CAPONIGRO, MARK STEPHEN, Five Men and Ten Ships: A Riddle in Athenaeus , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 25:3 (1984) p.285 Five Men and Ten Ships: A Riddle in Athenaeus Mark Stephen Caponigro F OR THE FOLLOWING RIDDLE we find no certain solution in a?ci~nt sources, and the few modern guesses are not con­ vmcmg: 7TEVT' avBpE~ BEKa vavO"i KaTEBpaJ,Wv el~ Eva XWPOV" • ~'\ '() ., \ '() ~ , • l' • \' () EV uE ",L OL~ E/-UXXOVTO, ",L OV u OVK TlV aVE",EO" aL" ~ ',I, ~,. i:: ' \ \ .,~ ~,." , uL'P'YI u E",W",,,,VVTO, vuwp u V7TEPELXE 'YEVELOV. Five men with ten ships came to land at one place; they did battle amidst stones, but no stone could be lifted; for thirst they perished, but the water rose over the chin. The riddle is found in Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae (457B); in the anonymous scholia to Hermogenes' Peri ideon (VII.2 949f Walz); then in two composite codices, Paris.gr.suppl. 690 (s. XI-XII) 1 and Laurent.Plut. 32.16.2 Finally, the second line of the riddle appears in Plutarch's Quaestiones conviviales (6600-E). It is surprising that Athenaeus, who gives adequate explanation for most of the 'YptcPoL and sympotic puzzles that are assembled in his 1 For the reference to C. Dilthey's edition, and H. Diels' use of the interpretation found therein, see Diels, "Die Lasung eines Ratsels bei Athenaeus," BBG 54 (1918) 29. 2 The riddle is found on f.380 v of this famous codex. The ff.361 r-39P are written in the hand of Manuel-Maximus Planudes; c/ Alexander Turyn, Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of Italy I (Urbana/Chicago/ London 1972) 31. There are readings at variance with the Athenaean text: line 1, II'T/vui KurTjAv8011 Laur.; 3, YEIIEWII Laur. These probably do not affect the meaning in any real way. The Laurentian text was published twice, first by Nicholas Sava Piccolos, Supplement a I'Anthologie grecque (Paris 1853) 192, then by Robert Hercher, Hermes 2 (1863) 224. Edouard Cougny incorporated Piccolos' reading into his own supplement to the Anthology, Anthologia Graeca III (Paris 1890) 7.31. Piccolos, who was relying on the intervening copy of his correspondent in Florence, Francesco del Furia, had in­ correctly printed YEIlEta; and Georg Kaibel, in his edition of Athenaeus (Leipzig 1887), incorrectly printed this as the reading of an independent source, believing that Piccolos had seen the riddle in some Parisian codex. Without actually seeing the Laurentian codex, we can safely prefer Hercher's text to Piccolos' for three reasons: first, the intervention of a copy between codex and published text allowed an opportunity for corruption; second, since the word seems to denote really five chins, a change from an original singular to a plural form would be easier than the reverse; third, Hercher's reading is closer to that of the Athenaean text. 285 CAPONIGRO, MARK STEPHEN, Five Men and Ten Ships: A Riddle in Athenaeus , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 25:3 (1984) p.285 286 FIVE MEN AND TEN SHIPS tenth book, gives not a clue to what lies behind our riddle, prefacing it only with the epithet 71'EPu/JEpOfJ,EVov, 'well known', 'celebrated'.3 The few philologists who felt the lack of a solution so keenly as to be moved to suggest solutions of their own have in fact not suggested anything altogether satisfying. It is the purpose of this paper to show that a more substantial advance along this little-visited frontier of classical scholarship may be possible. We may begin by reviewing the earlier efforts to solve our riddle.4 The would-be solvers can be divided into two groups, those who take 'men' and 'ships' strictly to indicate men and ships (the literalist approach), and those who do not. The numbers five and ten ought to declare at once that the riddle is not really about men and ships in those impossibly related quantities. The first group of solvers did not think so, however, and devised two strategies for dealing with the number problem. Dalechamp's strategy was to understand five ad­ mirals ("classis praefecti") on ships that had besides