Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

American Journal of Philology 133 (2012) 543–572 © 2012 by The Johns Hopkins Un

American Journal of Philology 133 (2012) 543–572 © 2012 by The Johns Hopkins University Press SHOWING PRAISE IN GREEK CHORAL LYRIC AND BEYOND ALEXANDER NIKOLAEV u For Gregory Nagy on his seventieth birthday Abstract. In this article I examine several passages in Greek choral lyric where the verb δείκνυμι is construed with a direct object meaning “song” or “hymn” and show that this usage ﬁnds an exact parallel in the Rigveda, where the cognate root dis;- is likewise employed with “song (of praise)” as its object. Greek δεῖξαι ὕμνον, μέλος, etc., “to show forth song (of praise),” is thus argued to be an archaism of the melic poetry that goes back to the Indo-European poetic language. The use of Latin dı\co\ of reciting verse (dı\cere carmen) or singing praise (dı\cere laude\s) in Augustan poets may continue the same inherited phraseology. Finally, based on these results I argue that the long problematic epithet ἀριδείκετος contains the root of δείκνυμι (and not of δέκομαι) and should be interpreted as “famous, well worth singing of, well worth praising (in song).” 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE is to offer an interpretation for several poorly understood passages in Greek choral lyric by examining them in the comparative context of Indo-European poetics. This is rarely done for lyric poetry (as opposed to archaic epic), simply because these texts are not as old, but this method is a priori worthwhile: according to a widely held belief, the traditions of Greek lyric preserve metrical structures of higher antiquity than the epic hexameter1 and one would therefore expect to ﬁnd comparable poetic archaisms in these traditions. In fact, as this article will seek to show, there are still cases in the study of Greek literature where Karl Lehrs’ sixth commandment for classi- cal philologists, “thou shalt not grab around for Sanskrit roots,” can be violated with proﬁt.2 The crux in question is a peculiar use of the verb δείκνυμι “to show,” found in the following passages. 1 See, e.g., Nagy 1974; Berg 1978. 2 Lehrs 1902: “Du sollst nicht Sanskritwurzeln klauben.” 544 ALEXANDER NIKOLAEV 3 Transmitted via Ath. 13.601a, where cod. A has τοῦθ’ ἁδειᾶν Μουσᾶν ἔδειξε; the word order adopted in modern editions was ﬁrst suggested by Wilamowitz who sought to eliminate a sequence of six heavy syllables and restore a catalectic iambic trimeter. 4 Loeb translations have been used here and below, where available. Otherwise, translators are noted. 5 Cf. Archil. 1.2: καὶ Μουσέων ἐρατὸν δῶρον ἐπιστάμενος (“and skilled in the lovely gift of the Muses”); Hes. Th. 103: ταχέως δὲ παρέτραπε δῶρα θεάων (“for quickly the gifts of the goddesses have turned it (scil. κήδεα) aside”); Sol. 13.51 West: ἄλλος Ὀλυμπιάδων Μουσέων πάρα δῶρα διδαχθείς (“and another man is taught the gifts of the Olympian Muses”) etc.; see Nünlist 1998, 327. It should be noted, however, that to my knowledge we do not ﬁnd “the gift of the Muses” used of a song composed or performed. 6 An unlikely interpretation on the fragment is offered by Ritoók 1983, 37, according to whom Megalostrata played the role of the poet’s personal muse and as such contributed to his creative process. 7 E.g., Aloni 1994, 88, n. 120 (trans.: “insegnò”). For this use of δείκνυμι, cf. h. Cer. 475–77, δεῖξε . . . δρησμοσύνην θ’ ἱερῶν καὶ ἐπέφραδεν ὄργια πᾶσι (“showed them her ritual service and taught her mysteries to all”). On the pedagogical function of chore\gos and/or the poet, see Calame 2001, 221–44. 8 E.g., Marzullo 1964, who argues that Alcman speciﬁcally refers to Megalostrata as an “esecutrice” and not as a fellow poet (followed by Janni 1965, 110, n. 38). 9 Either Archytas of Tarentum, the famous Pythagorean philosopher, or Archytas of Mytilene, a musician known from D. S. 8.83. 1.1. Alcman 59 (b) 3 Davies (= 149 Calame): τοῦτο αδειᾶν ἔδειξε Μωσᾶν δῶρον μάκαιρα παρσένων ἁ ξανθὰ Μεγαλοστράτα3 The yellow haired Megalostrata, blessed among girls, ἔδειξε (Campbell: displayed) this gift of the sweet Muses4 Megalostrata, only known from this fragment, was in all likelihood the chore\gos in a partheneion from which these verses are quoted by Ath- enaeus (13.601a). Since the expression δῶρον Μωσᾶν is a usual kenning for “music,” “song,” or “poetry,”5 we have to ask ourselves what exactly ἔδειξε Μωσᾶν δῶρον means in the present context.6 One possibility would be to interpret these lines as reﬂecting the pedagogical function of the lyric chorus: Megalostrata could be both leading the procession and instructing the younger members of the chorus, such that