partheneionscholia media.ems.g ekdoseis ellinika ellinika 56 tsantsanoglou 1

7/28/2019 PartheneionScholia Media.ems.g Ekdoseis Ellinika Ellinika 56 Tsantsanoglou 1

1/24

E 56.1 (2006)

THE SCHOLIA ON ALCMANSPARTHENEION

Professor Cornelia Rmer, Direktorin der Papyrussammlung und Papyrus-museum of the sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek at Vienna, kindlyinformed me that, in the frame of a programme for publishing the annotated

Greek literary papyri, she has taken up the edition of the scholia on Alcman.1

In an attempt to offer yet another interpretation of Alcmans Partheneion, Ihad done the same thing, starting already in the year 2002. Therefore, Ithought it fair to present, at least, my text of the scholia in a prepublicationform, expecting a preliminary judgement, which might lead to utilizing itsmerits and rejecting its demerits in the definite editions to come, bothProfessor Rmers and mine.

It must be stated in advance that the writing of the scholia in the Louvrepapyrus (E. 3320/R56, i A.D.; scholia A), mostly by the same hand thatwrote the poetic text (A1), but also by two more contemporary hands (A2,A3), is necessarily squeezed in the intercolumnar spaces of the papyrus or inits upper or lower margins, thus having a distinct cursive character and

making extensive use of abbreviations. All these characteristics, together withthe physical wearing out of the papyrus, render the reading, at some points,extremely difficult. The scholia are regularly written to the right of the poetictext they are annotating, except for two long ones that are accommodated inthe upper and lower margin of the third column, and one or two that start inthe intercolumnar area and continue in interlinear spaces.2 The scholia of P.Oxy. 2389 (i A.D.; scholia B), actually a continuous commentary, arefragmented, but present no serious reading difficulties. 3

The last edition of the scholia on the Partheneion by G. O. Hutchinson4

1. Commentaria et Lexica Graeca in Papyris Reperta (CLGP), edd. Guido Bastianini, MichaelHaslam, Herwig Maehler, Franco Montanari, Cornelia Rmer. The first volume has alreadyappeared: Pars I, Commentaria et Lexica in auctores. 1.1 Aeschines - Alcaeus. Mnchen - Leipzig2004.

2. First published by E. Egger,Mmoires dhistoire ancienne et de philologie, Paris 1863, pp.159-175.

3. First published by E. Lobel, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 24 (other texts edited by C. H.Roberts, E. G. Turner, J. W. B. Barns), London, Egypt Exploration Society, 1957.

4. Greek Lyric Poetry: A Commentary on Selected Larger Pieces, OUP 2001, 8 ff.


2/24

8 K. Tsantsanoglou

was perhaps too cautious. The editor notes (p. 3) concerning the Louvrepapyrus: ipsam contuli papyrum; scholia tamen eius, quae et ante et post eximaginibus contuli, tum conferre non potui: tam tenacibus uinculis me

retinuit tertia columna. On the contrary, I believe that not only the thirdcolumn, but the whole of the poetic text and its interpretation could begreatly improved by a careful edition of the scholia. Truly, some of the newreadings, even when the Scholiasts view need not be adopted, open newpaths for approaching the riddle of the Partheneion. When such was the case,and only then, I added a comment, long or short, on the scholion. Naturally,this is not a commentated edition of the Alcmanic scholia. The detailed andmore extensive utilization of the scholia in the interpretation of the poem

will appear in due time. Some of the critical signs used in the papyrus mustcome from the hand of A2, a scholiast who attempted, among other things,to apportion the singing of the poems verses to different singers. Thesecritical signs, all written to the left of the poetic text, mainly paragraphoi anddiplai unrelated to the usual division of stanzas, will also be specified.

I availed myself of a photograph of P. Louvre placed at my disposal by theDpartement des Antiquits gyptiennes of the Palais du Louvre, to whom Iam indebted. Concerning P. Oxy. 2389, I used the excellent reproductions atthe end of vol. 24 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.

Scholia A

ad 2 () e - -() (d) ()-

5 [] []. [ ]() ()\ 3[](), [][] fi

10 e (), ad f ,, R[] \ -

fi .

(manu 1) 4 sq. |[...]c ( monogrammatice) pap.; (d) vel (fi),(fi), (-)()|[] leg. et suppl. Ts. || 5 [] dub. Diels,[] leg. Ts., ^I] Blass || 6 edd., rell. leg. et suppl. Ts.;c/|(= -c) pap. || 7 ` (= ) et \ (= ()) pap., expl. Ts. | /|3[.....] pap.,


3/24

The Scholia on AlcmansPartheneion 9

leg. et suppl. Ts. || 8 ..... Blass, () Diels; [.] [ leg. Ts.; sup.][ scriptum est ][..]3, quod ]fi[] supplendum esse coni. Ts. || 9 Blass, [] Diels, Page, Ts. || 10() : abbreviatio s.l. incerta ||12 R Pavese || 13 () Diels

Reading and sense are more or less clear in lines 1-5 and 9-13, but 6-8 aremarred by some holes in the papyrus. In the first part, the Scholiast isinterpreting line 2 of the Partheneion, g] , but in the second, he is offering excuses for Alcmans mythologicalerror. He didnt write these verses idly nor is his error too great, if with noharm (and no fraud) he calls not only Lycaeus, but the rest as well, whom hecalls by name, Deritidae. He seems to understand Alcmans not as

killed but as overcome, and explains the verse as excluding Lycaethus fromthe group of the sons of Derites and not of the sons of Hippocoon, ashitherto believed. Actually, though apologizing on his account, he believesthat Alcman committed an error in designating Lycaethus as a Deritides, andpleads lack of intent, fraud, and harm in extenuation of the error. Actually,by designating as Deritidae all those in the name-list of lines 3-12, some ofwhom were famous Hippocoontidae, he is mitigating the error and provingAlcmans innocence. , written monogrammatically, must stand for orfi, fi, -. Formerly is no doubt in relation not only tomythical time, former, that is, than the Dioscuri and the Hippocoontidae, butalso to the sequence of the story elements in Alcmans poem. This is a realgain, since the reference to d together with

the first word of the Partheneion, , are the only hints towardsthe contents of the column prior to col. i. There is no need to supplementR \ fi (Pavese). The word-order is fie , a d f , . The Scholiast adds R\ fi as an afterthought for clarifying f .

|[...]c may, of course, also be restored as , especiallysince the scribe A1 abbreviates as in the scholion ad70-76, 2. If,however, the dative plural aorist participle is interpreting , none ofthe several meanings of - fits its senses, in contrast to -, which means, just like , be overcome, be defeated.