their normal complement of sailors.5 The scene he supposed was of two fleets joining battle, slinging stones at each other with catapults, stones which naturally could not be picked up at sea~ and the marines, toiling in the strife, must endure both an awful thirst and the rising of the sea-water over their sinking ships. But if KaTESpaJ-Wv must mean something like 'came to land' (c! LSJ s. v. KaTaTpEXw 1.2, 'run to land', 'disembark'), and if xwpov only denotes a place on dry land, not a vague location on the surface of the sea, then the idea of a naval battle is not defensible. As for the numbers of craft and per­ sonnel involved, five "classis praefecti" seem rather more than we might expect to find in a single action, and ten ships fewer. Otto Probst accepted Dalechamp's basic scenario, the naval battle and its aftermath, but found in it a further hidden meaning.6 The riddle, he thought, was Athenaeus' second example of a kind of verse that puns or plays with a proper name, as does the trimeter that 3 Nor is the larger context helpful. The riddle comes fifth and last in a series of explanation-begging verses starting at 456c, where an epigram of Simonides is called 'Ypu/lWf>Tj, "enigmatic in character" (c. B. Gulick in the Loeb). What the distinctive quality of this series might be is not easy to determine. 4 Two aenigmatologists who included the riddle in their studies but did not attempt to solve it may be mentioned here: J. B. Friedrich, Geschichte des Rathsels (Dresden 1860) 185f no. 72, and Wolfgang Schultz, Mylhologische Bibliothek III Ralsel aus dem hellenischen Kulturkreise (Leipzig 1910) 28 no. 10. Evidently they did not find any of their predecessors' solutions persuasive, for they endorsed none. 5 J. Dalechamp, Athenaei Naucratitis Deipnosophistarum libri quindecim (Leiden 1583) 341, also quoted by Johannes Schweigh1iuser, Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophis­ (as V (Strasbourg 1804) 594. 6 BBG 53 (1917) 294f. CAPONIGRO, MARK STEPHEN, Five Men and Ten Ships: A Riddle in Athenaeus , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 25:3 (1984) p.285 MARK STEPHEN CAPONIGRO 287 just precedes it.7 The name in this case is Tantalus, and Probst dis­ covered an allusion to that name in each of the riddle's three lines. He paraphrased the first line, T(O(,) aVT(a) clAWt, 'the seamen at odds'~ the second, TavTaAovut, 'swing (and sling) stones', an enig­ matic reference to one of the traditional punishments of Tantalus, the impending rock (el Pind. 01. 1.57f); the third, TaVTaAOt, no doubt because all in the company of ship-wrecked sailors are forced to play the rOle of Tantalus suffering his other traditional punishment, thirst (and hunger) that cannot be satisfied by abundance at hand (cf Od. 11.582-92). This interpretation, strained at every point, has little to recommend it. Not the least of its difficulties is Probst's frank denial that the numbers five and ten have any real significance. The other literalist strategy is to reverse the numbers: ten men and five ships. It was first proposed by Hermann Hagen,8 then accepted by Konrad Ohlert9 and Hermann Diels.10 But it may be doubted whether, in Greek riddles at least, numerical quantities and their relations are ever made the locus of deception, as such a perverse reading would require. l1 In any case an ancient ship, certainly an ancient warship, would not likely have gotten along much better with a crew of two than with a crew of one-half. Diels' suggestion seems to have received 7 That connexion is not strictly impossible; but see supra n.3. 8 Antike und mil1elalterliche Riithselpoesie (Biel 1869) 17. 