she could “show” or “reveal” to the choreuts the gift of the Muses.7 Another way to understand the fragment would be to assume that the verb δείκνυμι was chosen in order to emphasize Megalostrata’s role as a performer or presenter, different from that of the poet.8 But Archytas9, the source of 545 SHOWING PRAISE IN GREEK CHORAL LYRIC 10 Fr. 25 Wehrli: Athenaeus quotes (or paraphrases) Archytas from Chamaeleon’s biography of Alcman (ὥς φησι Χαμαιλέων). The peripatetic Chamaeleon seems to have had a keen interest in anecdotes about the poets’ private lives, and there are reasons to believe that in his writings he invented some of the biographical details based on his analysis of the poets’ own work; see Podlecki 1969, 120–24; Momigliano 1971, 80. 11 Ἔρως με δηὖτε Κύπριδος έκατι / γλυκὺς κατείβων καρδίαν ἰαίνει (“at the command of the Cyprian, Eros once again pours sweetly down and warms my heart,” Janni 1965, 107–10). 12 For arguments against Calame’s emendation, see Davies 1986 and Maehler 1997, 317, n. 1. Athenaeus for this passage, explicitly says that Megalostrata was a poet (and apparently an excellent conversationalist, namely, a master of the spoken word) (13.600f): Λέγει δὲ καὶ ὡς τῆς Μεγαλοστράτης οὐ μετρίως ἐρασθείς ποιητρίας μὲν οὔσης, δυναμένης δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν ὁμιλίαν τοὺς ἐραστὰς προσελκύσασθαι He also says that he ( = Alcman) fell in passionate love with Megalostrata who was a poetess capable of attracting lovers by her conversation It is not immediately clear how much trust we should vest in this testimony. On the one hand, the idea of Alcman’s fatal attraction to Megalostrata is almost certainly either Archytas’ or Chamaeleon’s10 own invention based on a misinterpretation of Alcm. 59 (a) Davies (= 148 Calame) as a statement of personal involvement on the part of the poet himself.11 But on the other hand, it is far from clear why in the ﬁrst place Archytas would need to fabricate a story that Megalostrata, one of Alcman’s many lovers according to his presentation, was a poet. The possibility thus remains open that Megalostrata was described by Alcman as a fellow poet who performed together with the chorus (Sap- pho comes to mind). But even if ἔδειξε Μωσᾶν δῶρον should refer to her performance (and not composition) of poetry and music, this would still be a highly peculiar use of the verb δείκνυμι; and yet, there are parallels, including in Alcman himself. 1.2. Alcman 4 fr. 1.4–8 Davies (= 57 Calame): σαυ]μαστὰ δ’ ἀνθ[ γαρύματα μαλσακὰ˘ [ νεόχμ’ ἔδειξαν τερπ˘[ ποικίλα φ.[.]ρ ˘ α˘[.].αι·[ θαυ]μαστὰ Lobel, σαυ]μαστὰ Page; ἀνθ[ρώποις dub. Lobel, Calame ἔδιξαν P. Οxy 2388 fr.1 : ἔδειξαν Lobel : ἐδίδαξαν Calame12 546 ALEXANDER NIKOLAEV 13 LSJ cites Aesch. Eum. 569 as the prima facie evidence for the meaning “sound,” but γήρυμα might here just as well be translated “song (of the trumpet)”: (Τυρσηνικὴ | σάλπιγξ . . . ὑπέρτονον γήρυμα φαινέτω στρατῷ (“Let the Tyrrhenian trumpet send forth its loud song to the crowd!”). Likewise, in Eur. fr. 627 Kannicht, “(oracular) verses” is the most likely meaning (εἰσὶ<ν> γὰρ εἰσὶ διφθέραι μελαγγραφεῖς | πολλῶν γέμουσαι Λοξίου γηρυμάτων). 14 It has been argued that the missing subject of ἔδειξαν are Alcman’s precedessors, certain πρῶτοι εὑρεταί, and the verb means “revealed” (in the sense of διδάσκω, see above, n. 7); see Davies 1986; Segal 1985, 185; Bagordo 2000, 194. This idea is based on a restoration of Terpander’s name in line 6 (τερπ˘[), ﬁrst proposed by Lobel 1957, 23, in the editio prima and later approved by Treu 1964, 120; indeed, Terpander was credited with the invention of the barbitos, the citharoedic nomos and with many other musical innovations. The plural ἔδειξαν would seem to require a mention of at least one other famous citharode likewise qualiﬁable as a πρῶτος εὑρετής and there is no shortage of possible candidates, for instance, Thaletas or Xenodamus (the ﬁrst to compose paeans and hyporchemata, [Plut.] De mus. 1134b–c), Clonas or Polymnestos (the inventors of the aulodic nomos, [Plut.] De mus. 1132c–d), or Xenocritus (the inventor of the “Locrian” mode, sch. Pi. Ol. 10 Drachmann). Yet, two reasons render Lobel’s restoration (and with it Davies’ ingenious argument) unlikely: ﬁrst, assuming the meter of the verse is iambic (νεόχμ’ ἔδειξαν τερπ˘[), the syllable following τερπ˘[ must have been light (which is why Lobel’s Τέρπ[ανδρος was declined in PMG); note that the metrical structure of the remainder of this long verse, which under Lobel–Davies’ theory must have mentioned a second poet’s name, remains wholly unclear (even though some hypothetical uploads/Litterature/ showing-praise-in-greek-choral-lyric-and-beyond.pdf