В статье обсуждаются трудные для интерпретации пассажи из Женщин на празднике Фесмофорий и Облаков Аристофана в ответ на критические замечания Р. Касселя

Austin, Colin

English

BOP Serials

Colin Austin 264Colin Austin A BAKER’S DOZEN: THESM. × 12, CLOUDS × 1I Thesm.My Oxford edition of the play, jointly produced with Douglas Olson, came out in 2004.1 A revised paperback followed in 2009. To the reviews listed there in the Addenda p. 351 may be added Jeffrey Henderson,2 Elizabeth W. Scharffenberger,3 Walter Stockert.4 Note also that the Groningen fascicule of the scholia on Thesm. and Eccl., edited by R. F. Regtuit, fi nally appeared in 2007.5 In ZPE Rudolf Kassel devoted a sizeable section of his ongoing “Aus der Arbeit an den Poetae Comici Graeci” to a detailed examination of our edition.6 The “Nachtrag”7 mentions very briefl y some, but not all, of the comments I had made at that time on his survey. I welcome the opportunity of presenting them here in full.2. ¢loîn. Schol. ›wqen (œxwqen R) ™n kÚklJ peri£gwn æj oƒ ™n ta‹j ¤lwsi. Kassel, p. 61: “Danach hat Rutherford bÒaj hinzugesetzt, besser toÝj bÒaj, wie in Reitzensteins Konjektur bei Phot. a 10298 = Lex. Bachm. p. 75, 26 (Sb a 984) ¢loîn: ¢ntˆ toà peri£gwn, æj ¢loîntej toÝj bÒaj (statt bÒej), im Scholion vielleicht nur in Gedanken zu ergänzen”. But toÝj bÒaj is clearly the wrong case, as peri£gwn is here intransitive:9 “Daher scheint ¢lo©n von den bÒej, nicht von den ™laÚnontej toÝj bÒaj gesagt zu werden”.10  1 C. Austin, D. Olson, Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae (Oxford 2004). 2 J. Henderson, CR 56 (2006) 28–30. 3 E. W. Scharffenberger, AJP 127 (2006) 140–144. 4 W. Stockert, WS 119 (2006) 319–321. 5 R. F. Regtuit (ed.), Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas, Ranas, Ecclesiazusas et Plu-tum, Scholia in Aristophanem III 2–3 (Groningen 2007). 6 R. Kassel, “Aus der Arbeit an den Poetae Comici Graeci ”, ZPE 154 (2005) 59–67. 7 Idem, “Nachtrag zu ZPE 154 (2005) 59–68”, ZPE 155 (2006) 22. 8 [R. Reitzenstein, Der Anfang des Lexikons des Photios (Leipzig 1907) 80.] 9 See J. Taillardat, Les images d’Aristophane (Paris 1962) § 218.10 Kaibel, as quoted in my “Textual Problems in Ar. Thesm.”, Dodone 16 (1987) 70 (for Kaibel’s unpublished commentary see ibid. 67 f.). In the same article I explained why Reiske’s ¢lÚwn (which Kassel believes “nicht ganz in Vergessenheit geraten sollte”) is simply not on the cards and I also drew attention to Felix Solmsen’s Untersuchungen zur griechischen Laut- und Verslehre (Strassburg 1901) 106 n. 2: “Es scheint mir deshalb nicht zulässig in diesem ¢loîn ein ganz anderes Verbum zu suchen oder zu ändern.”Hyperboreus Vol.16-17 (2010-2011) “VARIANTE LOQUELLA”265A Baker’s Dozen: Thesm. × 12, Clouds × 1182. to‹j Qesmofor…oij, Óti ktl. Kassel, p. 63: “Nur Blaydes geht auf den bei der Angabe der Festtage im Dativ ungewöhnlichen Artikel ein, den er so anstößig fi ndet, daß er {to‹j} Qesmofor…ois<in> Óti oder -oij Ðti<¾> zu schreiben empfi ehlt”. Blaydes seems to be barking up the wrong tree. Our observation p. 117, “Names of festivals normally dispense with the article (cf. 558, 834; Av. 1519) unless they are accompanied by a determinative phrase (here t»meron); cf. KG I. 445–446, 600”, is corroborated by the presence of the article in to‹j Tauropol…oij at Men. Epitr. 863 (qualifying pšrusin at 862) and 1119 (qualifying tÒte at 1118). Cf. also Plat. Symp. 174 a: cqj... to‹j ™pinik…oij.217. 