽ and οὐδ᾽ in line 91. Indeed, as Pfeiffer had seen, these lines represent an echo of the boastful claims of the laurel about her omnipresence in cult and ritual, in lines 24–5 (τίς δ᾽ οἶκος οὗπερ οὐκ ἐγὼ παρὰ φλιῇ; | τίς δ᾽οὔ με μάντις ἢ τίς οὐ θύτης ἕλκει;).²² In her long reply, the olive introduces the dialogue between two crows (lines 64–80), who take on the task of comparing the respective merits of both competing trees.

It has been argued by some scholars²³ that lines 90–2, which conclude the olive's speech (line 93 begins ὣς εἶπε), are not spoken by the olive but belong to the dialogue between the crows:²⁴ this is now disproved by the new evidence, which indicates that the olive's speech ended on a note of ironical self-deprecation or mock-modesty. It is unlikely that the olive resumed her speech immediately after line 80²⁵ or (as Fraser argued) after line 84,²⁶ since line 87 καλλίνικος ἡλαίη must still be pronounced by the crows. The fragmentary nature of lines 83–9 prevents us from drawing a firm conclusion on this point,²⁷ but it is likely that lines 88–9 contained the first part of the reasoning picked up in line 90 ἐγὼ δέ—perhaps an exhortation to the crows to honour or praise other trees (the pear-tree, line 88 τὴν ὄγχνην, or a better tree, line 89 ] ̣τέρην τιν᾽) as opposed to the olive's own modesty.

There are at least two interesting features in the lines thus recovered: first, the verb κερτομέω (nowhere else in Callimachus), which inscribes the complex relationship between the olive and the crows in the frame of a sophisticated literary game.²⁸ Second, the repetition of the adjective φαύλη: first (line 90) in a sort of parodic echo of the laurel's proud statements at line-beginning in line 37 ἱρὴ γάρ εἰμι and line 39 ἁγνὴ γάρ εἰμι;²⁹ then (line 92) as the concluding word of the entire speech. It may be argued that this anaphora matches that of δάφνη in the laurel's arrogant words at lines 26–7;³⁰ but, more importantly, the place of honour thus attributed to the adjective strengthens Lelli's claim that it represents here an allusion to the particular kind of olive known as φαυλία, while also carrying a stylistic and aesthetic overtone, with reference to the Aristotelian terminology (Poet. 1448a with the opposition between the φαῦλοι and the σπουδαῖοι).³¹ If the parallel between this iambus and the conversation between lady Elegy and lady Tragedy in Ov. Am. 3.1 holds true,³² then Ovid's incipit in line 41 (sum leuis, et mecum leuis est, mea cura, Cupido), where Elegy speaks with a similar attitude of understatement and apparent self-depreciation (only to rebound later),³³ might well be reminiscent of ἐγὼ δὲ φαύλη τ᾽ εἰμί, with a characteristic shift from the ‘humble’ to the ‘tenuous’, from the φαῦλον to the λεπτόν.

4. RIDDLE IN ‘HESIOD’’S WEDDING OF KEYX (FR. 266A.8–11 M.–W. = 204A.8–11 MOST)

§23. Αἴνιγμα δέ ἐστι φράσις διάνοιαν ἀποκεκρυμμένην καὶ σημαινόμενον ἀσύνετον πειρωμένη ποιεῖν, ὡς ἔχει παρ’ Ἡσιόδῳ τὰ περὶ τῆς κύλικος λεγόμενα⋅ αZ

αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δαιτὸς μὲν ἐίσης ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο,

οἴνου μητέρα μητρὸς ἐπὶ στόμα χερσὶν ἄγοντο αZHes^Π

ἀζαλέην τε καὶ ὀπταλέην σφετέροισι τέκεσσι

τεθνᾶσιν. ΖHes^Π (Hes. fr. 266a.8–11 M.–W. = 204a.8–11 Most)

οἴνου γὰρ μητέρα μητρὸς λέγει τὴν κύλικα, ἥτις ἐστὶ τὸ ἀνέκαθεν ἡ γῆ, ἥτις καὶ τῆς ἀμπέλου μήτηρ προσαγορεύεται. ὁ δὲ φησὶ Z   ‘ἀζαλέην τε καὶ ὀπταλέην’ ἐπεὶ δοκεῖ πρῶτον ξηραίνεσθαι, εἶτα ὀπτᾶσθαι. ‘σφετέροισι τέκεσσι’, τοῖς ἑαυτῆς τέκνοις, λέγει δὲ τοῖς ξύλοις. τὸ δὲ ‘τεθνᾶσι’, καθὸ δοκεῖ ἐκ τῆς ὕλης ἐκκεκόφθαι. αZ

