Brown, 'Fragments of Mimnermus: Text and Commentary', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9507
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9507-brown-fragments
@@@@95.7.3, Allen, Fragments of Mimnermus
Archibald Allen, The Fragments of Mimnermus: Text and Commentary.
Palingenesia 44. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1993. Pp.
168. ISBN 3-515-06289-0 (pb).
Reviewed by Christopher G. Brown -- University of Western Ontario
pindar@julian.uwo.ca
Plus in amore ualet Mimnermi uersus Homero (Prop.
1.9.11). As Fedeli's note illustrates, there are parallels for comparing
carmina breuia with Homeric epic, and no doubt in casting this
line in such strong terms Propertius was deliberately being provocative.
The reference to Mimnermus, nonetheless, reflects an important fact of
literary history, namely the powerful influence exerted by this early
elegist on the later literary tradition. He was regarded as a founder of
the genre of love elegy by Hellenistic poets, and figures prominently in
the prologue to Callimachus' Aetia (fr. 1.9-12 Pf., a passage
usefully discussed in Appendix B to the book under review). In this
light, Mimnermus stands with Hipponax and Antimachus as an early poet
whose exiguous literary remains are overshadowed by an exalted
reputation. Those remains, however, are of absorbing interest, and
suggest that Mimnermus was an interesting poet in his own right.
Accordingly, a new edition of Mimnermus with full commentary--the first
devoted solely to this poet--needs no justification.
Allen has profited greatly from the recent labours of M. L. West,
B. Gentili and C. Prato, whose critical editions have set the study of
the poet's text on a securer footing.[[1]] A critical edition, however,
even one with an apparatus as detailed as that of the Teubner, is
no substitute for a commentary in which issues of text and interpretation
can be discussed discursively, and it is the commentary that will make
A.'s work essential reading for students of early Greek poetry. In fact,
A. shows himself to be the model of the conscientious commentator; all
the relevant problems are subjected to a patient, critical examination
with judicious citation of secondary literature. That our understanding
of Mimnermus does not emerge radically altered should not be regarded as
a failing; A.'s achievement lies in the collection and consolidation of
the pertinent material, thus providing a firm basis for future scholarship.
The introduction is preceded by a useful collection of
testimonia. This selection of illustrative material makes no
pretence to being exhaustive, as does the uncritical compilation of S.
Szadeczky-Kardoss, Testimonia de Mimnermi uita et carminibus
(Szegedini 1959), nor has A. annotated these texts critically, as did
Gentili-Prato their similar collection; rather, the testimonia
serve conveniently to underpin the discussion of the issues treated in
the introduction. Here A. sets out what is known concerning the poet's
date, life, name, and writings. He argues clearly for a floruit
in the middle of the seventh century, setting his birth ca 670 B.C., and
surveys the evidence rooted in fr. 9 for Mimnermus' connections with
Smyrna and Colophon, arguing with West against the Alexandrian tradition
that the latter was the poet's city.
So far as Mimnermus' writings are concerned, A. contends
plausibly that the Alexandrian edition filled no more than a single
papyrus roll and that Nanno was a general title for the collection
of Mimnermus' poems which comprised not only erotic and sympotic elegy,
but also the Smyrneis. This historical elegy has recently
received important illumination from the appearance of the new Simonides
papyrus that is contained in volume LIX of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri
(1992), which appeared too late to be taken account of by A. (these texts
have been re-edited by West in the second edition of IEG). As
reconstructed by West (ZPE 98 [1993] 1-14), the remains of the
poem on the battle of Plataea (frs 10-17 West2) suggest a similar work on
the kind of ample scale--perhaps several hundred lines long--imagined for
Mimnermus' Smyrneis. Particularly striking are the possible
implications of frs 10 and 11 that Simonides' elegy was prefaced with a
formal hymn (to Achilles, on West's view); this is reminiscent of
Pausanias' statement (9.29.4 = Mimn. fr. 14 = 13 W2)[[2]] that Mimnermus'
poem on the battle of the Smyrnaeans against Gyges and the Lydians had a
PROOI/MION in which the poet mentioned two generations of Muses. In
addition, that the new Simonides was found among the remains of a roll
that also contained sympotic poems supports A.'s contention that
Mimnermus' poem was not long enough to fill an entire papyrus roll, and
so may well have formed part of the Nanno. It is, of course,
possible that testimony concerning Mimnermus has influenced
reconstruction of the Simonides papyrus in certain ways, but the
important possibility remains that we now have evidence for a poem that
was closely parallel to the Smyrneis.