There is no place for or anything similar to qualify Lycaethus

in the poem, and the only specification accompanying him is that the singerdoes not count him among the fi. The Scholiast certainly knewLycaethus and the others named in the list as sons of Hippocoon killed byHeracles, in the same way as they are known to us from Ps.-Apollodorus andother sources. The error may stem from the fact that the Scholiast, notfinding any mention of Hippocoontidae in the text prior to the list, identified


4/24

10 K. Tsantsanoglou

Alcmans fi with the only brothers apparently mentioned as over-come in the previous text, and no doubt expressly designated as Deritidae.The fact that the Scholiast, in order to render fi, employs the rareform , surpassed, defeated (cf. Ps.-PlatoAlc. 1, 103b 5,Aristid.Panath. 161.32, al.), and not slain, possibly shows that no killingswere related in the story of the Deritidae.

Of course, the Scholiast was wrong in imputing to Alcman justifiedignorance. What the poet meant by I do not count Lycaethus among thedead, as well as the lineage of Derites and the Deritidae, their place in theprehistory of the Spartan royalty, but, especially, their place in AlcmansPartheneion will be discussed elsewhere. Further, since the Scholiast claims

that Alcmans text implies that the brothers listed in lines 3-12 are Deritidaejust like Lycaethus, it is necessary that the opening of Alcmans line 3 was\ \E]fi (Canini) and not \ \E]fi (Blass).

The scholion starts with , a usual way to mark the excerpts taken fromanother work in a compilation, whether a chronicle or a commentary. Doesthis mean that all scholia starting with in the Louvre papyrus (ad2, 14,49, 60, 83; cf. ad 59), all written by scribe A1, come from an existingcommentary, possibly the same one in all -scholia? Some abbreviations, asexplained here (\ for \ and for ), though obvious, are un-paralleled.5 Interesting is the use of/| for , not only here but several moretimes in the scholia.

ad 6 () (fr. 172 A Fowler) () ^I()\A. -\ s (d) zf D

5 () j (e) \A \A(a) \A; X.

(manu 2) 1 Egger, dub. Bergk, alii || 2 ` (= ) pap. || 4|` pap. || 5 monogrammatice pap. | (= fi) pap. | leg. Calame || 6 in fine scholii XI dispexit Ts.

IX, written between this and the previous scholion, is difficult to decide towhich of the two it belongs. Its position, however, at the very end of thescholionad6 and its cant speak for the present one. Apparently, it must be a

5. At least, not recorded in K. McNamee,Abbreviations in Greek Literary Papyri and Ostraka[BASP, Suppl. 3], Chico 1981.


5/24


mark repeated from the now lost left margin of the Partheneions line 6. Whythe sign is repeated at the end of the scholion and why it is topped with avertical, I cannot say. Possibly, the vertical is an iota, forming the word , i.e.the name of the critical sign (Diog. Laert. 3.66; cf. ; ), used to attract attention to a scholarly issue of the text, and re-peatedly occurring in the Louvre papyrus. The possibility that we might bedealing with the abbreviation of the name of a grammarian (X()()? seescholionad95) is rather weak.

ad 14 e fi e e() e ^Hfi() - X (Th. 116).

(manu 1) 1 /|pap. || 2 c pap.

ad 32 \A() \A (fr. 384A Slater) ()A.

(manu 1) 1 @c pap. || 2 c pap.

ad 36 (a) () \A - () \ .

(manu 2) ` et -`pap.; ` (= ; v. sch. ad 2, 7 et ad 49,1); [][c] ()\A [] Blass, (e) () \A ...... Page, alii alia

It is not clear whether the Scholiast A2 implies two semichoruses, one ledby Agido the other led by Hagesichora (see below A2 ad43 and 49) or twogroups of supporters. Obviously, the short dash is no more than a dividingpunctuation mark. The neuter plural must refer to the words sung by the girlson Agidos side, which are amusing and cheerful. Actually, the bantering partof the Partheneion starts from this stanza (36-49). A prose word might bemore appropriate, but the Scholiast is employing deliberately,alluding to 37 .

ad 37 \A()() [\.

(manu 1)

ad 43 () ( ) [ ]()() Afi()[].

(manu 2) 1 f et pap., coniuncta Page, separavit Ts.; e.g. (-()) vel (()) | ] :e.g. ]() (= ) | pap. || 2


6/24

12 K. Tsantsanoglou

-c pap., [] Ts., [] vel [] Diels, [-] Marzullo

: From line 43 onward. Both (or ) and are completely speculative, but are well reflecting the expected sense.The change of singer is also indicated by a diple obelismene after line 43,most likely by Scholiast A2.

ad 49 (a) () \A(), () fi r (a) () Âfi().