'pidoànai 'mautÕn Dawes (™mautÕn iam Scaliger): didÒnai g' auton R. Kassel, p. 59: “Daneben gab es Versuche, mit dem überliefer-ten Praesens auszukommen, 'pididÒnai g' aØtÕn Toup: 'pididÒn' ™mautÕn Din dorf: 'pididÒnai 'mautÕn Bergk”. Why ressurect these “Versuche”, when only Dawes’ emendation gives “das hier geforderte Tempus”?11 Cf. 249: ™peid¾ sautÕn ™pidoànai fqone‹j. Kaibel (see above on 2) wrote in shor-thand: “Übrigens der Aorist notwendig wegen m»pote, dies einmal nicht”.12305–309. Kassel, p. 63: “R hat kaˆ t¾n drîsan t¾n ¢goreÚousan t¦ bšltista perˆ tÕn dÁmon tîn (tÕn Grynaeus) 'Aqhna…wn kaˆ tÕn tîn gunaikîn taÚthn nik©n. Vor t¾n ¢goreÚousan hat eine jüngere Hand s. l. kaˆ eingefügt, t¾n hat van Leeuwen gestrichen, wie nach ihm Coulon und jetzt Austin – Olson, kaˆ t¾n drîsan <kaˆ> {tÁn} ¢goreÚousan. Bothe tilgte t¾n ¢goreÚousan, eher könnte man, durch Sommersteins Cruces ermutigt, t¾n drîsan ausscheiden, also kaˆ {t¾n drîsan} t¾n ¢go re Úou-san t¦ bšltista... nik©n”. In my review of Sommerstein13 I wrote: “306 drîsan should not be daggered or deleted. drîsan kaˆ ¢goreÚousan is an adaptation of the orators’ pr£ttonta kaˆ lšgonta. See Wankel on Dem. 18. 57 (p. 361 f.)”.14 The suppression of t¾n drîsan makes the prayer lopsided and gratuitously removes a key element in the carefully crafted “series of paired and contrasting terms in which Aristophanes works out in detail the parallel between the women’s festival and the Ecclesia”.15 Here the ritual drîmena are paired and contrasted with the speeches in the assembly.11 E. Fraenkel, Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Roma 1962) 115.12 For further examples of m» pot' êfelon with aorist infi nitive see Fraenkel (n.11) 116 n. 1.13 [Rev.]: A. H. Sommerstein (ed., tr.), Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae, CR 45 (1995) 432.14 [H. Wankel, Demosthenes, Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz (Heidelberg 1976).]15 Joan Haldane, “A Scene in the Thesmophoriazusae (295–371)”, Philologus 109 (1965) 40.Colin Austin 266325. ™nal…ou R. Kassel, p. 59: “e„nal…ou Dindorf, nicht Bentley”. It seems that an objective mise au point on the question of attributions is called for. As I remarked,16 “the prîtoj eØret¾j of many an emendation turns out to be a very elusive bird indeed”. Bentley’s inedita on Thesm. were fi rst published by G. Burges,17 “not without mistakes and omissions”, as Olson and I record on p. cii of our introduction. In my Dodone article I was at pains to demonstrate that “Burges misreports Bentley several times and leaves out a fair number of good suggestions, which are now attributed to later critics”,18 including e„nal…ou here – jotted down by Bentley before Dindorf was born, and long before Brunck printed e„n£lioi in his 1783 edition – as well as ™xapatîsi<n> at 357, where Bentley anticipated Bothe’s Lectiones Aristophaneae.19 In his autograph in the British Lib-rary Bentley has “l. ein:” at 325 and “leg. sin” at 357. At 364 lšgous' too belongs to Bentley, as R’s lšgousin is also the reading of the Suda a 3501 and of Grynaeus (ed. Brubach., Francof. 