The title Nanno remains mysterious. Tradition tells us
that Nanno was Mimnermus' AU)LHTRI/S and lover, but authority for this
does not appear to go back any earlier than Hellenistic poets such as
Hermesianax (fr. 7 Powell) and Posidippus (AP 12.168 = 3086-3092
Gow-Page HE). These sources do not inspire confidence; after all,
in the same poem Hermesianax detected in the familiar H)' OI(/H of the
Hesiodic Catalogue the name of the poet's lover, Eoia (fr. 7.24).
But A. is probably right in saying that "It is hardly likely I that she
is wholly fictional, a late classical or Alexandrian invention" (p. 18).
It seems unlikely that an early book would bear a title like
Nanno, and so it is probable that the collection was given this
designation in the Alexandrian period. That Posidippus mentions Nanno in
close proximity to Antimachus' Lyde is suggestive, perhaps reflecting a
link between the two poets. West sees that connection in terms of
textual history, raising the possibility that the Nanno came to
Alexandria in an Antimachean edition (Studies in Greek Elegy and
Iambus [Berlin and New York 1974] 75), but I find this unlikely;
Antimachus' activity as an editor has been much overrated.[[3]] More
likely is the position that we are dealing here with the detritus of a
Hellenistic construct of literary history, according to which Mimnermus
and Antimachus were claimed as predecessors for Alexandrian poetic
practice. Nanno was elevated to the position of the poet's mistress from
some minor reference or references, perhaps in a poem placed near the
beginning of the collection (possibly an invocation or prelude in which
Nanno is named as AU)LHTRI/S).[[4]]
A. prints a text of each fragment with context and an
apparatus criticus. In the wake of recent editions, there is
little room for radical improvement; A.'s text is sober and generally
well considered. This does not mean, however, that A. tamely reproduces
the standard editions; he has clearly thought through each textual
problem in a sensible and independent manner. At fr. 1.6, for example,
he follows Gentili-Prato (and the paradosis) against West in printing
KALO/N, but he improves on the Teubner text by accenting O(/MWS
paroxytone instead of perispomenon (GH=RAS, O(/ T' AI)SXRO\N O(/MWS KAI\
KALO\N TIQEI=). This is clearly a superior reading, presenting a more
pointed line ("I old age, which makes even the handsome man ugly"), while
avoiding the dubious understanding of O(MW=S endorsed by Gentili-Prato.
The text of both IEG and the Teubner is rejected at fr. 2.1, where
A. prints Bergk's OI(=A/ TE FU/LLA FU/EI POLUANQE/OS W(/RH| / E)/AROS
(the usual version reads POLUA/NQEMOS W(/RH with the majority of the
MSS[[5]]). A. argues that this text avoids the unmarked change of subject
in line 2 (FU/LLA is regularly understood as object of FU/EI, but subject
of AU)/CETAI) and that the intransitive use of FU/EI finds a precise
parallel at Il. 6.149, the passage that is widely regarded as
Mimnermus' model. Bergk's text is plausible, but the alteration strikes
me as unnecessary. FU/EI in the Iliadic passage is a dubious parallel:
it is the only instance of the present stem used intransitively in Homer,
and, as Kirk notes (ad loc.), it stands in awkward proximity to
familiar transitive FU/EI in the preceding line; accordingly, Kirk finds
Brandreth's FU/ET' attractive. In the elegiac fragment, it is more
natural to construe FU/EI as transitive. The "uncomfortable change of
subject" in the O(/TE-clause that troubles A. is not intolerable; Homer
provides a number of examples. An instructive parallel is Od.
13.20-23:
KAI\ TA\ ME\N E)= KATE/QHX' I(ERO\N ME/NOS A)LKINO/OIO,
AU)TO\S I)W\N DIA\ NHO/S, U(PO\ ZUHA/, MH/ TIN' E(TAI/RWN
BLA/PTOI E)LAUNO/NTWN, O(PO/TE SPERXOI/A T' E)RETMOI=S.
These lines exhibit the same shift in syntax as the Mimnerman passage:
TA/ (like FU/LLA, neuter plural) is the object of the verb in the main
clause, but without any signal becomes the subject of BLA/PTOI in the
MH/-clause (the subject shifts again with SPERXOI/AT'). These lines seem
to have confused some scribes, who corrupted TIN' to TIS in a few MSS;
but there is no reason to adjust the text.