(manu 2) 1 ` pap.; (e) () \A() Diels, (a) (F) \A()(() \ATs.) Rosenmeyer | `S pap.; () () Ts. | fi pap. ||

2 r legit Calame | c

pap.; (e) () Âfi() Page, (a)() Âfi() Rosenmeyer

The suggestion of Scholiast A2 that the girls on the side of Agido sing asingle verse (49), apparently interrupting the group of Hagesichora, beforethe latter take up the singing again, casts a different light on the numeroustheories about the delivery of the song. fi, merely spoken(LSJ s. IV), apparently not sung. Just as in the scholionad 36 theScholiast A2 characterized the style of the verses as allegro, here he de-scribes the delivery mode of the short interruption as parlando. S is notrecorded in McNamee (note 5 above), but see the marginal scholion inBKTv2 (Corinna) ii 43 (S). A high stroke looking like an acute after 2 is only

the tail of the previous lines `. An identical tail is visible at the scholion ad2, 7 () by A1, but not at the scholion ad36 () by A2. Thenecessary grave upon 2 seems to be missing.

ad 49

(manu?)

The sign may have been written to attract attention either to the peculiaruse of or to the change of singer indicated in thescholion or to both.

ad 49 a -

a (d) d () (d)

5 {(d)} a e a e .()


7/24


e () .() fi(). ()

10 b Ô() (), () \O(24.11-12)

a \ \ a(d) - , b \ (d) ()

.

(manu 1) 4-5 (d) bis scriptum legit Blass ( | (d) volebat?), Page (alt.() ut legens); pap.; aliquid erat scriptum infra || 9.() legit Ts. (/| pap.); inter et fluct. Ts., [] Blass,

Bergk || 10 Ô() () legit Ts. (/|

pap.), Ô()() Hutchinson,O() Diels, alii alia || 13 pap.pc, (?) pap.ac

At 9 .() fi(), I cannot choose between and -. The reading is closer to the second, but what looks like an upsilon has adistinct wavy bottom horizontal like that of zeta. Perhaps a correction of to? At any rate, though both are almost synonymous poetic words, known tothe Scholiast from his scholarly learning, is more appropriately usedfor a dry rocky land.

ad 59 () d [.].[E[]

.[.]. [5 \A[g ]c

(manu 1) 1 `, ut videtur, = (); ante 1 sq. [ ]| Blass | inter et lacuna non scripta c. 5 literarum; ] Diels, ] Bergk; \Avolebat? || 3 non est [].|| 4 ]| dub. Ts. (an vel ]|?), correctum (e ?), ] Blass, alii alia; non est ]| | [ potius quam[ |], i.e. dat. adiectivi, Ts.

Blasss [ ]| is impossible, because what is read is written abovethe long horizontal stroke that marks the end of the previous scholion ad49.The Scholiast not only leaves the scholion unfinished (he probably intended

to continue with Hagesichora: c b .), but also writes some wordsimperfectly (, E[]) and wipes out others.

ad 59

(manu 1)


8/24

14 K. Tsantsanoglou

The sign probably refers to the scholion on the breeds of the horses. Aparagraphus after 59 (by A2?) may indicate a change of singer.

ad 61

(manu 1) super ; omnes

c is written in the text with a circumflex and an acute above alpha.This is then one of the numerous cases of wavering on the part of the scribeas to orthography, usually followed by a relevant scholion; cf. 32 \A -A, 41 and 89 v - , 95 - . Apparently, the circumflex wasthe appropriate accent for the meaning cloth, cloak, and the acute for the

meaning plough. The metre does not help, since alpha falls in the ancepsposition of the trochees. So, the problem is mainly limited to the meaning.The scribe, no doubt, did not intend to write super lineam only the name ofthe grammarian who proposed c, i.e. Aristophanes, but a comprehensivescholion about the spellings and the relevant meanings. But when he startedwriting it, the sigma of c fell upon the already written acute, thusproducing a sign looking like omikron whence the false reading (actually, ). He saw that, if he continued writing the scholion betweenthe lines (as he does elsewhere, with much longer scholia), he would stumbleagain on the grave and the acute ofbficc. So, he interrupted the writing,put a chi in the margin, and wrote the full scholion under the column; seenext scholion.

ad 60-61 \A()\O : c [\A]g d ^Afi .

(manu 1, in marg. inf. columnae ii) 1 \A() leg. Turner, []() Page,alii || 2 \A()- interpunxit Hutchinson | pro scriptum? || 3 ]g : pap. | c leg. Blass, sed vestigia super signumdiaereseos non sunt

Page 1951, p. 10, concerning the Scholia A: Where so many [sc. com-mentators] are named, it is remarkable that there is no mention of Sosibius,

the most celebrated authority on Alcman and on Laconian customs.Primarily here, in a question of Laconian ceremonial practices, one shouldexpect the evidence to come from Sosibius d and not from an unknown work of an Alexandrian Pleiad tragedian.Then, possibly, a slip of pen, - for -, influenced by\A() mentioned right before?


9/24


ad 61

(manu 1)

The sign probably refers to the previous scholion.

ad 62 / (?)

(manu ?)

If a sign, it may refer to .

post 62 (?)

(manu ?)

Uncertain shape and meaning.

ad 63 (?)

(manu ?)

Uncertain if a sign.

ad 70-76 [] (a) () : ^I (d)

[, z () j

, (d) d (d) (a) (a) (b) () : M[

.... () () f , () : (d) .[

..(d) [] (e) (e) () () : b d N[

5 w....... : \A b : (d)K[ :

\Ad ....(), () (d) (d) \I[.

