On the Text of ps.-Oppian, "Cynegetica" Giangrande, Giuseppe Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1972; 13, 4; ProQuest pg. 489 On the Text of ps.-Oppian, Cynegetica Giuseppe Giangrande I N the following pages I shall explain certain passages of the Cyne­ getica which so far have not been understood. For the sake of brevity I expect the reader to have read Schmitt's monographl before proceeding to this discussion. I 26f. AEt!f;O!-'EV, wc KE>.ia£ 'Td: cd: f3&'EW. vUK'TEpa 8vcOAa' S'YJO&K£C a!-'cpExopEvca (8)vwvatt,p ..:1 £ovUct,p. The reading 'Td: cd: f3&'EW is the opposite of 'unverstandlich', as the commentators so far have believed.2 The sense is: HI shall leave Bacchus' nocturnal rites (AEup0!-'EV VVK'TEpa Ovc8Aa) because you are ordering me to sing (wc KE>.ia£ f3&'EtV) things which are of concern to you (Ta c&)." For AEUP0!-'EV= 'omit to sing' cf e.g. Cyn 2.586, 605; for f3&'EW as used here cf Kaibe1, Epigrammata Graeca 587.5, already quoted by Boudreaux in his apparatus; KIAo!-'a£ governs here an infini­ tive (f3&'EtV) as usual in Homer;3 the phrase 'Ta ca f3&'E£V corresponds to 'Td: S' EV cppEd cfjet !-'Evowifc ••• MgO!-'EV in lines 22f: both phrases refer to the order given by the goddess in lines 20f. 129 <:' \'0 ' , B \ \ "<:' !-''YJOE !-,O OVC !-'EP07T'WV. !-''YJ !-'o£ P0'TOI\O£YOV aE£OT/C The reading !-'~ aElST/c commands acceptance for two reasons. First of all, the employment of prohibitive !-'~ with the second person singular of the present subjunctive is a Homeric rarity;4 the reproduc­ tion of Homeric rarities was cultivated by late epic poets 5 no less sedu­ lously than by their Hellenistic colleagues. Secondly, the construction under discussion, blamed by grammarians ancient and modern as a 1 W. Schmitt, Kommentar zum ersten Buch von Pseudo-Oppians Kynegetika (diss. MUnster 1969), hereafter cited as SCHMITT (cf. my review, CR N.S. 22 [1972J). 2 Cf. Schmitt ad loc. a Cf C. Capelle, Vollstandiges Worterbuch . .. des Homeros 9 (Leipzig 1889) S.v. KlAop.cu "mit blossem Infinitiv," and cf e.g. Cyn. 1.134. 4 Cf. H. Ebeling, Lexicon Homericum I (Leipzig 1885) S.v. p.~ VII.2 (c), p.1088, quoting Od. 18.10, a rarity ignored by D. B. Monro, Grammar of the Homeric DialectS (Oxford 1891) 255. 5 Cf e.g. W. Weinberger, Quaestiones de Orphei quae feruntur Argonauticis (Vienna 1891) 259; F. Vian, Recherches sur les Posthomerica de Quintus de Smyrne (Paris 1959) 201 Craretes homeriques"). 489 490 ON THE TEXT OF PS.-OPPIAN, CYNEGETICA 'solecism', is in fact well attested in late poetry (e.g. Eratosth. 35.8f Powell, Anth.Pal. 12.16.1: cf. Steph. TG£3 ed. Hase-Dindorf s.v. p.1j, V.953D). Since ps.-Oppian is known to have indulged in syntactical solecisms (cf. R. Keydell, RE 18 [1939] 707.1-10 S.V. OPPIANOS 2), there is no reason why we should eliminate p.~ aEl8'l1C here, seeing that the solecism in question, far from being 'unsicher' (so Schmitt ad loc.), is shared by him with other late poets. It could in fact well be that both the reasons indicated by me are not mutually exclusive, in the sense that ps.-Oppian deliberately used the construction under discussion as a 'solecism' which was justified in Epic upon Homer's authority.s 189 The variant gXn'rc/JV'rwv is genuine, whereas CPOpl.o£EV, which Schmitt, Mair and others prefer, has not a leg to stand on. It is easy to explain CPOplOt.EV as a syntactical trivialization prompted by the desire to assimilate to the contiguous optatives (tot.EV, E""'Kpa.8&mEV, etc.) the im­ perative CPO£'T~V'Twv(used by the ps.