At fr. 2.10 A. replaces the transmitted BE/LTION with BE/LTERON.
This is an attractive conjecture, although it must be noted that A. has
been anticipated in proposing it by H. Friis Johansen (see Friis
Johansen-Whittle on Aesch. Suppl. 1069). This emendation assumes
a corruption that finds an exact parallel (unmentioned by A. or Friis
Johansen) at Od. 17.18, where BE/LTION has displaced BE/LTERON in
a couple of later MSS; but there is little cause to judge BE/LTION
suspect in the present passage, in which the paradosis is unanimous.
Citing Chantraine's discussion of Homeric comparatives in -I/WN
(Grammaire homerique [Paris 1958] 1.257), A. (ad loc.)
points to the "antiquity and priority of BE/LTEROS," but it is hard to
see how this point is decisive in a post-Homeric poet like Mimnermus.
The controversy over the scansion of comparatives in -I/WN, to which A.
alludes, concerns the admission of forms with -I- [[short I]] to Attic
tragedy, but such forms are regular in Ionic, Doric, and Attic comedy (in
addition to the authorities cited by A., cf. Headlam-Knox on Herodas
2.91; Collard on Eur. Suppl. 1101b-1102a); there is nothing odd
about the scansion of BE/LTION in Mimnermus. More relevant is Friis
Johansen's observation that BELTI/WN is not otherwise securely attested
until late in the fifth century.
Special difficulties are raised by fr. 5, in which the excerpt in
Stobaeus is complemented and possibly supplemented by Theognidea
1017-1022. Here A. follows the Teubner editors in printing only the
lines preserved by Stobaeus, rejecting the possibility supported by West
and others that the Theognidea transmits a fuller version of the
text. On this point A. seems to be much influenced by D. Young's
dogmatically unitarian view of 'Theognis,' according to which the
Megarian adapted pieces of poems by other poets to make constituent
elements of his own poems ("Even if one cannot readily embrace Young's
belief in the full unity of the sylloge, it is hard not to conclude I
that somebody--'Theognis'--tampered with Mimnermus' lines on old age and
made them part of his own poem" [p. 60]). The influence of Young is also
apparent on p. 70, where A. cites Thgn. 793-796 as Theognis'
"adaptation" of Mimermus fr. 7, citing with approval Young's judgment
that the 'substitution' of TOI/ for TI/S in 796 was made by Theognis for
reasons of euphony (it should be noted that in IEG West prints the
Theognidean lines as two separate couplets). Young's views on the
Theognidea have always struck me as a rather desperate--at times,
even perverse--bid to claim all that is transmitted under the name of
Theognis for that poet. A. (following Young) believes that "there can be
no doubt that some poets occasionally used and revised the work of other
poets, dead or alive" (p. 60), but it is unlikely that this practice was
as purposeful or common as A. supposes. The "revision" of Solon fr. 6.3
by 'Theognis' noted by Clement (and adduced by A., p. 60) is more likely
a variation on a common theme of moralizing poetry than a conscious
reworking of an earlier text. Solon's (fr. 20) reply to Mimnermus, on
the other hand, seems to belong to a different category, since in that
case Solon explicitly names the earlier poet (cf. also Sim. fr. 19
West2). Moreover, the subtle adjustments that 'Theognis' is alleged to
have made to these 'borrowed' texts (see A. p. 60 for Mimn. fr. 5) seem
to presuppose a preoccupation with the letter of the text that is most
unlikely in the archaic and classical periods, when performance was
almost certainly the principal means of publication, and such variants
are better regarded as indicative of the vagaries of transmission--either
oral or literate.