9 Riitsel und Gesellscha/tspiele der alten Griechen (Berlin 1886) 88f. 10 Supra n.l. 11 The tendency in Greek riddles is to secure the quantity of a particular element as reliable, even though the value of the element is itself doubtful. Thus Cougny (supra n.2) 7.23: KOVpTJ 'IKapww 7TEpi4>pwv IITJvEi..o7TELa, Eg 7TOO'tV Ef.L{3E{3aVW. Tp,8cXKTVi..O<; EgE4>aav(JTJ. The second line describes, not a pseudo-Homeric monster, but the first line itself, an hexameter of which three feet are dactyls. Another example is the most famous of all Greek riddles, that of the Sphinx (Anth.Pal. 14.64): EO'Tt 8i7TOVV Err, yij<; Kat TETpa7TOII, oil f.Lia cPwllT" Kat Tpi7TOII ... Here again there is no confusion over the numbers them­ selves. And in general we might observe that there is little amusement or satisfaction in a solution which depends on the shuftling around of indeclinable adjectives; it even seems unfair, if word order, all that determines the agreement of such adjectives, is no longer to be trusted. A much better game with uncertain forms of words, because the possibilities are not out of control, is afforded by A nth. Pal. 14.18: "EKTopa Trw Ilpwf.LOV aWf.LT,8TJ<; EKTaVEII allTjp ALa<; 7TPO TpwWV, aAAOTE J.UWTEpTJ. (J ' " , , (J' " , 71'ap EVOr; Et.1-« '}'VVTJ, Kat. 71'ap EVOV Et.1-« '}'Vvat.KOr;, , , ", (J' .,. , Kat. KaT ETOr; TtKTW 71'ap EVOr; ovua '}'VVTJ. The answer to 41 is Day following Night (or vice versa)~ to 42, the date-palm. Even less can be taken literally in these than in 14.5. On the other hand, in 14.19, though only one word, VATJr;, and perhaps another, yatTJr;, require reinterpretation, yet the picture that the solu­ tion suggests is quite different from that produced by the unsolved text itself: E1'80V EYW 71'OTE (J1jpa ~t.' VATJr; T/.LTJTOUt.~r,pov ., • (J" , ~, ,d , V1TTWV op a TpEXOVTa, 71'out.v u OVX TJ71'TETO yat.TJr;. The answer is a louse. The second group of solvers is less numerous, but includes the great names of Joseph Scaliger and Isaac Casaubon.12 Scaliger thought 12 For the interpretations of Scaliger and Casaubon, see Schweighiiuser (supra n.5). CAPONIGRO, MARK STEPHEN, Five Men and Ten Ships: A Riddle in Athenaeus , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 25:3 (1984) p.285 MARK STEPHEN CAPONIGRO 289 the five men were boxers and the ten ships were their fists; they boxed on a paved floor where the paving stones could not be lifted; the water over the chin was their sweat. But the odd number of boxers is inept, since boxing matches as a rule require boxers in pairs. So Casaubon changed the event to running; the number of runners may be either odd or even, and their 'ships', their vehicles of transportation, are their shoes. However, 'did battle' is not so good for a contest of runners as of boxers. Also, the Panathenaic vases normally show runners without footwear; and the running surface of the ancient stadium was not usually paved. The imagination of Scaliger and Casaubon was more liberated than that of the literalists. But the solutions of both groups share an un­ desirable feature. They are arbitrarily complicated, drawing on situa­ tions either known to very few or altogether surreal, such as no respectable mind with a standard fund of knowledge could be ex­ pected to recall. Dalechamp's answer is, not just a sea-battle in­ volving catapults and wrecks, but one in which ten ships took part, commanded by five admirals. Where do those numbers come from? Casaubon's answer is, not just a footrace, but one in which the run­ ners wore shoes and ran on a pavement. Where do we know of that peculiar athletic custom? Such solutions are fabricated, not guessed. We may contrast with this indulgence in over-complication the two epigrams attributed to Simonides at Athenaeus 456c-E. To be sure, these cannot be understood without knowledge of a kind hard to come by, in each case some peculiar experience of the poet. But they were addressed to people who were surely well acquainted with that experience, if not also actually sharing it; and the purpose of the enigmatic diction is to give an effect of learning and elegance, not to puzzle. Worse was the riddle of Samson at Judges 14.l4: Out of the eater came something to eat. Out of the strong came something sweet. It was inspired by the rare sight of a lion's carcass sheltering a hive of bees, honey-combs and all, and of course it flummoxed Samson's Philistine in-laws. But that was the point. We should assume that our riddle was neither designed as a weapon, nor intended for intimates