Early Greek Epic Fragments I

Christos Tsagalis

• Éditeur: De Gruyter
• Année: 2017
• ISBN:
  9783110532111
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Literatura
• Sous-sujet: Crítica literaria antigua y clásica

This book offers a new edition and comprehensive commentary of the extant fragments of genealogical and antiquarian epic dating to the archaic period (8th-6th cent. BC). By means of a detailed study of the multifaceted material pertaining to the remains of archaic Greek epic other than Homer, Hesiod, and the Homeric Hymns, it provides readers with a critical reassessment of the ancient evidence, allows access to new material hitherto unnoticed or scattered in various journals after the publication of the three standard editions now available to us, and offers a full-scale commentary of the extant fragments. This book fills a gap in the study of archaic Greek poetry, since it offers a guiding tool for the further exploration of Greek epic tradition in the archaic period and beyond.?????

Comparatio Numerorum1807

Eumelos: Titanomachy

Eumelos: Korinthiaka

Eumelos: Europeia

Eumelos: fragmenta incerti carminis et fragmentum sine ascriptione fortasse ad Titanomachiam pertinens

Minyas

Fragmenta dubia fortasse ad Minyadem pertinentia

Carmen Naupactium

Phoronis

EndNotes

1 I indicate the relevant volume of PEG only in the case of Orphic fragments (i.e. PEG II.1 or II.2).

2 Bethe, vols. i–iii (1914–1927), vol. ii (19292).

3 Debiasi through a series of detailed studies has been by far the strongest representative of this trend.

4 Snell (1937) 579–80; Körte (1938) 80; Merkelbach (1955) 4; West (1962) 178; Debiasi (2004) 74 n. 23.

5 (2015) 209–12.

6 Adespota Papyracea Hexametra Graeca, vol. I (forthcoming with De Gruyter).

7 See bibliography.

8 (1958) 115–17. See also P.Köln III 126 (= P.Colon. inv. 5604).

9 See (2006) 476 and n. 21; see also Finglass (2014a) 77.

10 See Kaibel (1887) vii–viii; Arnott (2000) 42–50; Olson (2006) xvi; Finglass (2014a) 78.

11 See Dickey (2007) 27–8.

12 (2002) 111–12.

13 I include discussion of testimonia concerning authorship in the separate section devoted to each poet that precedes the discussion of the individual fragments. This is the only class of testimonia worth analyzing as far as archaic Greek epic poets are concerned. Since all the rest contain fragments, it is better to treat them under ‘fragments’ and, in this way, avoid repetition.

14 This is the case with Eum. Kor. fr. 18.

15 On this point, see Conte (2013) 14.

16 (1892) 252 n. 22 (translation by West 2013, 51).

17 (2013) 51.

18 Translation by Frazer (1921) with some modifications.

19 The transmitted reading Γιγαντομαχίαν is generally regarded as an error of the scholiast on Apollonios for Τιτανομαχίαν; see West (2002) 117; also Eum. Tit. fr. 3 EGEF (ap. Σ Ap. Rh. 1.1165c [p. 106.1–3 Wendel]).

20 The numbering in the critical apparatus is based on the entire quotation, not just the metrical citation. The same practice is followed in the entire volume.

21 The translation is by Olson (2008) with some modifications.

22 Cf. Paus. 2.4.6.

23 Differences in abbreviations between the commentary and the critical apparatus are due to the use of Latin forms in the latter (e.g. Lyk. vs Lyc. for Lykophron). Explanation of sigla used in this critical apparatus: Σ Β Pind. = Vat. 1332, C = Par. 2774 (C1 = correction made by the first scribe, C3 = reading added by the third scribe), E = Laur. 32, 37 (E1 = correction made by the third scribe), Q = Laur. 32, 35, v = textus vulgatus (from the editio Romana to the editions of Heyne and Boeckh), h = Heyne (ed. Heyniana 1817); Σ Α Eur. = Vat. 909, B = Par. 2713; Σ C Lyc. = Par. gr. 2723, Tz. in Lyc. = scholia by Tzetzes as part of the Σ Lyk. edited by Scheer; the siglum ] indicates words or parts of words that were once written in the manuscripts but cannot be read now.

24 In the translation I indicate in parenthesis the differences between Σ Eur. Med. 9 and 11.

25 Paus. 2.1.1: ἐπεὶ Εὔμηλός γε (Siebelis : ἐπεὶ δὲ εὔμηλός τε β) ὁ Ἀμφιλύτου τῶν Βακχιδῶν (Βακχιαδῶν β Va) καλουμένων, ὃς καὶ τὰ ἔπη λέγεται ποιῆσαι, φησὶν ἐν τῆι Κορινθίαι συγγραφῆι — εἰ δὴ Εὐμήλου γε ἡ συγγραφή —.

26 Chron. Ol. 5.2 (760/759 BC): Eumelus poeta, qui Bugoniam et Europiam … composuit … agnoscitur (test. 3 EGEF); 9.1 (744/743 BC): Eumelus Corinthius versificator agnoscitur et Sibylla Erythraea. See also Cyrill. Contra Iulian. 1.12 (Patrol. Gr. lxxvi. 520D): ἐννάτηι Ὀλυμπιάδι Εὔμηλον (Marcksch. : Θύμηλον cod.) ἐποποιὸν γενέσθαι φασὶ καὶ Σίβυλλαν τὴν Ἐρυθραίαν (test. 4 EGEF). On the connexion between Eumelos and Sibyl, see Bowra (1963) 147, who argues that ‘the connexion between Eumelus and the Erythraean Sibyl may be not so accidental as it looks, since she must have come from Erythrae and may have been connected with the early days of colonization in the West. It is also perhaps worth noting that the previous entry in Eusebios-Jerome in Ol. 8.3 (745 B.C.) says Lacedaemonii contra Messenios vicennale bellum habebant, and it looks as if Eusebios had in mind some association between Eumelos and the First Messenian War’.

27 Strom. 1.131.8: Σιμωνίδης μὲν οὖν κατὰ Ἀρχίλοχον φέρεται, Καλλῖνος...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Eumelos of Corinth
• Commentary
• Kinaithon
• Commentary
• Asios
• Commentary
• Hegesinous
• Commentary
• Chersias
• Commentary
• Danais
• Commentary
• Minyas
• Commentary
• Carmen Naupactium
• Commentary
• Phokais
• Phoronis
• Commentary
• Bibliography
• Index of Subjects
• Index of Greek
• Index of Sources by Author or Poem
• Comparatio Numerorum