1544, p. 247). To claim, as Kassel does, “135 stammt Lukourge…aj statt -g…aj nicht von Dindorf”, is to overlook the fact that Lukourge…aj already appears in Dindorf’s 1825 edition (II, p. 96), the same year as Dobree’s death and eight years before the publication of the latter’s Adversaria. See also Prato in his 2001 “Valla” edition.20 We know that Dindorf started work on the play in 1821 (see the preface to vol. VIII of Invernizzi’s edition, where à propos of Lys. and Thesm. Dindorf announces on p. V “novas ego paro harum fabularum editiones”), so he may also have “anticipated” Dobree at 644 todˆ diškuye, since in his 1830 edition (II, p. 102) he notes: “correxi quod in libris est todˆ d¾ œkuye”, and still claims paternity for the conjecture in his 1837 edition (III, p. 773). Finally, if Pierson is to be remembered beside Bentley at 1194 (Kassel, p. 60), should we not systematically list all the corrections fi rst printed by Brunck in 1783 (283 <kaˆ>, etc.) which were much later found lurking in Bentley’s unpublished marginalia? We could even try to assemble the large number of conjectures made by Porson himself before he “cried with delight” when he saw the copy where “the great Aristarch” had anticipated him.2116 Austin (n. 10) 65 n. 1.17 ClJ 14 (1816) 130–137.18 Austin (n. 10) 66.19 F. H. Bothe, Lectiones Aristophaneae (Berolini 1808) 118. See Austin (n. 10) 77.20 C. Prato, Aristofane: Le Donne alle Tesmoforie (Milano, Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 2001) 22.21 See the memoir on Porson by H. R. Luard in Cambridge Essays (London 1857) 153; J. E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship II (Cambridge 1908) 429.267A Baker’s Dozen: Thesm. × 12, Clouds × 1326. Kassel, p. 59: “Ñripl£gktouj (Ñrei- R) schon Blaydes”. More accurately: “Ñrí̆plagktoi Austin (Ñrí- Blaydes): Ñre…- R”.22354. t£d' eÜgmata genšsqai. Kassel, p. 64: “Dindorfs <™k> genšsqai hätte eine Erwähnunng verdient”. Hardly, as ™k- is out of place here. When not used impersonally, as at Pac. 345, where ™kgšnoit' = “may it be granted” (cf. Equ. 851), the compound verb always means “to originate from”, never “to turn out”. Coulon, Kassel maintains, “muß bei seiner editorischen Arbeit sehr müde und schwach geworden sein, als er sich von Willems die Änderung von genšsqai in ¢potele‹sqai einreden ließ”. Willems had quoted Plat. Rep. IV. 443 b tšleon ¥ra ¹m‹n tÕ ™nÚpnion ¢potetšlestai,23 so Coulon’s Greek is at least intelligible and is in fact the version advocated by Laetitia Parker,24 and now printed by Nigel Wilson in the new OCT!25 But R’s genšsqai is perfectly in order (“simplex solum aptum est verbum” van Leeuwen),26 as are the two resolved bacchiacs in this passage, which safely protect each other (Austin – Olson [n. 1] metrical note, p. 168).398. dr©sai d' œq' ¹m‹n oÙdn ésper kaˆ prÕ toà / œxesti. Kassel, p. 64: “Küsters weithin akzeptierte Änderung ïnper wird auch künftig Anhänger behalten, neque enim de modo et ratione, sed de rebus ipsis quaeritur (Fritzsche p. 146)”. Fritzsche had misunderstood the Greek, as Enger pointed out in his edition:27 “At non est hoc ita intelligendum, nihil iam facere nobis licet ea ratione, qua id antea faciebamus, sed nihil iam facere nobis licet, ut antea licebat, wir duerfen nichts mehr thun, wie wir doch frueher durften, quod etsi non satis accurate dictum est, reprehendi tamen neque in Graeca, neque in Latina nostraque lingua potest”. So ïnper, though attractive, is not inevitable.812. e„j pÒlin. Kassel, p. 60: “Der Ravennas hat ™j pÒlin, was im Apparat erwähnt werden sollte, da die Schreibung umstritten ist; Dindorf setzte vor Konsonant überall selbst contra codices ™j ein”. The problem, as the Nachtrag (n. 7) duly acknowledges, was set out succinctly in our introduction p. xcvii under the heading Alternative forms and spellings: 22 As in B. Zimmermann, Untersuchungen zur Form und