Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:27:41.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Textual Problems In Bacchylides XVII *

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Gregory J. Giesekam
Gregory J. Giesekam
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the Snell-Maehler edition of Bacchylides there is a very comprehensive bibliography, listing almost 300 items concerned with Bacchylides poems. It is significant that 80 per cent of these were written in the first twenty years following Kenyon's publication of the Bacchylides papyri in 1897. Of the articles which have appeared since the First World War, many are concerned with more recent papyrus discoveries and a few are stylistic discussions. For most of the poems dealt with in the pioneering days of Bacchylidean scholarship certain readings of the text and interpretations of it have become canonical. This article aims to show in just one poem, XVII, a few instances in which the accepted interpretations should be re-examined. In some cases new interpretations are offered, but in others older views have been resurrected and bolstered by further argument.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , December 1977 , pp. 249 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 249 note 1 Baccbylidis Carmina cum Fragmentis ed. Maehler, H., post B. Snell (Leipzig, 1970). I have used their text as the basis for discussion. The following editions of Bacchylides will be referred to by the name of the editor: F. G. Kenyon (London, 1897); R. C. Jebb (Cambridge, 1905); F. Blass (Leipzig, 3rd edn. 1904).Google Scholar

page 249 note 2 Phoenix 19 (1965), 212–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 250 note 1 It islnteresting to note that in his edition of Bacchylides Jebb always translates as ‘holy’; cf. 10.29, 11.25, 15.54, 19.28 (all in the numbering of Sn.-M., as opposed to Jebb's).

page 250 note 2 See Ebeling, H., Lexicon Homericum (Leipzig, 1880-5).Google Scholar

page 250 note 3 Pi. P.l. 15, 5.61, 11.55; S.Aj.706. The adverbial use of it is more common in fifth-century poetry, and is found in Bacchylides fr.62a.13.

page 250 note 4 For an appreciation of the humour of the scene, cf. Stern, J., Rev. Belg. Phil. 45 (1967), 41 f.Google Scholar, and Giesekam, G. J., ‘The Portrayal of Minos in Bacchylides 17’, Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 1976 (Area vol. ii, Liverpool, 1976), pp. 237–52.Google Scholar

page 250 note 5 See especially H. Il. 3.64; b.Hom. 10.2; and cf. Mimnermus 1.3 D and Anacreon 96.3 D, and Anacreon 96.3 D, .

page 251 note 1 The latter phenomenon may be permissible. The metre of this poem and Pi.O.2 has been the subject of much discussion and little agreement (see Housman, A. E., CR 12 (1898), 134–6Google Scholar, repr. in Collected Papers, Cambridge, 1972, ii.455–8;Google ScholarMaas, P., Die neuen Responsionsfreiheiten bei Bakchylides und Pindar (Berlin,Google Scholar 1914 and 1921; Greek Metre, trans. H. Lloyd-Jones (Oxford, 1962), p.42; Merkelbach, R., ZPE (1973), 45–55),Google Scholar but the use of an elementum anceps at the beginning of a line is found in half-a-dozen instances, listed by Sn.-M., p.XXXV. B. Gentili's article on the metre of this poem, in Serta Turyniana, ed. Heller, J. (London, 1974), pp.86–100, came to my attention after this paper had been written and submitted in late 1975. A full discussion of his radically new colometry and the liberal responsion he allows is not possible here. In this particular instance Gentili avoids the textual problem by allowing responsion between iambic and cretic metra, thus keeping .Google Scholar

page 251 note 2 Jebb suggested , translating, ‘she was the bride of Poseidon, aye, and the Nereids gave her a golden veil.’ But apart from the feeble sense, in this position could not emphasize the relationship with Poseidon.

page 251 note 3 CR 12 (1898), 63.Google Scholar

page 251 note 4 Reported by Jebb, p.489.

page 251 note 5 Cf. line 100, , and Sn.-M., p.XXI, for further examples. See also C. M. Bowra, CQ 24 (1930), 86–7.

page 251 note 6 Cf. Jebb, p.130, for similar paths of corruption in the papyrus.