MSS Tryphonis: Z = Leidensis BPG 74G; α = consensus codicum praeter Z

ll. 3–6 frustula in Hes. Ceycis Nuptiis praebet etiam Hes^Π = P.Oxy. 2495, fr. 37

1 διάνοιαν ἀποκεκρυμμένην α: ἀποκεκρυμμένη Z   τὸ (sed τὸ delevimus) σημαινόμενον ἀσύνετον (ἀσύν. iam coniecerat Finckh) Z: σύνθετον α

2 ὡς ἔχει παρ’ Ἡσιόδῳ τὰ Z: ὡς τὰ παρ’ Ἡσιόδῳ α   μηδέ ποτ’ οἰνοχόην τιθέμεν κρητῆρος ὕπερθεν [Hes. Op. 744] post λεγόμενα aliqui codices familiae α praebent

3 ]ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο (p.c.) tantum in fine versus praebet Hes^Π   ἐίσης Z et Marc. gr. 512, Laur. 87.10: θίσης vel τεθείσης α (praeter Marc. et Laur.)

4 ].ν ἄγοντο tantum (quod παισ]ὶν ἄγοντο expl. Lobel) in fine versus praebet Hes^Π οἴνου Z et Marc. gr. 512: οἷον οὐ α   ἐπὶ στόμα χερσὶν Z: om. α

5 ]τέκεσσι tantum in fine versus praebet Hes^Π   ἀζαλέην τε καὶ ὀπταλέην (-έα cod., e l. 8 post West correximus) σφετέροισι τέκεσσι Z: idem iam ci. West

6 τεθνᾶσιν Z: τεθνάναι (sive τεθνάμεναι Bergk) e l. 9 (ubi vide app. crit.) West   ]ον τε καὶ ὄμβρον tantum in fine versu praebet Hes^Π

7 οἴνου γὰρ μητέρα … ὁ δὲ φησὶ Z: ἐνταῦθα μητέρα μητρὸς λέγει τὴν βάλανον⋅ ἀπὸ ταύτης γὰρ γίνονται αἱ δρύες, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δρυῶν μυθικῶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους λέγουσι γεγενῆσθαι ci. West

8 τε Z: om. α

9 σφετέροισι vel ἐφ’ ἑτέροισι α: σφετέροις δὲ Z   ἑαυτῆς Kloucek: ἑαυτοῦ αZ

10 ξύλοις Z (iam Cramer): ξένοις α   τεθνᾶσι Z: τεθνάναι α (τεθνάμεναι Bergk) ἐκκεκόφθαι α: κεκόφθαι Z

The riddle is an expression that attempts to conceal a given concept and make a certain meaning unintelligible, as is the case with the words in Hesiod about the wine-cup:

after they had driven away the desire of an equal banquet,

they brought to the mouth with their hands the mother of wine's mother,

dried and baked through its own children

that had died. (Hes. fr. 266a.8–11 M.–W. = 204a.8–11 Most)

In fact, he calls ‘mother of wine's mother’ the wine-cup, which is originally the earth, also called ‘mother of the vineyard’. He says ‘dried and baked’ because it is apparently first dried, and then baked, ‘through its own children’, namely the logs; ‘that had died’, because they had been cut off from the forest.

The Wedding of Keyx is one of the ‘minor’ works attached to Hesiod's name, of which just a handful of fragments remain: its very nature—an autonomous poem or a section of the Catalogue of Women?—has been hotly debated, with the former hypothesis being now more widely accepted.³⁴ It probably narrated Heracles’ disembarcation from the Argo at Aphetae on the Pagasaean Gulf and then his unexpected participation in the wedding ceremony of Keyx and Aeolus’ daughter Alcyone at Trachis. In particular, fr. 37 of the second-century P.Oxy. 2495 (fr. 266a M.–W.) has been considered by scholars a witness of this work, because it displays a hexameter-end τρίποδάς τε τραπέζας (the last word is written above the line, just above the original mistaken καθέδρας), which seems to match what Athenaeus says (Deipn. 2.49a; see also Poll. Onom. 6.83 = fr. 266b M.–W.) about the use of the word ‘tripod’ for ‘table’ in the Hesiodic Wedding of Keyx.