(manu 1, in marg. sup. columnae iii) 1P

pap. | `3 : 3hpap. |// (= )pap. | [, z () j leg. et suppl. Ts. || 2 |\ pap. | pap. |) ` aDcU pap.; ) (= ), (= ), U (= ?)| M[ : nomenchori magistrae in casu dativo latet || 3 () Ts., - Diels |cI)): pap. | .[ : nomen chori magistri latet ( \A?) || 4 \

an

incertum ((a) ()?) | usque ad (c Page) leg. et suppl. Ts. | [.] pap. |khac Page recte, nisi quod primum (= fi), alterum ` (= ) |


10/24

16 K. Tsantsanoglou

c : leg. Ts. || 5 .....Calame, ... : valde incerteleg. Ts. | b leg.Ts., linea verticalis (?) sup. in pap. | superc (sc. ) pap. | c. pap. ||6 dub. Ts. ( pap.; sed v. 5 c.) | ....` pap., () valde dub. Ts. |` pap. (= fi? sed alibi = )

A large portion of the text is effaced, leaving only faint traces. There isalso extensive use of abbreviations. It seems that the six lines contain amiscellany of scholia. Separate scholia, but also the sentences they consist of,are divided by dicola.

Line 1 starts with a number, as shown by the top horizontal dash. Nothingis visible beforeP. However, nothing can precedePin numerical notation buthundreds and thousands. has left only faint traces, but is very likely.

Following [], comes a difficult combination of abbreviations and num-bers. Since and , quite un-Greekly, follow each other, the first mustnecessarily either be a number or belong to an abbreviation. The accentbeside , which would determine the word abbreviated ( = , ` = ), ispractically invisible, but gives sense. 3represents , which, combinedwith and some uncertain traces, may be integrated as . , withouta visible top dash, looks very much like , because of a low split in thepapyrus, but is more or less certain. a must refer to the eightgirls listed in lines 70-76 of the Partheneion. The number ten, which mustrefer to the actual number of the girls performing, will come again in thescholionad98. The poet reveals ten girls by eight girls.

After a dicolon, there follows a masculine plural dative ending, -,connected with a different now piece of information, namely that the numberof the girls was twelve. The reading, though hard, is quite reliable. The twocontiguous pis are written with their tops the first curved and the secondstraight-lined (). Both forms are legitimate, since they are frequently usedin the papyrus, both in the text and in the scholia. The scribe writes in thesame manner, two consecutive pis with a different form each, in line 59 ofthe Partheneion (IOC). If the reading is right, one would expect thename to stand for the chorus of the Partheneion. Names of animals denotingreligious groups are not uncommon: at Brauron, at Delphiand elsewhere, or at Dodona, et al. But ^I, unlike, not only has the ending of a genos name (like, say, \A or

), but is also definitely masculine. If a genos name, it would be thefirst, as far as I know, occurrence of that family, and it would be difficult toguess even the name of the familys progenitor.6 On the other hand, it would

6. ^I (CIG 4682, 134 B.C., Alexandria) and h()[ (SEG 11.638.4, c. 500B.C., Laconia) are personal, not family names.


11/24


be curious if a genos, in Sparta or elsewhere, had a chorus of their own. Itwas usually the tribes that competed with each other in choral performances,and there is reliable evidence for Doric tribal choruses, whereas Î isobviously not a tribe name.

In any case, it seems that the choruses might be named after the role orthe personae given to the choreuts in particular choral performances.Hesychius records such a term at 15, ^Y e . .M. Schmidt gives a number of possible parallels, but none seems to resemblethe Laconian word. Given that, by folk-etymology, was usuallypronounced with a rough breathing, I would propose a transposal of theinitial upsilon, quite possible in Hesychius. Â would be a chorus of

alcyons, just as Î would be a chorus of horses. Both look like genosnames and are masculine. One of the most famous fragments of Alcman,PMG fr. 26, likens the chorus-girls to a flock of alcyons accompanied by anaged he-alcyon, a kerylos, apparently the male chorus-master, possiblyAlcman himself:

\ , d fi, c , \ d \ fi b q , fi e .

The usual explanation for the dactylic hexameters is that the fragment

constitutes a proem to a partheneion. C. M. Bowra presumed that the frag-ment speaks of chorus-girls portraying alcyons literally, not figuratively.7 Hedid not associate his suggestion with Hesychius ^Y. Many scholarsbelieve that d at line 60 of the Partheneion is also the ap-pellation of a chorus rival to the one singing. However it be, isfeminine plural.

It was Bowra8 too who, without knowing of the name Î, hadstressed the importance of the copious references to horses in the Parthe-neion, where the girls and their leaders are, earnestly or lightly, compared toequines in recurring similes (lines 45-59, 92-93). He had also associatedthese references to terms significant in Laconian religion, such as and

, identifying both terms, in the sense priestesses of Dionysus,with the chorus-girls. He also finds affinities between the horse imagery andthe worship of Helen and the Dioscuri. The latter are no doubt a consecrated

7. GLP2 p. 24; cf. L. B. Lawler,CJ37 (1942) 351-361.8. CQ 28 (1934) 35-44.


12/24

18 K. Tsantsanoglou

pair of young horsemen whose origin appears in the Indo-European (Vedic)pair Avin (Sanskritavas =).9

Both ^I and ^A are, however, masculine nouns, though therelevant choruses are feminine. How can this fact be explained? It is likelythat the Laconian is involved in the naming. The division of thechildren in , congregations, , flocks, and/or , herds ofcattle, obviously suggests animal groups, much like the cubs or the wolfcubs, the beavers, the bears, the bobcats, the lions of modern boyscouts. It seems that the were organized in age-groups, with each headed by a fi. This structure apparently concerns boys, not girls. Buta couple of Hesychius articles extends this arrangement to girls as well: 959

... b c j ... A singing girl in thePartheneion refers to Hagesichora as her cousin (52 ),whereas another is discouraging a chorus-leader from providing herself withchorus-girls from someone elses group or company (73 Afi). This recalls Hesychius article 971 d . d d .Finally, we do not know whether Pindar, while referring to b (fr. 112 Snell-Maehler), is using the last word as a techni-cal term or just for the group dancing the , which is c d (Ath. 14.631c from Aristocles). If then younggirls were also organized in agelai and bouai with adolescent leaders, andlived together in close relationship forming a sort of family connection, they

might well have genos-like names. And separate agelai or bouai that providedthe members of particular choruses might well be named after the specificanimals. On such an organization cf. also below Alcm. Scholia B, fr. 7 (a)+13and 7 (b), and Theocr. 18.22-24 with K. Kuiper, Mnemosyne 49 (1921),231.