only, but an amusing diversion in which many could share. Even if we-or the ancient banqueters-might figure out, step by step, an answer such as Dalechamp or Casaubon gave, where would be the fun in arriving at anything so improbable? With a good riddle, as with certain detective stories, once we have got the answer it should appear obvious, at least in retrospect. CAPONIGRO, MARK STEPHEN, Five Men and Ten Ships: A Riddle in Athenaeus , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 25:3 (1984) p.285 290 FIVE MEN AND TEN SHIPS Scaliger and Casaubon showed very good sense when they saw that ten is twice five, and knew that that must mean something. Hence in their solutions, the 'ships' stand for things that men naturally have in pairs. There is in fact another riddle, A nth. Pal. 14.14, comparable to ours inasmuch as it has in it ships and numbers in significant relations: '" w ~,......, , ~, ,..., E('~ aJlE/-W~' uVO Jl71E~' EPETTOVU('JI uEKa JlaVTa(.· Ei~ BE KVf3EPJI";'T71~ afJ4>oTEpa~ eAaE('. The answer is the aVAo~ or double flute. The flautist is the pilot of both flutes at once, his breath is the wind, his fingers the rowers. It shows that when a riddle speaks of ships, there is no need to put ships into the solution as well; but when it gives specific numbers of things, that is not done merely for convenience. The solution that I should now like to propose for the 1rEJlT' aJlBpE~ riddle is enough like the double flute solution, as well as like the simple, down-to-earth answers to many of the riddles in A nth. Pal. XIV, that I am encour­ aged to think it may be right.13 It goes like this. The five men in ten ships are five nuts just re­ leased from their shells. These must be of a kind that, when opened, do not need to be shattered but can be split without difficulty into two symmetrical halves. So there are five kernels of nuts, and ten half-shells, exactly the sort of natural arrangement that the riddle's numbers require. Hazelnuts and chestnuts do not have shells of this kind; but almonds (Prunus amygdalus) and pistachios (Pistacia vera) do, and both are cultivated in the eastern Mediterranean region. The resemblance of the half-shells of nuts to the hulls of ships, as well as their buoyant nature, was observed by Lucian; in his True History (2.37f) we read of the KapVOJlaVTal., 'Nut-sailors', whose ves­ sels are KEAvc/Yr1 KapVWJI -r,J,Ji,TOf.Ul KEKEJlW~Jla. The half-shells of pista­ chios remain more even around the edge after splitting than those of almonds, and so would make finer ships. But they are rounder too, suggesting merchantmen rather than men-of-war. Therefore the nut that is here intended is more likely the longer and flatter almond. 13 In "Michael Psellus and the Date of the Palatine Anthology," GRBS 11 (1970) 347f, Alan Cameron compared the two ship riddles, and showed that they very prob­ ably stood together in a source common to the riddle collection in Laurentianus 32.16 and the riddle section in A nth. Pal. XIV. The compiler of the former collection (Planu­ des) took one, the compiler of the latter took the other of the pair from that source. We can see at a number of places in A nth. Pal. XIV that riddles have been juxtaposed, sometimes because their solution is the same, but sometimes also because the texts of the riddles have something in common: so 27 and 28 both make references to the sea; 60 speaks of wood as mother, 61 of a tree. The two riddles about ships, sailors, and numbers have indeed more in common than most of these other partners. CAPONIGRO, MARK STEPHEN, Five Men and Ten Ships: A Riddle in Athenaeus , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 25:3 (1984) p.285 MARK STEPHEN CAPONIGRO 291 Moreover, Athenaeus' lengthy discussion of the almond, beginning at 52c, would imply that that was the nut of choice at the Greek banquet table. Hermippus, whose hexameter catalogue of the prod­ ucts of various cities is given in Athenaeus' first book (27E-28A), praises the almond with Homeric exaltation: \ t' \ ... \ D~'" I \. I ~ _. I Ta~ OE LUO~ I-"-'-I\.avovc; Kat, a/LlJ'}'ouA.a