page 252 note 1 Phil. 87 (1932), 271;Google ScholarGlotta 34 (1955), 192 ;Kl. Schr., pp.708 ff.Google Scholar

page 252 note 2 U.Wilcken, Chrestomathie, p.126, col.2.Google Scholar

page 252 note 3 In the letter there are textual diffi culties in any case, and has been suggested as the correct text. We should also note that Hesychius himself was writing in Egypt.

page 252 note 4 CR 12 (1898), p.83.Google Scholar

page 252 note 5 Paus. 1.17.3; Hygin. Poet Astron. 2.5. Although it is probable that Hyginus made use of Euripides' Theseus, or at least a summary of it, in his account (cf. TGF frgs. 381–90; for Hyginus' general use of the , see Zuntz, G., Political Plays of Euripides (Manchester, 1955), pp.136–7.), certain details suggest that he also made use of Bacchylides' version: e.g. the reference to Eriboea's ‘candor corporis' may pick up Bacchylides’ , and the description of the quarrel, especially the comments, ‘cum iam non de puella, sed de genere Thesei controversia facta esset’ and ‘sine ulla precatione’, seems to have Bacchylides in mind. This makes it all the more striking that he does not mention a cloak, if Bacchylides did so.Google Scholar

page 252 note 6 For illustrations and discussion of these, see Smith, A. H., JHS 18 (1898), 267–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a more recent discussion of the exact relation between these and the poem, see Wüst, E., Hermes 96 (1968), 527–38.Google Scholar

page 252 note 7 De Dialecto Baccbylidei, Leipzig Stud. 19 (1899), 205.Google Scholar

page 252 note 8 Mnem. 27 (1899), 32.Google Scholar

page 252 note 9 The gloss on , must apply to two lines below.

page 252 note 10 Cf. also EM. 423.5.

page 253 note 1 Gesten und Gebäarden in der griecbiscben Kunst (Berlin, 1965), fig. 24, and his discussion of it.Google Scholar

page 253 note 2 In view of the strong element of bal ancing actions and speeches in the poem, which has been discussed by J. Stern, art. cit., pp.40–7 (cf. also my discussion of foxef in the article cited in n.4, p.250), it seems likely that this friendly touch of the cheek is intended to contrast with the lecherous cheek-touching of Minos in line 12, which brought about the subsequent train of events.

page 253 note 3 CR (1898), 77.

page 253 note 4 This form of the aorist subjunctive is used frequently in Herodotus, and is found in Sappho, frgs. 26.3 and 51 L.-P.

page 253 note 5 The final words of E. Ba., Ale, Andr., and Hel. This aspect of the gods is also seen in the popular derivation of from (cf. Hdt. 2.52).

page 254 note 1 Cf. Il. 13.330; 3.152; Hes. Tp.41; Ap.Rhod., 4.903; G vI i. 2027.10; and for discussion of these, van Leeuwen, J., Mnem. (1903), 114–16;Google ScholarLeumann, M., Homerische Worter (Basel, 1950), pp.27–8;Google ScholarIrwin, E., Colour Terms in Greek Poetry (Toronto, 1974), pp.205–13.Google Scholar

page 254 note 2 Fagies, R., trans., Baccbylides (London, 1961).Google Scholar

page 254 note 3 Op.cit., p.212.

page 254 note 4 Cf. Shelley, The Question: And the floating water-lilies, broad and bright, Which lit the oak that overhung the edge, With moonlight beams of their own watery light.

page 254 note 5 Kazantzakis, N., The Odyssey, a Modern Sequel, trans. Friar, K. (New York, 1958).Google Scholar

page 255 note 1 Cf. J. Stem, art. cit.; Lefkowitz, M., HSCP, 73 (1969), 45–96,Google Scholar and Carne-Ross, D. S., The Gaiety of Language, Arion (1962), pp.65–88.Google Scholar

page 255 note 2 Cf. also my discussion of and in that article, and E. Irwin's treatment of in line 17, op.cit., p.155.