Genos or genos-like names had naturally masculine endings. We cannotexclude, however, the possibility that males were also involved in the chorus.Plutarch,Lyc. 14.4-6, states that young girls in Sparta performed fi [...] fi d . The girls addressed the youngmen of the audience uttering jibes or praises at them. This does not meanthat the girls performed in front of the general public. If they were to praise

or to mock same-aged boys according to each ones personal characteristics,

9. E. Robbins, CQ NS 44 (1991) 7-16, esp. 13-14, with older literature. Note also the (folk-etymological) distortion of the name of Polydeuces in Alcman: (fr. 1 (Parth.) 1, fr.2); Robbins, n. 39. Let me add, concerning the Dioscuri, that their survival is found in SaintsGeorge and Demetrius, who are worshipped in common as a mounted pair of young warriors inseveral Eastern Christian provinces.


13/24


as Plutarch notes, they must have been familiar to each other throughspending time with them. The relationship might be still closer if some of thechildren were relatives, siblings or cousins, as stated in Hesychius article.Apart from fr. 26, where the participation of a male person is implied,Alcman offers further evidence of boy-choragoi leading or accompanyingfemale choruses.10 In the Louvre Partheneion, there are some indications fora mixed chorus, with the boys singing, in whole or in part, the section of thepoem that spoke of fights and killings, though the Scholiast, as far as I canfollow his arguments, does not seem to share such a view. It seems then thatthe agela or boua that provided the members of the Partheneion chorusmight be mixed, thus named, as is regular in such collective appellations, in

the masculine plural.At the end of line 1, it is not easy to choose between [, [, and [, but an indistinct high trace of ink may belongonly to , thus making the first of the three the likeliest choice. The rest issupplemented thanks to the simple arithmetic of the next line. The epsilon of is written |\, the mirror image of /| found several times in the scholia.What and their (sc. of the ten girls) odes are twenty means is problematic.If means, however, not songs but singings (LSJs.v. II), it might meanthat each of the ten girls sang twice, whether separate stanzas or half-stanzasor even shorter cues or combinations of them. And, since their singings arecounted separately, they must not have been continuous. The singings wouldhave been twenty, had it not been for the two remaining girls, because of

whom the chorus has four more singings, again two singings each. These twoare older than fifteen, and must, apparently, be the semichorus-leaders.11 Theage-limit of fifteen is, obviously, related to the Spartan education system,ofwhose classes we possess some knowledge, though all evidence about agedivisions (fi, , , ,) refers to boys.12 However it may be, just as a boua was headed by a (Hsch. 867 fi .), so an might also lead a boua (Hsch. 959 ... b c j ). It is very likely that heading a boua is id-entified with heading a chorus or a semichorus. Twenty-four singings do notpresuppose twelve stanzas for the Partheneion, since the singers need not sing

10. Mainly fr. 10 (b).11. On choruses that consisted at the same time of minor and major members, cf. fr. 38:

b , e a , those of us who are little girls, praisethe lyre-player. See, however, the next paper in the present issue.

12. U. Kahrstedt, Griech. Staatsrecht vol. 1, 1922, 342 ff. To Kahrstedts evidence add ^Hfi in H. Stein,Herodotus, vol. 2, Berlin 1871, p. 465.


14/24

20 K. Tsantsanoglou

two half-stanzas each, but any two metrical units, large or small. Nor can thenumber of the singings determine the number of the stanzas of thePartheneion, which many scholars believe was ten.

The sources of the Scholiasts knowledge on this issue must be diverse.The name of ^I may come from an explicit reference to the identity ofthe chorus, a self-presentation at the lost opening of the poem. The factsabout the number of singings may depend on his own calculations. But thedetails about the number of the girls and their age must come from someextra-textual piece of infomation, possibly Sosibius. From the last source mayalso come the explanation of the seeming paradox of employing less singersfor twenty or twenty-four singings: M[, while serving as choir-mistress with

twenty choreuts, was abandoned by all but three girls. ...., at line 3, mustconceal the ceremony where this event had taken place. , mightdenote the organized Spartan girls, especially in the girls race at Dromos:Hsch. 170 e e fi, and cf. 2823 ( , correxerunt) fi . However, with the exception of the first three letters, nothingelse is visible.The definite article ( ) possibly indicates that the three girlswho remained had a special role, known to the Scholiast, and were distin-guished from the others. Apparently, the three were the chorus-leader andthe two semichorus-leaders, who, unlike the rank-and-file members of thechorus, might be appointed in advance and not subject to replacement. Theymust have been also older than fifteen. The accident of M[ led an unknown

male person (Alcman?) to diminish the number and establish the twelve-member choruses. It appears as if the Scholiast considers the twelve choreutsas canonical. The numbers ten and eight must have, as it seems, a differentexplanation depending upon the specific occasion of the Partheneion or uponpoetic reasoning. The eta of() is uncertain, looking much like alpha.If cc, it would be surprising to have either a Doric form (()) in anannotatory text, even if about Spartan issues, or a nominative () that iscausing problems of construction. At the opening of line 4 (a) (),though not easily recognizable, is likely.