All this ultimately obscures a rather important point about early
elegy, and that is that we owe a large amount of what survives to the
work of anthologists, and this probably means that we have a highly
selective picture of the genre. Our single most important source for
Mimnermus is the anthology compiled by Stobaeus, which preserves most of
the longer passages (frs 1-5, 8, 14, [24-25]), and it must be remembered
that Stobaeus excerpted texts according to discernible criteria,
ostensibly to serve as an aide-memoire for his son, but he also clearly
assembled his anthology with a view to moral edification; he selected
portions of texts that seemed to him best to illustrate some general
point, and so we have a large number of gnomic passages.[[6]] I do not
believe that we have many complete poems from this source, however whole
some passages may seem. A., for example, believes that frs 1 and 2 are
complete (p. 32), but is forced to argue for inceptive DE/ in both
cases. The new Simonides papyrus can teach a cautionary lesson here:
what Stobaeus gave to us as one continuous text beginning with the
pentameter E(\N DE\ TO\ KA/LLISTON XI=OS E)/EIPEN A)NH/R we know now to
be made up of two excerpts (frs 19-20 West2). West suggests (ZPE
98 [1993] 10) that these two passages were originally separated by a
heading, TOU= AU)TOU=, but it is also possible that we possess the
results of the telescoping of a longer elegy, an unnerving prospect. It
is also likely that certain subjects are less well attested than would be
the case if we possessed a broader selection of early elegy. Athenaeus
and Strabo preserve tantalizing glimpses of what appears to have been
rich mythic narrative (Mimn. frs 11 and 12). Stobaeus, however, seems to
have had little interest in myth; from Theognidea 697-718 he
excerpts two purely gnomic passages, 699-702 and 717-718, omitting the
most interesting section, the striking mythic paradigms that fill the
intervening lines. What would almost certainly find no place in the
anthologies is material concerned exclusively with the particular social
setting or occasion of the poems, and this may in part account for the
absence of Nanno from the extant fragments. For example, we know from a
variety of sources that Archilochus composed an elegy or elegies on the
victims of shipwreck (frs 8-13 West2), but fr. 13, preserved by Stobaeus,
contains general reflection only. In addition, there are occasions when
Stobaeus altered texts to create a more general reference (e.g., Herodas
1.67 and 6.37, where vocatives are generalized): see Hense, RE
9.2584.
In the commentary the reader will find a wealth of information on
a wide range of interpretative issues; the poetic habits of Mimnermus are
also discussed more synoptically in Appendix A. Like most commentators
on early elegy, A. is much concerned to examine Mimnermus' affinities
with the language of Homeric epic, and, accordingly, A. carefully sets
out the Homeric pedigree of forms and phrases. Occasionally A. pursues
these concerns to the exclusion of issues of meaning. An interesting
example is fr. 1.9, where in discussing the phrase A)TI/MASTOS DE\
GUNAICI/N A. notes that A)TI/MASTOS occurs only here and that A)/TIMOS is
the Homeric word, but he offers no discussion of how A)TI/MASTOS is
suited to the erotic context; Solon fr. 24.5 (PAIDO/S T' H)DE\ GUNAIKO/S)
and Tyrtaeus fr. 10.29 (E)RATO\S DE\ GUNAICI/), both adduced by A., tell
us nothing of the role of TIMH/ in women's attitudes towards their
lovers. Perhaps the best parallel is fr. 5, in which H(/BH is
characterized as TIMH/ESSA and GH=RAS described as E)XQRO\N O(MW=S KAI\
A)/TIMON, but the context is generalized. Anacreon's girl from Lesbos
may dishonour a prospective lover in fr. 358 PMG by rejecting him,
but no form of TIMH/ used. In fact, it is striking that TIMH/ does not
seem to be part of the vocabulary of heterosexual love in early Greek
poetry. Mimnermus' A)/TIMASTOS GUNAICI/N is very likely sound, but I
crave some discussion of the meaning of the phrase. In this light,
West's GUNAIKI/ ("hateful to his children and dishonoured by his wife")
might deserve more serious consideration than the quick dismissal it
receives from A. Although it is unclear just how the passage as a whole
would cohere, the shift from the erotic pursuits of youth to the
breakdown of relations within the family would have interesting
affinities with fr. 3, in which early beauty gives way to discord between
father and sons. The connection between hexameter and pentameter in this
latter fragment is also puzzling.
In general A.'s notes are convincing and helpful, but no
commentator can persuade the reader on every point, and I mention a
couple of passages where I believe that a different view is possible.