Now, lines 8–11 of the same papyrus fragment, though badly flaked, yield a narrative segment that has been convincingly supplemented through the quotation from Hesiod attested in Ps.-Trypho's On Tropes. The Leidensis (Z) now comes to heal the remaining gaps in both Ps.-Trypho's known text and the papyrus, particularly with respect to two points: in line 9 (our line 4), where it guarantees οἴνου³⁵ (which no scholar had conjectured from the manuscripts’ οἷον οὐ—the papyrus is lacunose here) and ἐπὶ στόμα χερσίν (all scholars had accepted Lobel's παισίν, and supplemented accordingly);³⁶ and in the entire line 10 (our line 5), which had already been brilliantly restored by West (and partly by Finckh) on the basis of Ps.-Trypho's subsequent prose paraphrase. West had understood that the corruption in Ps.-Trypho's text depended on a saut du même au même from one ἀζαλέην (that of the text) to the other (that of the subsequent prose explanation). It is possible that this very mistake prompted the insertion of Hes. Op. 744, which is not in the Leidensis and was probably added in the archetype of one of the two branches of the α-group in order to compensate for the deficiency of the poetic quotation.³⁷

However, lacking a wider context for Ps.-Trypho's quotation, West elaborated a totally different explanation for the riddle, assuming:

• – that περὶ τοῦ κύλικος in Ps.-Trypho's introduction is corrupt (or else refers exclusively to Hes. Op. 744): hence the conjectures περὶ τοῦ ἀκύλου (Merkelbach) and παρὰ τοῦ Κήυκος (West himself);

• – that the ‘mother's mother’ is the acorn (mother of the oak), and that the solution of the riddle is the Pelasgians (the children of the oaks, according to Stat. Theb. 4.275–81 and other sources), who ‘gathered acorns to die dried and roasted by (for, with) her children’;

• – that this riddle was proposed by Heracles at the wedding banquet, in the frame of a sympotic contest.³⁸

The explanation now available in the Leidensis tells however a different (and more simple) story: it makes clear that the ‘mother of wine's mother’ is indeed—in an ingenious pun—the wine-cup made of clay, that is, of cooked earth, earth being the mother of the vineyard (an idea too obvious to require any parallel), and the vineyard being in its turn the mother of wine.³⁹ Along this train of thought, the σφέτερα τέκεα are the wood logs (ξύλα) used for lighting up the fire, which are themselves offspring of the earth (possessive σφέτερα refers to the earth, as the dative is an agent or instrument to the adjectives ἀζαλέην καὶ ὀπταλέην),⁴⁰ but have died upon being chopped away from the trees.⁴¹ In his Table Talks (730E–F) Plutarch tells us that in the Marriage of Keyx (which he regards as interpolated into Hesiod's corpus by some later poet) there is a riddle alluding to the fact that the fire eats ‘the wood from which it was lit, which was its father and mother’ (fr. 267 M.–W.):⁴² it is hard to imagine that this quotation had nothing to do with the lost poetic context of our fragment,⁴³ but specifically what remains of these lines presents the wood rather as an offspring of the earth than as a parent of fire.⁴⁴

Ps.-Trypho's interpretation of the Hesiodic ainigma may be wrong, but we believe that it is methodically wiser to start by taking it seriously. We therefore consider it likely that the narrative inaugurated by these lines (αὐτὰρ ἐπεί) did not belong to Heracles’ intervention (a rather complicated insertion of a narrative-within-a-narrative) but rather to (Ps.-)Hesiod's own voice,⁴⁵ and that the banquet here described is indeed that of Keyx's wedding feast, whose participants simply started drinking wine once they had finished eating.⁴⁶ It is true that there are a number of cases in which riddles are used at agōnes during symposia, but there is no evidence in sources that this should happen in our case; quite the contrary, the references in Plutarch, Athenaeus and Ps.-Trypho, taken at face value, support the idea that the δαίς here implied is precisely that of Keyx. Furthermore, the description of a wine-cup by way of a complex periphrasis is perfectly in keeping with the riddles and kenningar known from Hesiod's poems, such as φερέοικος for ‘snail’ (Op. 571) or the famous periphrastic description of the octopus’ wintry habits ὅτ᾽ ἀνόστεος ὃν πόδα τένδει | ἔν τ᾽ ἀπύρῳ οἴκῳ καὶ ἤθεσι λευγαλέοισιν (Op. 524–5):⁴⁷ this has little bearing on the issue of authenticity (indeed, it might be a good example of how some characters of Hesiod's poetry are picked up and developed in later stages of the epic tradition), but might help better frame a certain use of ainigmata in the context of narrative and sapiential poetry.⁴⁸

We leave to other scholars any further speculation on the consequences of this new find on the structure of the Wedding of Keyx, starting from the problematic presence at the end of line 11 (in P.Oxy. 2495) of the words νιφετ]όν τε καὶ ὄμβρον (suppl. West)—they could indeed refer to the people comfortably sitting around a fireplace while the weather outside is wintry.⁴⁹