Reading is extremely difficult after b d N[. The first word ofline 5 does not seem to be fi, and its first letter looks like an omega with

a dash above it. It would be strange if this were a number (800). Muchlikelier is that the Scholiast is speaking about the letter , which is found onlyin the dialectal genitive N instead of the Ionic-Attic N . But Icannot make out anything else. The comment following has to do with thepuzzle of the name-list of lines 70-76, but I am unable to understand thesolution proposed, especially the mention of the first three names, \A


15/24


b : d K. At line 6, I cannot make out the word/sbetween \A and . The best I can guess is (), of- lag behind, be inferior. In that case, the Scholiast would seem to inter-pret Alcmans \A by Astaphis has not been unsuccess-ful and d \ ! by onlyPhil., Dam., and Ianth. are (sc. unsuccessful). That would mean that Asta-phis has passed the audition, so she may join the choir ( ), but therest have not, so they should stay as spectators (d ). The readingis, however, so uncertain that any suggestion is bound to be highlyspeculative. The iota (?) on top of the omicron of 5 , if correctly read, isinscrutable to me.

ad 79 (d) .

(manu 3) pap., quod etiam (d ) significare possit; McNamee (supra n. 5), s.v.

ad 80 .

(manu 3) legit Ts.; alt. angulatum; Page cum schol. praeced. conjungens, Calame

Page connects the scholion with the onead79, (d) , written alsoby A3, but their layout in the margin of the papyrus makes it clear that theyare two distinct scholia. The reading not only assigns an inter-pretation to a hitherto unheard-of grammarian, but also, inexplicably, pre-sents his name in the dative. To remedy this paradox Calame published - (... Hutchinson). I believe I can read , with thesecond written in its old angular form of the cursive, usually employed inabbreviations. A similar alpha was written by A1 in the schol. ad 2, 3, c-A|(), andad70-76, 5, cAc. For , which, in my view,interprets Alcmans 80 , in the sense stands fast or stands herground, does not give way before (Agido), cf. Schol. Ar. Eq. 590 (fromthe antode of the first parabasis: N, m | \ \ ) \ ] , -. b d e . The ar-

rogant choragos maintains stubbornly her position in the controversy withAgido, she is at odds with her.

ad 80 ...

(manu 1) fortasse deleta


16/24

22 K. Tsantsanoglou

Apparently an interpretation of by Scholiast A1, deleted andsubstituted by A3s .

ad 81 [

(manu 1) supplevit Blass

ad 83 e .

(manu 1)

ad 83

(manu 1)

The sign probably refers to the previous scholion.

ad 87 (?)

(manu ?)

Uncertain sign. Since there is no scholionad87 to which it might refer, itmay indicate a change of singer, possibly after . If so, the sign shouldbe attributed to A2.

ad 88 .

(manu 1)

ad 95 ] X[()

(manu 1) .& -[ leg. Ts., ] $ [] \A[ Diels | \A[- Blass, hoc vel \A[ Page; an [] X() ?

is written in Alcmans text in the papyrus with a grave and acircumflex on , probably both accents written by the same hand. This is aconflation of two different accentuations, which become clear in the presentscholion, usually published as & . Diels had already published ]

$ [] \A[, but there isneither trace nor space for thesecond . The longum sign over the second is joined with the circumflex,which covers both and , the second having no diaeresis. This gave theimpression to many scholars, including Page (also LSJ s. ), that thesecond form is a monosyllabic . If so, however, the longum sign would beredundant, and it cannot be claimed that the grammarian was metrically so


17/24


ignorant as to cover a trochaic foot (lk ) with a longum (l). The grammarianwas neither Aristophanes (Blass, Diels) nor Aristarchus (Page), but, if I readwell, Chaeris, an Aristarchean grammarian, whose interests included accentu-ation:13 fr. 5 Berndt ~ -, 7 ~ -fi; add o,Apollonii X fr. 4 Berndt. The first example (fr. 5, from Schol.Hom.Il. 13.103) may have something to do with the Doric accent, since itis related to the accentuation of monosyllables like and (Dor. , ). The two forms must have been $ and . Theformulation of the scholion does not make absolutely clear which of the twoforms was proposed by Chaeris, but the second is likelier. I do not know whythe editors prefer the Aeolic to the Doric .

ad 98 : \ () ,

a a e e5 e b b [] b b (d) s

c e d a [-] (e) fi, e [e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [.]..[ \O......... - - - - - - - - - - - - 3[

10 .

(manu 1) 1 : pap.; accentum dispexit Ts.; edd. || 2 \

legit Ts. || 5 pap. | pap. || 6 legit Ts. || 6 sq. [|

Merkelbach || 7 (e) fi leg. et suppl. Ts. || 8 [][? an ? ||9 \ an ? , \O dub. Ts. || 9 sq. 3[ | omnia in litura || 10 legit Ts., edd.; post nihil erat scriptum

Line 1 consists of the lemma, the dicolon at its start serving as a referencemark. The accent above the second epsilon, slightly effaced but certain,shows that the scribe was interested to distinguish between and , before discussing the second, which he considers Alcmans truereading. This is not the place to discuss the impact of this reading on thepoems interpretation, but it can be claimed in advance that the whole pictureof the occasion, which the Partheneion and its performance are placed in, isconsiderably changed. Line 2, , stresses that the unconventionalnumber of the choreuts is not a fiction invented by Alcman, but a factoccasionally observed. At 6, following c fi, an infinitive dependingon is necessary. I discern faintly but certainly . Campbell publishes

13. R. Berndt, Charetis Chaeridisque fragmenta, Progr. Knigsberg 1902.


18/24

24 K. Tsantsanoglou

(Page, hypothetically), and translates so he says (in praise of) thechorus-leader that etc., which is incomprehensible. would, how-ever, yield perfect sense: therefore he says that the chorus-leader assented tothe singing of ten instead of eleven. Merkelbachs 6-7 is satis-factory. I read or guess at 7 (e) fi, which integrates the sense. 8-9 ] [][f | \O is possible but far fromcertain. From 9 3[ to the end, the text seems to be written upon erasedwords. The reference to a number of choreuts at 10 is , not , as usuallypublished. There is no text after .

ad 98

(manu 1)

Reference mark to the previous scholion.

ad versum quendam carminis sequentis

(manu ?, in columna iv)

Scholia B

(P. Oxy. 2389, frr. 6, 7, 8, 13)

fr. 6 (a)+ (c)+(b)col. i

] K \I,] \Ag - Afi, m ] a e rs, ] K[ e] \Ifi

5 . K] b [ ].[.]...\I]. [d b ]

] \A [ ] -fi] [ \A] - ] b [ ]fi

10 ] e \I[fi K b] f\I] [ r]e ] b [ ] -e q ] \A [ b e ]\I] [ ]-

15 ] [fi .].-


19/24


... ]. d b [ K]E] K[] [ c. 8 ].[

].. [ c. 9 ].[d ] e fi [

desunt 5 vv.25 ]..