dramatischen Technik der Aristophanischen Komödien III (Frankfurt 1987) 71, referred to in Austin (n. 10) 21 (cf. Austin – Olson [n. 1] metrical note [14] p. 156).23 A. Willems (ed.), Aristophane II (Paris – Bruxelles 1919) 550.24 L. Parker, The Songs of Aristophanes (Oxford 1997) 412.25 N. G. Wilson (ed.), Aristophanes, Fabulae II (Oxford 2008) 86.26 Cf. A. Meineke, Vindiciarum Aristophanearum liber (Lipsiae 1865) 152: “eÜg-mata enim tšlea g…gnetai, non tšlea ™kg…gnetai”.27 R. Enger (ed.), Ar. Thesm. (Bonnae 1844) 76.Colin Austin 268“e„j/™j: R rightly has ™j in the colloquial phrase ™j kÒrakaj (1079–1082 n., cf. 1226), in paratragedy (1098, cf. 1122), and once in lyric (1149; cf. Lys. 786; Ra. 1352). But we restore e„j for ™j at 89, 485, 645, 767 twice, 812, 951, 954, 1137 as e„j is the standard Attic form used elsewhere in R (224, etc.). See further Threatte I. 178. For 657, see note ad loc.”981 f. œxaire d¾ proqÚmwj / diplÁn c£rin (ca…rein R) core…aj. Kassel, p. 66: “Es fehlt ein Hinweis auf den Aufsatz von A. Bierl, Drama 7 (1998) 27–40.” Our silence was deliberate: why mention a critic who beats about the bush for 11 pages before coming up with unmetrischen Unsinn, pÒdaj ca…rein (sic) for diplÁn c£rin (p. 38)?28 The “double delight of the dance” is explained by us in our note and by Furley and Bremer.29 If œxaire “wird nicht erklärt”, that is because we took for granted the meaning “arouse, stir up”, as in LSJ ™xa…rw I. 3, where the passage is listed.1004. ™pikroÚeij. Kassel, p. 67: “Das überlieferte Futur ™pikroÚseij versucht Wilamowitz zu verteidigen (als Frage), Kl. Schr. IV 485 (aus dem Jahr 1929)”. His “Versuch” was a faux pas, which Coulon rectifi ed at once:30 “C’est à grand tort que Wilamowitz garde la leçon de R, ™pikroÚseij, dans le v. 1004, en ponctuant ainsi: o‡moi kakoda…mwn, m©llon ™pikroÚseij sÚ ge; Le Parent ayant prié l’Archer de desserrer la cheville (c£lason tÕn Âlon), celui-ci dit: “Allons, je vais faire ça”, tout en faisant le contraire. Le Parent s’en ressent et s’écrie: o‡moi kakoda…mwn, m©llon ™pikroÚeij sÚ ge. “Aïe, malheur! tu l’enfonces davantage”. Vers la fi n de la pièce nous avons un jeu de scène analogue, où le Choeur dit à l’Archer de monter tout droit: Ñrq¾n ¥nw d…wke (v. 1223). Mais cet imbecile de Scythe court à contre-sens, ce que le Choeur lui reproche: toÜmpalin tršceij sÚ ge. Tu cours du côté opposé”.1088. klaus' ™ti (klaÚsaimi R) : klaàs' œti (klaÚsaimi R). Kassel, p. 67: “Das Konjizierte œti ist hier ebenso fehl am Platz wie in 1187 kalo ge to pugh. klaus' ™t' (klaus' e g' R), hn mh 'ndon menhij”. This curiously misses the joke. In QUCC 72 (2002) I wrote:31 “Most editors adopt Brunck’s klaÚsei, but why make the Scythian speak good Greek?” klaus' œti would certainly be “fehl am Platz” in the mouth of an Athenian, 28 See also his Der Chor in den Alten Komödie (München – Leipzig 2001) 141 n. 90 = Ritual and Performativity. The Chorus of Old Comedy, trans. A. Hollmann (Harvard 2009) 117 n. 90.29 W. D. Furley, J. M. Bremer, Greek Hymns (Tübingen 2001): I 358 f., II 356 f.30 V. Coulon, “Aristophane, Ménandre et Anacréon”, REG 44 (1931) 12 f.31 C. Austin, “Seven Cruces in Aristophanes (Acharnians and Thesmophoriazu-sae)”, QUCC 72 (2002) 75.269A Baker’s Dozen: Thesm. × 12, Clouds × 1but is exactly the kind of “broken language” or amusing linguistic slip to be expected from a comic barbarian.32II Clouds 1119In the new OCT Nigel Wilson prints the line as follows:33eta t¦j karpÕn tekoÚsaj ¢mpšlouj ful£xoment¦j Sommerstein: tÕn codd.In Aristophanea he writes:34 “I am pretty sure that Sommerstein35 has hit the mark with his simple emendation of t¦j for tÕn. The point, which he does not explain in full, is that once the vines have formed their fruit, extreme weather brings with it the danger that the vintage will fail to live up to its promise. The summer of 2003 in most European countries has shown all too clearly the reality of this risk. The previous remedy for the diffi culty in this line was to follow Korais and write te kaˆ t¦j for tekoÚsaj, but it is so much inferior that, however much one admires Korais, it cannot merit inclusion in the apparatus any longer”.I venture to disagree:1. The change of tÕn to t¦j had already been proposed by G. Hermann in the preface to his fi rst edition of the play (Leipzig 1799, p. XIII): “neque enim aliquas vites se curaturum spondet chorus, sed omnes, ubi uvas tulerint”. He however went on to defend the transmitted reading p. XIV: “Nimirum commode hic non cunctae, sed aliquae vites intellegi possunt, siquidem hoc dicit chorus: et terram fodientibus vobis pluemus, et, si frustum si quae vites tulerint, eas pariter a calore nimio atque ab humore defendemus”. In his second edition (Leipzig 1830, p. 152) Hermann printed instead:eta karpÕn t¦j tekoÚsaj ¢mpšlouj ful£xomen.362. In my review of Dover’s edition I wrote:37 “It is sad to see relegated to the apparatus Coraes’ brilliant te kaˆ t¦j (for tekoÚsaj) – perhaps the best conjecture ever made on the text of Clouds”. In his note on Plutarch’s 32 For “foreigner talk” in Thesm. see now Andreas Willi, The Languages of Aristo-phanes (Oxford 2003) 198–225.33 Wilson (n. 25) I, 185.34 N. G. Wilson, Aristophanea (Oxford 2007) 77.35 A. H. Sommerstein (tr.), Aristophanes, Wealth (Warminster 2001) 256.36 Hermann’s note was quoted in full in I. Bekker’s variorum edition (London 1829) III, 434.37 [Rev.]: K. Dover (ed.), Aristophanes, Couds (Oxford 1968), CR 20 (1970) 20.Colin Austin 270Agis 15.4: toÝj karpoÝj scedÕn ¤pantaj sugkekomismšnwn ½dh tîn gewrgîn Coraes had compared the “storehouses full of grain and Bacchic stream” at Eccl. 14 f. sto£j te karpoà Bakc…ou te n£mantoj / pl»reij.38 His “palmaria conjectura”, as Blaydes called it,39 not only widens the focus (crops too get badly affected by extreme weather), but neatly restores to the passage one of its characteristic features, the repeated use of paired and symmetrical phrases:1118 you fi rst ~ and everyone else later, prètoisin Øm‹n, to‹si d' ¥l loij Ûsteron,1119 your crops ~ and your vines, tÕn karpÒn te kaˆ t¦j ¢mpšlouj,1120 neither drought ~ nor excessive rain, m»t' aÙcmÕn... m»t' ¥gan ™pombr…an,1121 any mortal ~ we goddesses, tij qnhtÒj... ¹m©j qe£j,1123 neither wine ~ nor anything else, oÜt' onon oÜt' ¥ll' oÙdšn,1124 both olives ~ and vines, a† t' ™la‹ai... a† t' ¥mpeloi,1128 any of his relatives ~ or friends, À tîn xuggenîn tij À f…lon.† Colin Austin Trinity Hall, CambridgeВ статье обсуждаются трудные для интерпретации пассажи из Женщин на празднике Фесмофорий и Облаков Аристофана в ответ на критические заме-чания Р. Касселя.38 A. Kora»j (ed.), Plout£rcou B…oi par£llhloi V (Paris 1813) 352.39 F. H. M. Blaydes (ed.), Aristophanes, Nubes (Halis Saxonum 1890) 151.

A Baker’s Dozen: Thesm. × 12, Clouds × 1

https://bop.unibe.ch/Hyperboreus/article/download/13253/16126

A Baker’s Dozen: Thesm. × 12, Clouds × 1

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

BOP Serials