Fr. 2.4-5: TOI=S [sc. FU/LLA] I)/KELOI PH/XUION E)PI\ XRO/NON A)/NQESIN
H(/BHS / TERPO/MEQA, PRO\S QEW=N [[scanned as one syllable]] EI)DO/TES
OU)/TE KAKO\N / OU)/T' A)GAQO/N. This last clause has attracted
considerable attention from scholars. A. rejects the view that Mimnermus
is here referring to ignorance of evil (or ignorance of the difference
between good and evil), preferring to see in the passage a reference to
"ignorance of imminent, fateful evil" (p. 44). In this light, OU)/TE
KAKO\N / OU)/ T' A)GAQO/N is understood as a polar expression with KAKO/N
the only meaningful component; A. judges A)GAQO/N to be "simply
rhetorical." It always strikes me as dangerous to treat any word or
phrase as effectively void of meaning. In the present passage I would
prefer to take EI)DO/TES OU)/TE KAKO\N / OU)/ T' A)GAQO/N closely with
PRO\S QEW=N: "knowing neither bad nor good that comes from the gods." As
is often the case, such language refers broadly to our dispensation from
the gods which includes both bad and good (cf. Il. 24.527 ff.); we
enjoy our brief time of youth because we cannot foresee the vicissitudes
of fortune that will undercut our happiness. The reference then will be
to what Herodotus calls the KU/KLOS TW=N A)NQRWPHI/WN PRHGMA/TWN
(1.207), according to which good fortune must yield to bad. This reading
is consonant with the rest of the fragment, in which there is a return to
the idea of dispensation at lines 15-16, OU)DE/ TI/S E)STIN / A)NQRW/PWN,
W(=| ZEU\S MH\ KAKA\ POLLA\ DIDOI=. Here the emphasis is on the
inevitable KAKA/. Gentili-Prato aptly quote Od. 4.236 f., A)TA\R
QEO\S A)/LLOTE A)/LLW| / ZEU\S A)GAQO/N TE KAKO/N TE DIDOI=, which also
provides a close verbal parallel for OU)/TE KAKO\N OU)/T' A)GAQO/N.
Fr. 12.5 ff. TO\N [sc. H)E/LION] ME\N GA\R DIA\ KU=MA FE/REI
POLUH/RATOS EU)NH/ / ... (8) EU(/DONQ' A(RPALE/WS XW/ROU A)F' E(SPERI/DWN
/ GAI=AN E)S AI)QIO/PWN ... . In his note on EU(/DONQ' A(RPALE/WS A.,
like most recent commentators, takes participle and adverb together
(rather than the adverb with FE/REI), translating 'sleeping
pleasurably.' This understanding of A(RPALE/WS has been advocated by M.
S. Silk, CQ 33 (1983) 326-328, who states that "The truth is that
in all its classical occurrences A(RPALE/OS means 'pleasing' and
A(RPALE/WS means 'gladly' (i.e., the subject of the verb is 'pleased
toI')." This understanding, however, strikes me as too restrictive and,
in some cases, misleading. In the LSJ entry, which Silk largely
rejects, the Mimnerman passage was the only instance in which the adverb
was rendered 'gladly, pleasantly'; other early instances were understood
in senses approximating more closely to that of A(RPA/ZW, from which
A(RPALE/OS was believed to derive. That etymology has now been rejected
as secondary in favour of derivation from the root of A)/LPNISTOS and
E)/PALPNOS, but the word was early connected with the A(RP- root (cf.
Frisk and Chantraine s.v.), and, whatever the primary meaning of
A(RPALE/OS, this popular etymology seems to have affected usage (cf. also
Garvie on Od. 6.250). In this light, it is probable that the word
connoted something stronger than 'pleasant.' When applied to a noun such
as KE/RDEA (Od. 8.164), it suggests that gain is positively
attractive or desirable (Garvie [ad loc.] aptly translates,
"profit which they greedily seize"). The phrase H(/BHS A)/QEA ...
A(RPALE/A (Mimn. fr. 1.4) is comparable: the flowers of youth exert a
strong attraction. When the adverb is used, it seems to suggest
eagerness or intensity. The Homeric examples illustrate the point well.
At Od. 6.249 f. Odysseus is given his first meal since washing up
on the shore of Phaeacia, and he falls to it with gusto (H)= TOI O( PI=NE
KAI\ H)=SQE ... / A(RPALE/WS), and the reason for his eagerness is given
in line 250 (DHRO\N GA\R E)DHTU/OS H)=EN A)/PASTOS). Silk's
understanding of A(RPALE/OS is simply inadequate to the context.