]].]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

scholium ad Parthenii vv. 58-59 || 1 Page || 2-5 omnia e.g. suppl. Ts., praeter

3 ] et 4 K[ e] Lobel || 5 ]...: sscr. || 6-10 omnia suppl.Lobel, praeter 8 f. \A] [] Page et ]fi Barrett || 10-13K b et ( Page, spatio longius) suppl. Ts., rell. Barrett postLobel, qui sensum indicavit || 13-14 [ b e ] \I] Lobel || 14-15 [ ([ Lobel) ]| ] Ts.; de ]|, sc.K , v. St.Byz. s. \I et \I; de cf. e.g. St. Byz. s., , || 15-16 [fi Lobel; ]. pap., cum sscr., i.e. in correctum; ] Lobel || 16 [ K] Barrett postLobel; E] K[] Lobel; [Diehl || 19 pap.pc, pap.ac ([]`), e fi [ vel [ Barrett probabiliter; dDiehl || 26 [] sscr. super

Admittedly, much is supplemented exempli gratia. The opening sentence

seems to present a true statement in a logically inverted formulation, but thisis a deceptive impression. The Scholiast is merely following the constructionof the Partheneion ( \I K ). What is inverted isthe demonstrative part of the correlative expression: \Ag Afi for ^Afi \A. The reasonis that the Scholiast intended to describe Hagesichora in a relative clause, sothat her name should necessarily be placed in the last position of the principalclause. The sense of lines 1-5, which has been greatly distorted by Page andother scholars, is now, I believe, clear. At 10 I supplement, perhaps too bold-ly, K , since it is known that it was this grammarian who supportedAlcmans Lydian origin; see test. 1 and cf. 2-9, esp. 7, Campbell. Based

mainly on the parallels from Stephanus Byzantius, both informatory andstylistic, I propose 14-15 ]| ]. In Stephanus, the Ibe-nians are identified with the \I (\I, d \I K-. \Id \ d d , Q d \I ). And \I werea people, supposedly named after Io and tracing their origin from Argos, wholived in the area of the mouth of Orontes, near late Antiocheia (mod. Antakya


20/24

26 K. Tsantsanoglou

in Southern Turkey); cf. St. Byz. \I \Afi a, m \A. e e \I . A confusion of\Iand \Ifi with Gaza (St. Byz. \Ifi , Hdn. Gr.3.1.337.8 L., Eust. Comm. in Dion. Perieg. 92.11) will not occupy us atpresent. The supplement of..]|.. in the Schol. B is obvious, since the area isreally close to Syria. There is no need to connect etymologically \I with\I and certainly not with the Ionians; Page 51, p. 90 n. 1. It is note-worthy that, in the Schol. B, Sosibius appears to disagree with anothergrammarian, probably Crates, who considers the Ibenians an of Lydia.This might mean that Sosibius does not consider the area that is close to Syriaas part of Lydia. Stephanus or his sources combine the two views, considering

the Ibenians an of Lydia and identifying them with a people livingclose to Syria. In any case, even though the southern borders of the Lydiankingdom in the time of Alcman are indeterminate, Alcman nowhere speaks ofa Lydian breed, but may well imply a breed used by the Lydians.

col. iiv \O{ \{ {[

5 c \Ag [ \O[

b .[ - c[ \A- .[

10 [.....[. a [b -, [d {- { c fi \

15 . a [b t, d [ A fi-

d \Ag .[, e [fi [

20 e [a [ -. [.].[


21/24


{} \ { -} {}[.} -

25 r a [e \ - [ fi -, [ - [.] [ a

30 fi [ d [..] [..][

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .scholium ad Parthenii vv. 60-63 || 1-3 Lobel || 6 [ Lobel, [Davison, \O[ Ts. || 7-8 ]| Lobel || 8 / in marg. sin. pap.; [vel [|| 8-9 \A]| Lobel; an modo T ? | | 11 [ (sc.]| \ fi |) dub. Page, ..[ Calame; ambonegat Hutchinson recte || 12-15 Lobel, praeter 13 Ts. ex Ath. 11.490f|| 15 e.g. suppl. Ts. || 16 Lobel || 17 pap.ac, pap.pc; c pap.,corr. Lobel || 18 [ Lobel, an [ b coll. 32?|| 19-20 an e [ coll. 32? || 21 [ Lobel, -[ Hutchinson || 21-22 ]| suppl. Ts. || 24 d b | e.g. Page, | e.g. Ts. || 25 pap.;supra alt. manu scr. ; vide infra; e e.g. Ts., rell. Lobel || 26 -[ pap.ac, [ pap.pc ([ supra scripto); Lobel; solum

| suppl. Lobel, fi | Ts. post Page || 27 e.g.Ts.; scholiasta vehementer errat, quia \ ad e firespondet, non ad fi ; errorem scriba posterior indicavit, quiv. 25 sscr. || 28 [ pap., [ (quod alia supplementa inv. 27 postularet), [, ; [? || 28-29 ]|[]? emenda-tiones tentat scholiasta || 29 a Lobel || 32 [ leg. et suppl. Ts.