-Oppian in variation with the opta­ tives in question, just as he used the imperative €C'TWV in line 81),7 whereas it would be difficult to explain why anyone should have re­ placed cpoplO£EV by an imperative, if CPOplOt.EV were what the poet had originally written. CPOt.'T~V'TWV is not only supported by the usus auc­ tons as I have illustrated, but also stylistically difficilior, therefore potior. CPO'T~V'TWV is used here by the poet "of young men strutting about to show their persons" (cf. Eur. fr.282.11, quoted in LSJ S.v. cpo,mt.w 1.1), and 8lp.ac is internal accusativeS governed by KEpaCCa,P.EVO£, whereas the construction 8lp.a.c cpoplO£EV is in itself common and here, therefore, a banalization. Once and for all I wish to point out that trivialization is known to have often affected ps.-Oppian's text (if. e.g. Schmitt p.54); as for the line under discussion, the diaskeuast utilized Cyn. 1.200 or 2.107 for his trivialization CPOplOt.EV. I 104 ,\ Q' Q.... \ \ I:' " '1Jxr1 'Tpt.t'0P.EVWV CTt.t'apot.c V1TO 1TOCCt. 1TEO/.l\WV The variant N/TTapotc, preferred by Schmitt and Mair, is an evident • For such cases in late epic, cf. E. Oldenburger, De oraculorum Sibyllinorum docutione (Rostock 1903) 16f. ? Cf also Cyn. 1.393-401: ,uMc8w ••• E'7r'p1cyff.O ••• 1Cff."aCff.,ac ••• Tff.ICP..qpfUJI'T'O ••• '7rff.Mc8w. The usus auctcris shows that ps.-Oppian liked to mix imperatives with optatives. 8 This type of accusative was usitatissimus by the Oppiani: cf. O. Schmidt, De elocutione Oppiani Apameensis (Jena 1866) 47, and e.g. Cyn. 1.295,3.185,4.26. GIUSEPPE GIANGRANDE 491 trivialization. Schmitt defends AL7TCCpO'iC on the ground that 7Tocd S' V7TO AL7TCCPO'iCLV • • • 7TEOLACC (ll. 2.44, 10.22, 10.132, 14.186, Od. 2.4, etc.) is a 'gelatifig' Homeric phrase: but the point is precisely that ps.-Oppian, in adherence to the epic canon of imitatio cum variatione, in alluding to this Homeric phrase (the allusion is 'deutlich', to put it with Schmitt) changed 9 Homer's AL7TCCp0'icw into cn{3ccpotc. The presence of cn{3ccpo'ic in ps.-Oppian's line is therefore easy to explain in so far as it is per­ fectly in keeping with the epic canon in question, and conversely the intrusion of AL7TCCpo'ic as a trivialization aimed at restoring to ps.­ Oppian's line the orthodox Homeric form is equally understandable. Apart from the canon just mentioned, another factor, i.e. the context, proves that cn{3ccpo'ic is genuine: 'stout' (cn{3ccpo'ic) is the suitable epi­ thet for feet which, on account of their weight, cause the sandals to make a noise by grating on the soil, whereas 'sleek' or 'smooth' (AL7TCCpOLC) is contextually incongruous.10 The epithet AL7TCCpo'ic was in­ troduced because a diaskeuast not only wanted to substitute the orthodox Homeric epithet for the one used by ps.-Oppian but also thought that cn{3ccpo'ic was contradicted by 7Tocdv JAacppt~ovTa in line 85. There is in reality no contradiction: ps.-Oppian says that the hunter must be neither too fat (81p,&'Aa 7Tlov€c, 86 maUoL) nor over­ light (A€7TTCCUOL 87); he must be of the correct stoutness which renders him strong, c8€vccp6c (90). cn{3ccpo'ic 7Toccl (,stout, strongH feet') is paralleled by cf)€vapwv wp,wv (,strong shoulders') in line 100. JACC­ cppl'w does not mean 'be light' as a permanent quality, but 'use one's limbs in a light, swift manner, when circumstances require' ecf e.g. Callim. Del. 115, Opp. Hal. 3.300): ps.