Similarly at 14.109 f., Eumaeus gives Odysseus his first meal after
returning to Ithaca: O( D' E)NDUKE/WS KRE/A T' H)/SQIE PI=NE/ TE O)=NON /
A(RPALE/WS A(KE/WN, KAKA\ DE\ MNHSTH=RSI FU/EUEN. Odysseus has just
learned in detail of the activities of the suitors. Once again the hero
eats with intensity (both E)NDUKE/WS and A(RPALE/WS), but there is also a
dangerous silence, as he plans destruction for the suitors. There is
little pleasure here. In the case of Mimnermus' description of Helius as
EU(/DONQ' A(RPALE/WS, I suggest that the adverb connotes intensity and
means something like 'soundly', suggesting a deep sleep following his
daily PO/NOS. We might compare Odysseus at the end of Od. 5, TW=|
D' A)/R' A)QH/NH / U(/PNON E)P' O)/MMASI XEU=', I(/NA MIN PAU/SEIE
TA/XISTA / DUSPONE/OS KAMA/TOIO, FI/LA BLE/FAR' A)MFIKALU/YAS. What is
remarkable in the Mimnerman passage is the fact that Helius, whom Pindar
describes as A(GNO/S QEO/S (Ol. 7.60), endures ever-lasting PO/NOS
as his lot (cf. line 1)--a condition that is the antithesis to the usual
state of divinity in early Greek thought (cf. Aesch. Suppl. 100,
PA=N A)/PONON DAIMONI/WN)--and the description of the god as sleeping
soundly after his toil reinforces this point.
A few marginalia. P. 33 (on fr. 1.1): A.'s note
wrongly implies that Aphrodite alone is called 'golden': this may be true
of epic, but not later texts. Bacchylides, for example, calls Artemis
XRUSE/A DE/SPOINA LAW=N (11.117). P. 34 (on fr. 1.3): KRUPTAIDI/H
FILO/THS. Cf. Pind. Pyth. 9.39, KURPTAI\ KLAI/DES E)NTI\ SOFA=S /
PEIQOU=S I(ERA=N FILOTA/TWN; the same ode also provides a parallel for
MEI/LIXOS in an erotic context, MEI/LIXOS O)RGA/ (43): see the discussion
by A. Koehnken in A. Hurst (ed.), Pindare (Entretiens sur
l'Antiquite classique 31: Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1984) 71-111, at 89 f.
P. 37 (on fr. 1.6): it is incorrect to speak of O(/MWS as
"Verdenius' emendation," when, as A. notes, it was proposed by Doederlein
early in the last century. P. 52: A.'s introductory note is
somewhat odd; he recognizes in KA/LLISTOS an implication of homosexual
E)/RWS, but it is hard to see how this coheres with the pentameter, in
which the issue concerns a father's relation to his sons (see above).
P. 60 (fr. 5): "One might object, too, that there is a
grotesqueness in the description of erotic sweat [at Thgn. 1017]
which is out of place in a reflective elegy of the seventh century."
What about Sappho fr. 31.13 Voigt, a lyric on a similarly high stylistic
level? P. 62 (on fr. 5.3): for the description of Tantalus'
punishment in Pind. Ol. 1.56 ff., see R. D. Griffith, "The Mind is
its Own Place: Pindar, Olympian 1.57 f.," GRBS 27 (1986)
5-13. P. 67 (on fr. 6.2): if KI/XOI indicates personification,
should not MOI=RA be capitalized, as editors of Aeschylus do at
Cho. 911? P. 73 (on fr. 8.1): for the early meaning of
A)LHQEI/A, see also C. H. Kahn, The Verb 'Be' in Ancient Greek
(Foundations of Language Suppl. 16, Dodrecht 1973) 363 ff. P.
74 (on fr. 9.4): on the striking phrase U(/BRIOS H(GEMO/NES, see now
N. R. E. Fisher, Hybris: a Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in
Ancient Greece (Warminster 1992) 214 ff. P. 91 (on fr. 11.3):
for Mimnermus' U(BRISTH=| PELI/H| A. rightly notes the relevance of
Pindar's description of Pelias as A)/QEMIS (Pyth. 4.109). It is,
however, pertinent to point out that in the same passage Pindar also
emphasizes the king's U(/BRIS: (of Jason's parents) U(PERFIA/LOU /
A(GEMO/NOS (i.e., Pelias) DEI/SANTES U(/BRIN (111 f.). P. 92 (on
fr. 11.5 and fr. 15.11): W)KE/OS H)ELI/OIO. Citing fr. 2.7-8, A. notes
that the epithet here likely "refers to the swiftness of the Sun's course
across the sky." This may well be correct, but in both Mimnerman
passages the adjective occurs in close proximity to mention of the Sun's
A)KTI=NES, and it is possible that there is also some suggestion of heat,
as in the case of the similar use of rapidus in Latin (a parallel
noted by A.): see D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana (Cambridge
1956) 317; Mynors on Verg. Georg. 4.425. P. 93 (fr. 11.7):
QEI=OS I)H/SWN. A. describes the adj. as "ornamental", but such
descriptions are hazardous, especially in discussing a poet like
Mimnermus. Here QEI=OS may underline the point made earlier (possibly in
the lost protasis of the opening section) that Jason could not have made
his journey successfully without divine aid. It is uncertain what
version of the Argonautic myth Mimnermus was following. The
Naupactia, reflecting an influential tradition, seems to have
portrayed Aphrodite as Jason's special helper (frs 6 Bernabe = 7A Davies;
cf. A. R. 2.424, E)N GA\R TH=| KLUTA\ PEI/RATA KEI=TAI A)E/QLWN): see V.