Lines 4-22 are too fragmentary, but seem to discuss the sense of-, whether Pleiads or pigeons. The mention of \A]| at 8-9 ismysterious, but I strongly doubt that it may refer to women of Atarneus, theLydian-Mysian town in Asia Minor opposite Lesbos. The same ethnicon, inthe singular \A, appears in Alcmans gravely mutilated fr. 10 (a) 15

= test. 9 Campbell. One might conjecture that the word is a poetic adjectivefor Sardian, since, according to the Homeric Scholia, the Lydian cityT, mentioned in the Iliad5.44, is . Plin.HN5.110 mentions Tarne as a river fountain on Tmolus, on whose slopes Sardiswas situated. For the initial alpha see Steph. Byz. s. \Afi: \A fi d T O n T . Yet, line


22/24

28 K. Tsantsanoglou

9 may well be read T . In fr. 10 (a) the discussion is actually about theplace of Alcmans origin, whether Sparta or Sardis. Concerning the first,Alcmans reference to nightingales he heard by the stream of Eurotas (6 ff.)and its rich pastures ([, rather than best-governed) is adducedas evidence for his Laconic origin. Then comes 15 \A possibly in aquotation presented as evidence for the Lydian origin. I would supplement14 ff.

-] a [ ]

15 \A\ [ \. ] a [ ]

a []\A, n [

14 ]| suppl. Ts. (dorice - debebat); a [ suppl. Ts. || 15suppl. Ts., - [ Page || 16 [ suppl. Page; num supplendum ?; suppl. Ts. || 17 [ suppl. Ts. ||\A, n (vel [) Ts.,\A Page

... to inquire the path to the ever-flowing Atarnian fountain. Yet, it isimpossible to propose with any confidence what (\A) qualified inSchol. B. Just speculatively, I should guess that, if in 10 (a) \A or stands in contraposition with E , the plural

(\A), in a passage where the question is about the meaning of -, might qualify Sardian doves. Only that, if this is true, this referenceto doves would not imply initiation into poetry as with the Eurotan nightin-gales. Doves are not poetic birds, and Herodotus, 2.57, attests that thereference to their chirping was employed for speaking barbarian, thereforeunintelligibly. They are, however, erotic birds, and Alcman, J e c (Suda, Alcm. test. 1 Campbell).Would it be too extravagant to suppose that the reference to the two birds inthe discussion about Alcmans origin may allude to the barbarophone eroticpoet who turned into a Greek lyric poet?

The dubiously proposed supplements at 16 ff. ( ^Afi]| d

\Ag .[ +15 ]|, e [ b] | fi[ c. 15 ] | e [), admittedly extremely speculative,depend on the reading 32 [ and on the assumption that T. G.Rosenmeyers remarks (GRBS 7, 1966, 321-359, esp. 343 and n. 81), thatSirius had ominous and uncomplimentary connotations, were anticipated bythe Schol. B.


23/24


fr. 7 (a)+13col. iii

. . . . . . .].[

] - \ \I} \ fi -[ a ] Afi-

5 [ fi ] [. . . . . . .

fort. columnae iii vv. 15 sqq.: Fr. 7 (a) col. i + (b) no doubt formed part of thecolumn following fr. 6 (c) col. ii. I believe that (a) may be located opposite fr. 6 ii 15[per errorem, 25 impressum] seqq. (c) is shown by the vertical fibres to have been in

the same column as fr. 7 (a) col. ii. I am fairly confident that it stood above this,possibly opposite fr. 6 ii 7 seqq., though at such an interval identification of the cross-fibres can be no more than a speculation Lobel || scholium ad Parthenii vv. 73-77|| e.g. suppl. Ts. || 3-4 |[ Lobel

It was not noticed that the Scholiast refers to the well-known rhetoricalfigure \ fi; Hermog.Id. 1.11.250, al. In other words, the visit toAenesimbrotas and the request for other girls to take part in the chorusnever took place, but was also never supposed to take place; it wasmentioned hypothetically by the poet only for emphasizing the efficiency ofthe existing chorus. 4-5 are supplemented exempli gratia. For the supplement[, though highly speculative, cf. Hsch. 959 ... b c

j ... quoted above on Scholia A, ad 70-76, and thediscussion made there. See also the next item.

Fr. 7 (b). . . . . . .

].[] .[

a ]a [ {\ A-fi} {}{

5 ]. \ A{fi . a} A{fi \

] c [ fi] Afi, \ [d -

a [ Afi 10 ] [

] [][ a ^Afi- } {


24/24

30 The Scholia on AlcmansPartheneion

fort. columnae iii vv. 21 vel 22 sqq. || scholium ad Parthenii vv. 75-79 || 2 dub.suppl. Lobel || 3-6 Lobel | 6 versus in ecthesi ut lemma scriptus || 7-11sensum intellexit Lobel || 7 ]et [ Page post Lobel; fi Ts.post Barrett , a dub. Page || 8 a [ |dub. Page, \ [d | Ts. | | 9 [.].[ legit Lobel, [] [Afi suppl. Page, [] [ A. Barrett, negavit Hutchinson; at potiusnon sed c legendum est, cum linea recta scriptum (vide 8 ]C), tum [ A-fi vel , vel []e [ Afi || 10-11 suppl.Page post Lobel || 12 ] [][ Lobel; a fi ^Afi| pergitPage

Fr. 7 (c)col. iv

. .[.[[[. .

fort. columnae iv vv. 6-9

(a). .

c[.[

.[. .

columnae iv fort. vv. 15-17 || 1 an c[? || 2 versus in ecthesi ut lemma scriptus,quamquam in Parthenio superstiti non invenitur

fr. 8. .]..[

]t , [

. . . .fort. scholium paraphrasticum ad Parthenii vv. 80-83 || e.g. ][ d a . ,] t , [ a a .

Thessaloniki K. TSANTSANOGLOU

partheneionscholia media.ems.g ekdoseis ellinika ellinika 56 tsantsanoglou 1

Documents