-Oppian says in line 85 that the hunter must be able to use his feet lightly often (S7]fJ&.KLC 84) when pursuing wild beasts, not that the hunter must have feet permanently light (and weak) by nature.12 I I~' , I '" " 129 X€Lp,CCn 0 €V P,€CCCTCP P,€COV 7]p,CC'TOC ccypwcco£O 9 On imitatio cum variatione practised de industria by ps.-Oppian cf K. Lehrs, Quaestiones epicae (Regimontii Prussorum 1837) 308. 10 In sum, the diaskeuast, in importing into ps.-Oppian's line the epithet AL7Tapo'ic from Homer's phrase quoted above, did not realize that the epithet, whereas appropriate in Homer's phrase, is inapposite in ps.-Oppian's sentence. For an analogous example of in­ apposite intervention by a diaskeuast cf my discussion of Cyn. 1.149. 11 cTL{1apoc means at the same time 'ponderosus' (i.e. 'stout') and 'robustus': cf Steph. TGLB S.v. 12 Stoutness is synonymous with strength, and leanness denotes weakness, in the Cyne­ getica: cf Cyn. 3.350 (KapT£pov, £vcapKov), 2.106 (AL7I"OCapKOL KTA.). 492 ON THE TEXT OF PS.-OPPIAN, CYNEGETICA The reading p,€COV 7}p,aToC, also supported by metrical reasons (ef. Schmitt p.93) is sound. Phrases like P,€COV ~p,€pacJ P,€COV 7}p,aToc have already been studied by Lobeck, Phryniehus p.54. In such phrases, p,I.cov is not prepositional (as in the cases studied in Blass-Debrunner § 215.3 and quoted by Schmitt ad loe.): it is a substantivized neuter (= Eac T€ AVyOVC. A£VOVC is regarded by most scholars as genuine, because the poet is talking about nets, not about twigs: A£vovc evidently denotes a type of net (ef. A£VOC= TO S£KTVOV, quoted by ancient lexicographers, Steph. TGL3 S.V. Atvoc, V.31OD). Besides, the reading Atvovc is supported by paraphrasis (ef Boudreaux's apparatus ad loe.), and it is evident­ although nobody seems to have noticed this-that the poet's Atvovc Tava6v TE 1Tavaypov is aimed at producing a Eac AVyOVC is a typically diaskeuastic (i.e. learned) < correction': the diaskeuast could not understand the sense of the epithet €vcTaMac in the context any more than modern critics did, and was misled by line 151 (S£KTVa TE cxaAtSac) into thinking that line 150 required not A£vovc but, by parallelism with CXaAlSac (ef Schmitt ad 13 Cf e.g. Mooney ad Ap.Rhod. 1.278 (also ad Ap.Rhod. 2.1251, where EC1f£pov='at even'); V. J. Loebe, De elocutione Arati Solensis portae (Halle 1864) 41. a Schmidt, op.cit. (supra n.8) 48. GIUSEPPE GIANGRANDE 493 loe.), something denoting wooden props; so he borrowed €ik'Tp€cPlac AVyOVC from Homer (Od. 9.427), forgetting that net-props must be the opposite of < easily twisted' (€VCTp€cpl.ac) for they must be stiff and stand upright (ef Xen. Cyn. 2.7ff). In sum, the epithet €VCTpecpl.ac, which the diaskeuast borrowed from Homer, is as contextually inappropriate at Cyn. 1.150 as the epithet Amapo,c, which the diaskeuast borrowed from Homer at Cyn. 1.104. I 166f " ~,.,\ -I.. ~\ "'''0 ' -I.. ~ L7T7TWV 0 aLOl\a '{Jvl\a oc € v€a J-LvpLa '{JW'TWV, occa {3POTO'" y€vE8Aa OEOJ-LTJJ-L€Va et'TOV ;oovew.15 Once more, a trivialization (oeoaepiva) has been preferred by critics. The reading OE0f.LTJJ-L€va, neglected by most editors, is obviously cor­ rect: it means 'tamed', 'not wild', i.e. 'civilized', and pointedly refers to the fact that civilized peoples eat e''Toe, in opposition to savage tribes who eat flesh only (ef LS] S.v. etToe 2). Ancient diaskeuasts were just as much puzzled by ps.