J. Matthews, Phoenix 31 (1977) 199; for other traditions, see
Campbell on A. R. 3.8. P. 94 (fr. 12.2-3): Aeschylus seems to
have echoed these lines in fr. 192.3-6 Radt, I(/N' O( PANTO/PTHW H(/LIOS
AI)EI\ / XRW=T' A)QA/NATON KA/MATO/N Q' I(/PPWN [Griffith's KAMA/TWN
I(/PPOUS is attractive] / QERMAI=S U(/DATOS / MALAKOU= PROXOAI=S
A)NAPAU/EI, with XRW=T' ... I(/PPWN picking up I(/PPOISI/N TE KAI\
AU)TW=| and A)NAPAU/EI recalling A)/MPAUSIS. P. 96: Alex. Eph.
should be cited as fr. 38 SH. P. 101 (on fr. 12.3): the
material preserved in Hyginus Fab. 183 (p. 153 Marshall) seems to
possess no independent value from the evidence of the
Titanomachia, since recent editors believe that Hyginus is
referring to that poem (fr. 7 Bernabe = 4B Davies). P. 101
(ibid.): on R(ODODA/KTULOS, see now E. Irwin, "Roses and the
Bodies of Beautiful Women in Early Greek Poetry," EMC n.s. 13
(1994) 1-13. P. 107 (on fr. 12.9): on the Ethiopians, see now B.
MacLachlan, "Feasting with the Ethiopians: Life on the Fringe,"
QUCC 40 (1992) 15-33.
The book is clearly produced. There is a relatively small number
of typographical errors and slips; few will cause any confusion. I
mention some of the more noteworthy: OI)= (app. crit. to fr. 1.4,
p. 31); TRUXOU=TAI (text of fr. 2.12, p. 40); XRUSOSTEFA/NOIO (p. 46);
TOU= (H.Aph. 237, quoted p. 54); AI)/ GA/R (lemma to fr.
6.1, p. 67); Theogn. 795 (p. 70); I(/PPOISI/N (text of fr. 12.3); A. W.
James (not 'Jones,' p. 102); Od. 5.984 (p. 107). The author-date
method of citing secondary sources inevitably produces omissions from the
bibliography: Gentili 1965 (p. 73) is Maia 17, 366 ff.; Boedeker
1974 (p. 102) should be Aphrodite's Entry into Greek Epic (Leiden).
It is the function of the commentator both to illuminate the text
at hand and to lay a solid foundation for further scholarship. A. has
accomplished these tasks with conspicuous success, producing an elegant
libellus that will long remain indispensable to students of early
elegy and of Greek poetry in general.
NOTES
NOTES
[[1]] M. L. West, Iambi et elegi graeci 2 (Oxford 1972; second
ed. 1992); B. Gentili and C. Prato, Poetae elegiaci: testimonia et
fragmenta 1 (Leipzig 1979; repr. 1988). The second edition of West
appeared too late to be consulted by A.
[[2]] A.Us numeration of the fragments is essentially that adopted by
West; in what follows I note any discrepancies.
[[3]] I propose to discuss Antimachus' edition of Homer elsewhere.
[[4]] Cf. the brief invocations placed at the beginning of the
Theognidean syllogy (1-18).
[[5]] Bergk's text is supported by one MS (A), which gives POLUA/NQEOS,
but the false accent may suggest that this reading is itself a corruption
of POLUA/NQEMOS.
[[6]] See D. A. Campbell, "Stobaeus and Early Greek Lyric Poetry," in
D. E. Gerber (ed.), Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy: Studies in
Honour of Leonard Woodbury (Chico 1984) 51-57.