-Oppian's pointed OEof.LTJf.L€Va as modern scholars, and replaced it by the contextually incongruous o€oaeJ-L€va (,scattered': the fact that human races are 'scattered' is extraneous to their eating et'Toe). The verb oaf-Grlw, when denoting domestication, refers as a rule to wild animals. Its employment by the poet with reference to humans is a typical example of the basic conception underlying the philosophy of the Oppiani: animals and humans are zoologically not different, and the terminology used by the poets with reference to men and beasts is therefore often the same.16 15 Sieher! (ap. Schmitt ad loe.) has rightly stressed that the reading oc· in line 166 is the correct one. A few points may be added here. The phrases oc· E8v€Ct p,uplr:t. q,WTWV and occr:t. /3po-rot" ylv£8"Ar:t. ••• d-rov Ellou"v are an obvious case of epiphora (ef F. Lapp, De Callimaehi Cyrenaei tropis etfiguris [diss. Bonn 1965J 59f): q,w-rwv is synonymous with {3po-ro,,, (ef LSJ S.v. q,dJc m= 'mortal', i.e. (3po-roc). The alternation between the genitive q,w-rwv and the dative /3po-ro'i" is neatly paralleled by Cyn. 3.393 (on such 'commixtae constructiones' cf Schmidt, op.dt. [supra n.8J 47). The variant -roc' came into being in order to eliminate the hiatus, which copyists notoriously abhor and try to obliterate: oc' was changed into -roc' under the influence of -roceo£ ••• oceo£ in lines 168f. 16 Cf A. W. James. ProeCambrPhilolSoe 12 (1966) 30; there exist ayptr:t. q,fJ"Ar:t. of humans (Cyn. 1.470) as well as of animals (Cyn. 4.7), because the species av8pw1ToC, like other animal species, can be either aypwv or '9fL£POY (Arist. Part.An. III 643b5). Note the poet's accuracy: in the two parallel sentences (cf previous footnote) the plain q,w-rwv without an epithet suffices with E8v£r:t., because E8voc denotes civilized races, whereas the epithet 1l£1lp,7]p,lvr:t. is necessary with y€v£8"Ar:t., which in itself denotes breeds of beings not necessarily civilized (often animals: cf A. W. James, Index in Halieutiea Oppiani Cilids et in Cynegetica poetae Apameensis [Hildesheim 1970] S.v. YfVE8"Aov and y£vf8"A7]). The employment of synonyms in ps.-Oppian's epiphora is therefore impeccable. It will be noted that the poet's epiphora is no 494 ON THE TEXT OF PS.-OPPIAN, CYNEGETICA I 236f ,~" " ••• TO (IE '1Tap.'1Tav a'1T£CTOV • .1..\' \- \ '8' EC 't'£I\OT7JTa p.ol\E W, T7JV OV EP.£C. Gesner's conjecture &'1TVC'TOV, accepted by all the editors, is un­ grounded. The manuscripts' reading &mc7'ov is neatly paralleled by Cyn. 2.614 P&gLC &mc7'oc K7'A. In both cases ps.-Oppian is concerned about refuting a rumour which is not attested outside the Cynegetica: in the latter passage, the rumour connecting Phineus with the mole has not come down to us in any source other than ps.-Oppian's words (ef. Mair in his Loeb ed. ad Zoe.), and the same is the case with the rumour concerning mares which ps.-Oppian refutes here. Mares were believed to be Acx:yvlcTaTaL (ef. Ael. NA 4.11 and Arist. HA 572a8): this explains how the tale contradicted by ps.-Oppian arose. I 272ff " I ••• O£7'E vEp.oV7'a£ \ I N "8 "1i'.. \' ~ Kat 7'pLKC1.fYYJVOV opOC 0 £ 1'0£ CKE1TC1.C LryKEl\aOO£O - '8' , I ,.... '1TVPCOLC aL EPWLC£V EPEV')IOP.EVOLO KEpavvov r \ - A" • '\ • , -'-£KEI\UC7}C LTV1JC avEKC1.Xl\aCO C1.oaov '1TVp. The passage has been hitherto misunderstood; for the latest discus­ sion ef. Schmitt ad Zoe. The text is perfectly sound. CK€1TaC • EyKEA&8ow denotes the sea of fluid lava occupying the crater of Aetna, and a€vaOV 7riJp designates the lava being emittedl7 by the eructing volcano. The sense is literally: "they inhabit the three-peaked mountain, where the ever-fluid fire of Aetna bubbles. whilst the thunderbolt belches forth, in beams reaching to the sky, a cover for Enceladus." In other words, the verb aVEKaxAaco is intransitive (= Aog in Anth.Pal. 7.123.1 (= 'liquid fire': cf line 3, poov AtTV7}c) just as it is called cUvaov 'TTiip here; if. Pind. Pyth. 1.23 TIl:c ~p£VyoVTm &-II'A&-rov • •• 1TVpdc • •• 'lTayat, of the lava, and Pyth. 1.5f K£paVVQV ••• &€V&ov 'll'Vpoc. GIUSEPPE GIANGRANDE 495 ... fort und fort."18 EPEVY0/-,c{vow KEpavvoO is a genitive absolute, and 7TVPCO'iC alf}eptotctV a modal dative, as already realized by scholars (Mair, Schmitt et al.) The text is sound; OEC/-,CP means E~ OE 7TapO~ E 7TapaL fJaTOV aTpa7TLTOLO A "(J A , ~, ~ ,'\' 7TpWTa fLEV L HaV. fLETE7TEtTa OE OOXfLOV El\aVVWV. \ A ~ l:. A \' r~ \ ',/.. \ r\ , l\aLT/. OE<:;LTEPTJ. CKOl\t7JV OOOV afL'fJLC EI\LCCWV. The ghost-word 7Tapat{3aoov, created by Rittershusius in 1597 and accepted by most critics, is unwarranted. The poet's words 7Tapat {3aTov aTpamTo'io are sound. The preposition 7Tapat means that the hunter walks not on but alongside the beaten track, now to its left, now to its right. For the verb, ef Soph. fr.85.5f (Nauck) EP7TEtv ••• 7TPOC Td: {3aT&.. {3aToc commonly refers to paths (ef Steph. TGL3 s.v. {3aToc: {3arY] Tpt{30C, {3arY] 680c). Here, {3aTov is a substantivized neuter with abstract force, {3aTov aTpamTo'io being the equivalent of {3arY]v aTpamTov (on the type a{3pd: 7Tap7Jtooc= a{3pd:v 7Tap7)loa ef e.g. Kuhner-Gerth 1.278). For a neat parallel23 ef Cyn. 4.433, where aTpamTo'io 7ToAvcn{3t7Jv means aTpamTov 7ToAvcn{3ov.24 BIRKBECK COLLEGE, LONDON May, 1972 23 The genitive 6.Tpa1T~Toio is governed by a non-articled word denoting an abstract no­ tion, i.e. the neuter {1aT6v (lit. 'passability') and 1TOAvcT~{1trJV (,frequent treading) For another parallel cf Hdn. 3.1.4, where TO 8vcf3aTov TOV opovc means, as all the critics agree (cf e.g. Whittaker, in his Loeb ed.; E. C. Echols, Herodian [Berkeley 1961]: 'impassable mountain'), 8vc{1aTov opoc (for 8vc{1aTov "mit dem Artikel" here, cf KUhner-Gerth, loc.cit.; on jlosculi used by the Oppiani and late prose writers cf Eranos 68 [1970] 84). 24 Steph. TGP S.v. 1TOAVCT£{1l7], and O. Rebmann, Die sprachlichen Neuerungen in den Kyne­ getika Oppians von Apamea (Basel 1918) 104. The type f3aTov 6.Tpa1TlTOW and 1ToAvcnf3l7]v a-rpa- 1TITOi'O is not Homeric: on af3pa 1TaP7Jl8oc( = a{1pav 1TaP7Jl8a) Eur. Phoen. 1486 and EVy£V€La 1Tal8wv (=ElryEVEtc 1Tai8Ec) Eur. Tro. 583, cf G. Bernhardy, Wissenschaftliche Syntax der gr. Sprache (Berlin 1829) 52f; KUhner-Gerth I 278-81. As far as late Epic is concerned, a study of such genitival constructions has not been made yet. In Orph. Lith. 338 Ab. there is chpa1T'Tow 1TOAV 1T'AlOV (not a Homeric type) and Opp. Hal. 1.105 has the periphrastic lpya dVtCKWV (cf T. Lohmeyer, De vocabulis in Oppiani Halieuticis [diss. Berlin 1866] 27f). aNc+ genit., avoided by Homer and Apollonius Rhodius (cf O. Linsenbarth, De Apol/onii Rhodii casuum syntaxi comparato usu homerico [Leipzig 1887] 30), occurs in Hal. 3.260.